Here is a comment I made on the religion-science debate now appearing on a popular blog (http://www.tikkun.org/tikkundaily/2010/03/15/debate-with-christopher-reiger-about-a-call-for-sacred-biologists/comment-page-1/#comment-7410):
Those with a more open mind on this subject may wish to read the letter that I wrote long ago regarding the apologetics of the leaders of the American Association for the Advancement of Science:
Conflict Between Science and Religion?
The editorial by AAAS Chair Gilbert S. Omenn and CEO Alan I. Leshner in The Wichita Eagle entitled “No conflict between science and religion” (1) appears to have been good politics, as it may have helped to overthrow the anti-evolution board members in Kansas. But is this approach good for science? As scientists, we are duty-bound to tell the truth. It is simply not true that there is no conflict between science and religion. That’s what the whole debate is about in the first place. The conflict has persisted for centuries and probably will continue for centuries more.
As scientists, our experience with the external world has led us to conservative assumptions that are in opposition to the extreme assumptions of traditional mythology (2). We assume, for example, that matter and the motion of matter neither can be created nor destroyed (conservation). The opposing assumption, creation of something from nothing, has no experimental proof and thus must be regarded as the more extreme view. To soft-pedal the contradiction between conservation and creation is a detriment to science. Indeed, the usual obfuscation typical of the last century now has led us to a so-called “scientific” theory that speculates that the entire universe could be created out of nothing. We should welcome the open debate, for pedagogical reasons if nothing else.
Glenn Borchardt, Director
Progressive Science Institute
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Omenn, G.S., and Leshner, A.I, 2006, No conflict between science and religion, The Wichita Eagle: Wichita, KN. www.kansas.com
2. Borchardt, Glenn, 2004, The ten assumptions of science: Toward a new scientific worldview: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 125 p.
The second reference has been expanded into a book, "The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein" (iUniverse, 2007), that clearly shows why the conflict will continue despite the many claims of religious proponents that it doesn't exist. In particular, the book shows what happens when we use consupponible assumptions that lead to scientific rather than religious conclusions. Mixing and matching science and religion may give some folks peace of mind--even a Templeton prize--but it is of no benefit to science, other than to engender financial support from those who still believe.
This is a blog that takes the name of my magnum opus on scientific philosophy called "The Scientific Worldview." Reviewers have called it “revolutionary,” “exhilarating,” “magnificent,” “fascinating,” and even “a breathtaking synthesis of all understanding.” There is very little math in it, no religion, no politics, no psycho-babble, and no BS. It provides the first outline of the philosophical perspective that will develop during the last half of the Industrial-Social Revolution.
20100305
Entropy, Energy, Infinity, and Demons
From a reader of the SLT paper:
Just read the paper, it would seem from my perspective that you've not accounted for the entropy of information as well as entropy of energy (see Maxwell's Demon).
Nutter
Dear Nutter:
Both are covered within the categories "matter" and "motion," as per the assumptions and discussion in TSW (chapter 3) and as previously published as "The Ten Assumptions of Science." Following convention, you seem to consider energy as a “thing,” which therefore is subject to entropy. However, energy is neither matter nor motion, it is a concept, as I explained in my latest paper: http://scientificphilosophy.com/Downloads/The%20Physical%20Meaning%20of%20E%20=%20mc2.pdf
Information, like all other things, is subject to divergence (SLT) and convergence (complement to the SLT) in an infinite universe. It is generally considered that the matter and/or motion of matter leaving an isolated system is “degraded” and therefore unusable. This is sort of what happens in the light medium over distance in the resolution of Olbers’ Paradox. Illuminated bodies do not produce identical illuminated bodies. Nevertheless, according to CONSERVATION, the First Law of Thermodynamics, matter and the motion of matter neither can be created nor destroyed. Instead, the matter and motion appears in a different form, which is usable in some other system that it converges upon. The light from the degradation of the Sun, for example, may be reused to produce plant life on earth. The conventional interpretation of the SLT is from the “systems” viewpoint. The correct view, however, is “univironmental,” in which the environment is just as important as the system. Today’s exploding universe is the archetype of modern day systems philosophy—a thing with nothing outside of it. Remember the part about the SLT being a restatement of Newton’s First Law of Motion? Newton’s object travels from point A to point B without a push or shove of any kind unless (I assume “until”) it hits something else. Well, matter/motion leaving an “isolated” system is doing the same thing. Only with COMPLEMENTARITY we assume that it eventually will converge on something else in the infinite universe.
Maxwell's Demon was based on classical mechanics and its assumption that there were a finite number of causes for each effect. The Demon then was supposed to be able to make perfect predictions. Eventually, however, the Uncertainty Principle demonstrated that causality nevertheless was objective and uncertainty was subjective (the Copenhageners notwithstanding). That was the death of the Demon. In neomechanics, I use infinite universal causality (a la Bohm, 1957). In tune with the assumption of INFINITY, I assume that there are mechanical causes for all effects, but also in tune with INFINITY, I assume that we never can determine all of them, just a few of the most important ones, perhaps.
Just read the paper, it would seem from my perspective that you've not accounted for the entropy of information as well as entropy of energy (see Maxwell's Demon).
Nutter
Dear Nutter:
Both are covered within the categories "matter" and "motion," as per the assumptions and discussion in TSW (chapter 3) and as previously published as "The Ten Assumptions of Science." Following convention, you seem to consider energy as a “thing,” which therefore is subject to entropy. However, energy is neither matter nor motion, it is a concept, as I explained in my latest paper: http://scientificphilosophy.com/Downloads/The%20Physical%20Meaning%20of%20E%20=%20mc2.pdf
Information, like all other things, is subject to divergence (SLT) and convergence (complement to the SLT) in an infinite universe. It is generally considered that the matter and/or motion of matter leaving an isolated system is “degraded” and therefore unusable. This is sort of what happens in the light medium over distance in the resolution of Olbers’ Paradox. Illuminated bodies do not produce identical illuminated bodies. Nevertheless, according to CONSERVATION, the First Law of Thermodynamics, matter and the motion of matter neither can be created nor destroyed. Instead, the matter and motion appears in a different form, which is usable in some other system that it converges upon. The light from the degradation of the Sun, for example, may be reused to produce plant life on earth. The conventional interpretation of the SLT is from the “systems” viewpoint. The correct view, however, is “univironmental,” in which the environment is just as important as the system. Today’s exploding universe is the archetype of modern day systems philosophy—a thing with nothing outside of it. Remember the part about the SLT being a restatement of Newton’s First Law of Motion? Newton’s object travels from point A to point B without a push or shove of any kind unless (I assume “until”) it hits something else. Well, matter/motion leaving an “isolated” system is doing the same thing. Only with COMPLEMENTARITY we assume that it eventually will converge on something else in the infinite universe.
Maxwell's Demon was based on classical mechanics and its assumption that there were a finite number of causes for each effect. The Demon then was supposed to be able to make perfect predictions. Eventually, however, the Uncertainty Principle demonstrated that causality nevertheless was objective and uncertainty was subjective (the Copenhageners notwithstanding). That was the death of the Demon. In neomechanics, I use infinite universal causality (a la Bohm, 1957). In tune with the assumption of INFINITY, I assume that there are mechanical causes for all effects, but also in tune with INFINITY, I assume that we never can determine all of them, just a few of the most important ones, perhaps.