As we continue to stir the mathematics pot, BA 77 has given a link to a video on the significance of Godel’s discovery of incompleteness:

[metacafe 8462821]

(Pardon possible embed problems, the links work . . . I am doing this under travel related constraints)

This one, gives a bit more of details on how Turing sharpened the theorem using the Turing machine, that led to the well known algorithm halting problem:

[metacafe 8516356]

The issue of the intuitive imagining mind as opposed to an algorithmic machine, is discussed. Worth pondering.

At the same time, we must always bear in mind the famous Euler result:

e^{i*pi} + 1 = 0

This speaks to astonishing unity in Mathematics, for in one expression, converging from wildly different directions, we find the five most important numbers, three of the most important operations, and work in entire fields of Mathematics.

So, here in the heart of mathematics, we at once confront our limitations, the limitations of logic, algorithm machines, and the issue of the rational, insightful, creative, intuitive power power of mind.

Then, stir in, the apparent pattern that starts with collecting nothing, and successively generating the natural numbers, then extending them via decimals to the continuum, using the rotational view of sqrt_-1 to give a plane, thus space, and the onward ijk vectors to give 3-d space, thence motion and the inertia- force- energy triad that gets us to physics.

So, now, let us further ponder, what is this that mathematics is telling us?

Especially, “the ~~un~~reasonable effectiveness of mathematics” in helping us understand the physical world?** END**

F/N: Sorry on embed vid problems. They can be seen at the linked. KF

Another property I find interesting is the close relationship to the Euler formula which when plotted in 3D results in the fundemental geometry of life: a helix !

The narrator mentioned intuition as an important ability that exists outside of mathematics, logic and reason. This reminded me greatly of my short look into quantum physics. Do we know what we think we know? Does this writing sound like gibberish? Good lord, I don’t know anymore… Thanks for stirring the pot, kf.

SteveO that is just plain spooky!

The following images show the graph of the complex exponential function, complex exponential function, e^{ix}, by plotting the Taylor series of e^{ix} in the 3D complex space

http://www.songho.ca/math/euler/euler.html

H’mm: the helix works best on x = w*t, i.e. we see time and circular frequency. KF

e to the i theta

It sort of sounds like nerd rap.

SteveO, yep Euler’s identity is a special case of Euler’s formula.

e^(ix) = cosx + isinx

When x is equal to pi,

e^(iπ) = cosπ + isinπ = -1 + 0

`e^(iπ) + 1 = 0`

The real and imaginary parts of Euler’s formula create that double-helix look on the graph. 🙂

BA77, nice link, good info. Thanks for that.

That’s only the beginning of the trouble with formal reasoning. There’s also the fun times to be had trying to formalise ‘if P then Q’

accurately. Turns out that statement isn’t actually very closely equivalent to ‘P and/or not-Q’ at all. Or the semantic paradoxes – Goedel’s theorem is not nearly the end of the problems with self-reference, though in fact those paradoxes challenge our intuitions about truth and reasoning themselves, not just our efforts to formalise those intuitions. Graham Priest’s Introduction to Non-Classical Logic is a good book, pretty accessible if you’re willing to get out the pencil and paper.Anonym:

Material implication captures a key part of implication.

Yes, there are paradoxes.

What is crucial is, that it turns out that WHY p => q, is important in the world of reasoning. That is what takes skeletal implication logic per true/false inputs and true false outputs, and turns it into a useful tool of insightful inquiry by an active, knowing, reasoning mind that carries background knowledge and rational intuition and insight into the situation. It is not merely plugging in truth values into a table.

It is also key to see that ex falso quodlibet — the principle of explosion — is routinely employed in modelling theory. Models are generally speaking SIMPLIFICATIONS of reality. That is, they are false, known to be false. But for known, tested zones of validity, they provide accurate results. This is usually put in terms of capturing sufficient of the truth to be useful in that zone.

A further implication of this, is that

scientific theories, strictly are to be regarded as explanatory models, albeit ones we try to make as accurate as we can. That is also why they are to be held provisional. (Which is of course, why those who wish to pretend that the theory of evolution on the grand scale is practically certain and even fact, are barking up the wrong tree.)But yes, we need to stir it up, stir, stir, stir the pot.

KF

F/N: This 101 skim on non classical Logics may be helpful. Taking Fuzzy as a starter, what6 happens is that this marks a case where the crucial importance of distinctness of identity is pivotal to the classic laws of thought.

Those laws do remain as first principles of right reason, once we have to be distinct regarding identity.Paul’s remark on what happens if the trumpet gives an uncertain sound (on the battlefield) turns out to be crucially insightful, one of those little gems in the now too often brushed aside NT. Look a little closer at fuzzy sets and you will see that partial set memberships depending on fuzzy broad borders to zones of membership, depends at a deeper level on the use of these same basic first principles, in order for its reasoning to have stable outcomes.CR & Bateman:

Rational intuition and creativity coming from an active mind, turn out to be ever so important in reasoning, and it is crucial for it to go beyond algorithmic limitations.

Also, the astonishing powers of e and i put together, have transformed analysis of our world.

That we see as a drop-out of the e^iwt = cis wt expression, Euler’s identity, is a case of getting magic wine out of a chalice, echoing I forget who now. Bang, from a derivation a sixth former or freshman college student can follow, we find an unexpected gift and signature: the world of math, the things we thought we came up with as imaginary constructs and useful values, out of the blue all come together in one.

Do we need more of a signature of a rational mind behind reality?

I hereby propose that we add to the old Scutum Fidei, Euler’s equation as the signature of God! (And, I am only half joking.)

KF

F/N: Some reading on classical and non classical logic.

CR, Thanks for expanding so well on what I meant in my first post which was sent ” rushed mobile” and resulted in a streak of grammatical and spelling issues 🙂

KF, I imagine Euler would very much approve of the “Signature of God”. He was a man of deep faith who bore many personal difficulties along with (no surprise) the ridicule of some of the high profile atheists of his time.

steveO: Leonard Euler, if he is looking down on all this from heaven, probably has a wry little smile and a twinkle in his eye about the euler formula having a helix correlation to DNA!

of related note:

Alexander Vilenkin, who was the one who dropped a mathematical bomb on Hawking’s 70th birthday party, comments on the beauty of mathematics being ideally suited for describing our physical universe (particularly e^ipi+1=0)

,,,I find it extremely strange that the enigmatic Euler’s identity, which was deduced centuries ago, would find such striking correlation to how reality is actually found to be structured by modern science. In pi we have correlation to the ‘sphere of the universe’ as revealed by the Cosmic Background radiation, as well pi correlates to the finely-tuned ‘geometric flatness’ within the ‘sphere of the universe’ that has now been found. In ‘e’ we have the fundamental constant that is used for ascertaining exponential growth in math that strongly correlates to the fact that space-time is ‘expanding/growing equally’ in all places of the universe. In the square root of -1 we have what is termed a ‘imaginary number’, which was first proposed to help solve equations like x2+ 1 = 0 back in the 17th century, yet now, as Michael Denton pointed out in the preceding video, it is found that the square root of -1 is required to explain the behavior of quantum mechanics in this universe. The correlation of Euler’s identity, to the foundational characteristics of how this universe is constructed and operates, points overwhelmingly to a transcendent Intelligence, with a capital I, which created this universe! It should also be noted that these mathematical constants, pi,e, and square root -1, were at first thought by many to be completely transcendent of any material basis, to find that these transcendent constants of Euler’s identity in fact ‘govern’ material reality, in such a foundational way, should be enough to send shivers down any mathematicians spine.

footnotes:

Notes of Interest

Of related interest to Vilenkin dropping a ‘mathematical bomb’ on Hawking’s 70th birthday party, it seems that Einstein had a similar experience on his 70th birthday:

And Godel has indeed been vindicated in his ‘intuition’:

Of interest to this undermining of General Relativity as the complete description of reality, Einstein was asked (by a philosopher):

Einstein’s answer was categorical, he said:

Quote was taken from the last few minutes of this following video:

The preceding statement was an interesting statement for Einstein to make since ‘the now of the mind’ has, from many recent experiments in quantum mechanics, completely undermined Einstein’s General Relativity as to being the absolute/primary frame of reference for reality (even though it is verified to something like 13 decimal places of stunning accuracy; Berlinski). i.e. ‘the now of the mind’, contrary to what Einstein thought possible for experimental physics, and according to advances in quantum mechanics, takes precedence over past events in time. Moreover, due to advances in quantum mechanics, it would now be much more appropriate to phrase Einstein’s answer to the philosopher in this way:

Supplemental note:

Music and verse:

You always seem so impressed with Euler’s Identity, a special case of e^i*theta. But it just comes out of the Taylor series expansions of e^x, sinx and coax. I think it’s ‘lovely’ as well but how it points to a mind behind the math escapes. me.

Jerad as to:

Well Jerad, you are in good (or bad) company.

Furthermore:

i.e. the ‘incompleteness theorem’ shows that the ‘truthfulness’ of any mathematical equation is not held within the equation itself but must be dependent on an ‘outside agent’ (i.e. on God) to derive its ultimate truthfulness:

i.e. Logic dictates ‘a decision’ must have been made in order to purposely create a temporal reality with highly specified, irreducible complex, parameters from a infinite set of mathematical possibilities. Thus the transcendent (timeless, spaceless, massless) reality from which our temporal material reality sprang (and is dependent upon), is shown to be alive by yet another line of evidence besides the necessity for a ‘conscious first mover’ to explain quantum wave collapse to each unique point of conscious observation in the universe.

Supplemental notes:

Verse and music:

Semi OT: Is Metaphysical Naturalism Viable? – William Lane Craig – video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzS_CQnmoLQ

BA77 I like that picture. The great man suffered horribly from disease and botched operations in his mortal eyes. It’s nice to think of him now with eyes shining and twinkling and gifted with heavenly visions that we can’t begin to imagine.

On another topic, is there a term in logic and argumentation for this tactic that materialists often use? It’s a kind of no-big-dealism that attempts to dismiss and trivialize the most magnificent things seemingly for fear their worldview might be undermined.

e.g. what’s the big deal about the physical constants of the universe. There just a bunch of numbers. Numbers are so trivial – look how easily I can generate them on my pocket calculator. 🙂

ok, which button on my calculator is that again? The pretty blue one?

Whoops – that should have read ‘not-P and/or Q’ of course.

KF: This is a very interesting developement. Dr. Kirk Durston, in this reply to an old critique of PZ Myers, mentions a method that he, and others, developed to determine if a amino acid site in a protein sequence is interdependent with other sites in the protein sequence.

And here is the paper from Durston and company:

footnotes:

Here is the original video from Dr. Durston that PZ Myers had taken a swipe at:

also of note:

Uh huh. I tell you what, can you explain to me how the truth (or falsehood) of the Axiom of Choice points to a mind behind the math? Without just posting a lot of links of other people talking about vaguely related topics. Or how about the Goldbach Conjecture?

Show me you understand the mathematics and then show me how there has to be a mind back there somewhere. If you just posts comments by others they you’re just taking their word for it. Do you really understand the math?

Jerad:

As you will know, having followed the discussion above and in previous posts, the pivotal question being explored for now is the pervasive pattern of the role of mathematical principles across the physical sciences.

That is, we see a pervasiveness of rationality, logic, structure, profound coherence, symmetry and simplicity leading to elegant beauty and intelligibility in the world, a pattern that is positively eerie in cumulative impact and has always excited wonder among many who study mathematics and physical sciences. (Here, I assume that you will agree that logical study of structure, pattern and quantity is an essential feature of mathematics. Indeed, that can serve as a “family resemblance” stand-in for the usual problem that here is no one generally accepted precising definition.)

Here is a clip from Dirac on just how significant this pattern can be:

In short, one should be led by the principles of order, pattern and elegant but profound, logically sensible simplicity. (An excellent study on this would be the principle of least action, which seems to constrain ever so much in the laws of physics.)

Coherence and pervasiveness of organising principles has long been known to be a signature of designing mind at work.

So, it is a reasonable question to raise per inference to best explanation at worldviews level, that the mathematical elegance and coherence of the cosmos points to designing mind behind it, especially in a context where one can — per reasonable principles — draw out from a set that collects nothing to the natural numbers, thence the continuum, thence space in 3 dimensions, thence change in time through rotation, translation, oscillation etc, thence kinematics, thence vial force, inertia and energy, dynamics, thence a pattern for physical reality. (Which is the step by step process I have taken up.)

KF

PS: With certain relevant pieces of paper “on the wall” so to speak as well as experience in using the stuff behind such, I have no need whatsoever to prove to you or any other person, that I understand Mathematics. I suggest, rather that you need to think again on the pattern of behaviour that has led you to project such dismissiveness once your apparent commitment to or at least enabling of an ultimately incoherent view of reality has come up.

BA77: Interesting, though I cannot follow up now, I am in the terror fitted depths of articles and bylaws. KF

Jerad, and how is it that Godel’s incompleteness theorem is ‘vaguely related’ to showing that there must be a mind behind math? If the truthfulness of math does not arise from within itself, as Godel’s incompleteness shows, pray tell where this truthfulness for math arises? Shall you posit ‘randomness’ as the basis of maths???,, You disparaging comment towards the incompleteness theorem reminds me of this cartoon,,,

Calvin and Hobbes – cartoon – The Mathematical Atheist

http://s3.hubimg.com/u/270622_f520.jpg

And Jerad, how will me “really understand(ing) the math” more solve the dilemma that maths cannot form its own basis in reality to explain the truthfulness therein?

Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe.

Galileo Galilei

Jerad, from what I can gather, you may insist that math itself, or worse yet, randomness, can pull off the ultimate ‘pull yourself up from your own bootstraps’ program in history of science for explaining the mathematical foundation we find for reality, but I don’t have to hold you to be the least bit rational in your belief(s) for holding as such!

Notes:

The Underlying Mathematical Foundation Of The Universe – Walter Bradley – video

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4491491

Quote from preceding video:

“Occasionally I’ll have a bright engineering student who says, “Well you should see the equations we work with in my engineering class. They’re a big mess.”, The problem is not the fundamental laws of nature, the problem is the boundary conditions. If you choose complicated boundary conditions then the solutions to these equations will in fact, in some cases, be quite complicated in form,,, But again the point is still the same, the universe assumes a remarkably simple and elegant mathematical form.” – Dr. Walter Bradley

Evidence for an Engineered Universe – Walter Bradley – July 2012 – video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLd_cPfysrE

How the Recent Discoveries Support a Designed Universe – Dr. Walter L. Bradley – paper

http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9403/evidence.html

The Five Foundational Equations of the Universe and Brief Descriptions of Each:

http://docs.google.com/Doc?doc.....#038;hl=en

Why Mathematics Works, part 1 – James Nickel – video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1YssV8qi-w

Jerad: The ‘Spirituality’ of Mathematics:

This applicability of mathematics to describing reality is much more mysterious than Dr. Craig let on in that short video:

To give some background,

An atheist claimed, in response to my observation that mathematics must ultimately be based in God, that:

Well, contrary to this commonly held belief that ‘maths just is’, the belief that ‘maths just is’ is now demonstrably false. First to be noted, and as Dr. Craig has pointed out, there is a profound epistemological mystery as to why our minds should even be able to grasp and understand reality through the enterprise of mathematics in the first place:

Second, to reiterate, in the last century Godel showed mathematics to be ‘incomplete’:

In other words, the truthfulness of any given mathematical equation is not found within the equation itself, but the truthfulness of any given mathematical equation must ultimately be derived from a source outside of the equation(s). Moreover, being that mathematical equations are completely transcendent of any space-time constraints, (i.e. mathematical equations are always true no matter what part of the universe you are in and are true regardless of whatever year it happens to be in the universe), then this outside source (cause) that guarantees the truthfulness of any mathematical equation must also be transcendent of any space-time constraints.

Also of note, Godel’s incompleteness theorem is hardly the only line of argumentation for God in this line of thought:

But of more interest as to drawing out the ‘spirituality of mathematics’, and refuting the ‘maths just is’ conception of mathematics, it is worthwhile to focus in on the Schroedinger equation:

At the 4:00 minute mark of the preceding audio, Dr. Sewell comments on the ‘transcendent’ and ‘constant’ Schroedinger’s Equation;

i.e. the Materialist is at a complete loss to explain why this should be so, whereas the Christian Theist presupposes such ‘transcendent’ control of our temporal, material, reality,,,

Of note: ‘The Word’ in Greek is Logos. Logos is the root word from which we derive our modern word ‘logic’.

But Jerad, the mystery of the Schroedinger equation goes even deeper to reveal ‘the spirituality of mathematics’.

Moreover,

But why should a mathematical equation even care when I decide to implement (freely choose) the boundary conditions for the equation to look at a particle? Mathematical equations can’t care about anything! Only God can care if and when and how I decide to look at any particular particle in the universe!

In fact, ‘the spirituality of mathematics’ has now been revealed to an even deeper level through recent quantum entanglement experiments. The foundation of quantum mechanics within science is now so solid that researchers were able to bring forth this following proof from quantum entanglement experiments;

Now this is completely unheard of in science as far as I know. i.e. That a mathematical description of reality would advance to the point that one can actually perform an experiment showing that your current mathematical theory will not be exceeded in predictive power by another future mathematical theory is simply unprecedented in the history of science! It is, in my unsolicited opinion, a very significant milestone in the history of science! Moreover, the belief that ‘maths just is’ is simply completely demolished by the fact that our best mathematical description of reality is absolutely dependent on the starting assumptions of conscious observation and free will. Moreover, since our best mathematical description of reality requires conscious observation and free will as starting assumptions, then this necessarily implies that consciousness and free will precede the mathematical equation.

Moreover, completely contrary to materialistic thinking, through conscious observation, free will, and operations of logic, a material particle can be reduced to information and instantaneously teleported:

The role of each conscious observer, and the (free will) choice(s) of each conscious observer, and the specific operations of logic, used to achieve quantum teleportation in the teleportation experiment are summarized on the following site:

Jerad, here are a few more notes on the ‘spirituality of math’:

It is interesting to note that ‘higher dimensional’ mathematics had to be developed before Einstein could elucidate General Relativity, or even before Quantum Mechanics could be elucidated;

One peculiar thing to note about the higher dimensional 4-D space time of General Relativity is that it ‘expands equally in all places’:

Thus from a 3-dimensional (3D) perspective, any particular 3D spot in the universe is to be considered just as ‘center of the universe’ as any other particular spot in the universe is to be considered ‘center of the universe’. This centrality found for any 3D place in the universe is because the universe is a 4D expanding hypersphere, analogous in 3D to the surface of an expanding balloon. All points on the surface are moving away from each other, and every point is central, if that’s where you live.

And higher (infinite) dimensional quantum mechanics is also very mysterious to look at in that consciousness is found to be the ‘ultimate universal reality’:

And when one looks at the 4-D space-time of relativity, and the centrality of conscious observation in quantum mechanics, a very interesting ‘anomaly’ pops out:

The following is another very ‘spiritual’ finding from mathematics:

The preceding interactive graph points out that the smallest scale visible to the human eye (as well as a human egg) is at 10^-4 meters, which ‘just so happens’ to be directly in the exponential center of all possible sizes of our physical reality (not just ‘nearly’ in the exponential center!). i.e. 10^-4 is, exponentially, right in the middle of 10^-35 meters, which is the smallest possible unit of length, which is Planck length, and 10^27 meters, which is the largest possible unit of ‘observable’ length since space-time was created in the Big Bang, which is the diameter of the universe. This is very interesting for, as far as I can tell, the limits to human vision (as well as the size of the human egg) could have, theoretically, been at very different positions than directly in the exponential middle;

There is also found to be a very mysterious ‘higher dimensional’ component in life:

Though Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini rightly find it inexplicable for ‘random’ Natural Selection to be the rational explanation for the invariant scaling of the physiology, and anatomy, of living things to four-dimensional parameters, they do not seem to fully realize the implications this ‘four dimensional scaling’ of living things presents. This 4-D scaling is something we should rightly expect from a Intelligent Design perspective. This is because Intelligent Design holds that ‘higher dimensional transcendent information’ is more foundational to life, and even to the universe itself, than either matter or energy are. This higher dimensional ‘expectation’ for life, from a Intelligent Design perspective, is directly opposed to the expectation of the Darwinian framework, which holds that information, and indeed even the essence of life itself, is merely an ‘emergent’ property of the 3-D material realm.

It is important to note that higher dimensions are invisible to our physical 3 Dimensional sight. The reason why ‘higher dimensions’ are invisible to our 3D vision is best illustrated by ‘Flatland’:

Perhaps some may think that we have no scientific evidence to support the view that higher ‘invisible’ dimensions are above this 3 Dimensional world, but a person would be wrong in that presumption. Higher invisible dimensions are corroborated by Special Relativity when considering the optical effects for traveling at the speed of light. Please note the optical effect, noted at the 3:22 minute mark of the following video, when the 3-Dimensional world ‘folds and collapses’ into a tunnel shape around the direction of travel as a ‘hypothetical’ observer moves towards the ‘higher dimension’ of the speed of light:

The preceding video was made by two Australian University physics professors.

As well, as with the scientifically verified tunnel for special relativity to a higher dimension, we also have scientific confirmation of extreme ‘tunnel curvature’, within space-time, to a eternal ‘event horizon’ at black holes;

What’s more is that special relativity (and general relativity) also confirm the ‘eternity’ for this higher dimension. i.e. Time, as we understand it temporally, would come to a complete stop at the speed of light. To grasp the whole ‘time coming to a complete stop at the speed of light’ concept a little more easily, imagine moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light. Would not the hands on the clock stay stationary as you moved away from the face of the clock at the speed of light? Moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light happens to be the same ‘thought experiment’ that gave Einstein his breakthrough insight into e=mc2.

It is also interesting to point out that this ‘eternal’ framework for time at the speed of light is also witnessed in Near Death Experience testimonies:

‘Time dilation’, i.e. eternity, is confirmed by many lines of scientific evidence but basically the simplest way to understand this ‘eternal framework’ is to realize that this higher dimensional, ‘eternal’, inference for the time framework of light is warranted because light is not ‘frozen within time’ yet it is also shown that time, as we understand it, does not pass for light. This paradox is only possible for time at the speed of light if temporal time is a lower dimensional time that was created from a higher dimension that ‘contains all temporal time’,,,Yet, even though light has this ‘eternal’ attribute in regards to our temporal framework of time, for us to hypothetically travel at the speed of light, in this universe, will still only get us to first base as far as the eternal framework of quantum entanglement, and/or quantum teleportation, is concerned.

i.e. Hypothetically traveling at the speed of light in this universe would be, because of time dilation, instantaneous travel for the person going at the speed of light. This is because time does not pass for them at the speed of light, yet, and this is a very big ‘yet’ to take note of, this ‘timeless’ travel is still not instantaneous and transcendent of our temporal framework of time as quantum teleportation and entanglement are, i.e. Speed of light travel, to our temporal frame of reference of time, is still not completely transcendent of our temporal time framework since light appears to take time to travel from our temporal perspective. Yet, in quantum teleportation of information, the ‘time not passing’, i.e. ‘eternal’, framework is not only achieved in the speed of light framework/dimension, but is also ‘instantaneously’ achieved in our lower temporal framework. That is to say, the instantaneous teleportation/travel of quantum information is instantaneous to both the temporal and speed of light frameworks, not just the speed of light framework. Information teleportation/travel is not limited by time, nor space, in any way, shape or form, in any frame of reference, as light is seemingly limited to us in this temporal framework. Thus ‘pure transcendent information’ (in quantum teleportaion experiments) is shown to be timeless (eternal) and completely transcendent of all material frameworks. Moreover, concluding from all lines of evidence we now have (many of which I have not specifically listed here); transcendent, eternal, infinite information is indeed real and the framework in which ‘It’ resides is the primary reality (highest dimension) that can exist, (in so far as our limited perception of a primary reality, highest dimension, can be discerned).

Music and verse:

Jerad, to clear up any ambiguity and to more clearly illustrate the centrality of conscious observation and free will in quantum mechanics, I think the following recent experiment does the best in that task:

Here’s a recent variation of Wheeler’s Delayed Choice experiment, which highlights the ability of the conscious observer to effect ‘spooky action into the past’, thus further solidifying consciousness’s centrality in reality. Furthermore in the following experiment, the claim that past material states determine future conscious choices (determinism) is falsified by the fact that present conscious choices effect past material states:

In other words, if my conscious choices really are just merely the result of whatever state the material particles in my brain happen to be in in the past (deterministic) how in blue blazes are my choices instantaneously effecting the state of material particles into the past?,,, This is simply completely inexplicable to the materialistic/atheistic framework!

Of note: since our free will choices figure so prominently in how reality is actually found to be constructed in our understanding of quantum mechanics, I think a Christian perspective on just how important our choices are in this temporal life, in regards to our eternal destiny, is very fitting:

And Jerad, if you don’t want to hear the Gospel from a Christian, and the importance of ‘freely choosing’ Christ in this lifetime (propitiation), perhaps hearing it from the late Christopher Hitchens will bring the point home to you:

Or perhaps this former militant atheist’s Near Death testimony will ring a bell for you Jerad:

It should also be noted: All foreign, non-Judeo-Christian culture, NDE studies I have looked at have a extreme rarity of encounters with ‘The Being Of Light’ and tend to be very unpleasant NDE’s save for the few pleasant children’s NDEs of those cultures that I’ve seen (It seems there is indeed an ‘age of accountability’). The following study was shocking for what was found in some non-Judeo-Christian NDE’s:

Verse and music:

KF, The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Life Just Got Finer – March 15, 2013

Excerpt: In new lattice calculations done at the Juelich Supercomputer Centre [in Germany] the physicists found that just a slight variation in the light quark mass will change the energy of the Hoyle state, and this in turn would affect the production of carbon and oxygen in such a way that life as we know it wouldn’t exist.

“The Hoyle state of carbon is key,” Lee says. “If the Hoyle state energy was at 479 keV [479,000 electron volts] or more above the three alpha particles [helium-4 nuclei], then the amount of carbon produced would be too low for carbon-based life.

“The same holds true for oxygen,” he adds. “If the Hoyle state energy were instead within 279 keV of the three alphas, then there would be plenty of carbon. But the stars would burn their helium into carbon much earlier in their life cycle. As a consequence, the stars would not be hot enough to produce sufficient oxygen for life. In our lattice simulations, we find that more than a 2 or 3 percent change in the light quark mass would lead to problems with the abundance of either carbon or oxygen in the universe.”

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....70091.html