4 ms·
The article is very confused. Just about every paragraph is confused in a different way, but I'll start with one simple point of confusion. Constraints on phys
by jbay808 6y ago
The article is very confused. Just about every paragraph is confused in a different way, but I'll start with one simple point of confusion.
Constraints on physical systems (such as the given example of a string constraining the motion of an apple to a circle) are simplifications that we use to model the system. Nature doesn't notice the constraints -- the string is just a bunch of atoms, the same as the apple, and they're all following the same equations. But to us, it can be easier to model a system with a single degree of freedom and some constraints, rather than 10^23 degrees of freedom and no constraints.
The brain, and a CPU, do not generate constraints that overrule the physics of their base particles. The appearance of constraints is just the dance of many particles following the rules, just like everything else, but arranged in a clever way that matches the useful, more easily modeled behaviour of a constrained system.
- acqq 6y agoMaybe the "confusion" is intentional. In the scientific papers, at least in some areas, it is expected to disclose potential conflicts of interest. In magazine essays one can see just an essay without a context, which could potentially explain where the author comes from. That's why I have searched for the author and have found: George F. R. Ellis is, not accidentally, "a past president of the International Society for Science and Religion", "an active Quaker", and a winner of Templeton Prize "originally awarded to people working in the field of religion (Mother Teresa was the first winner), but in the 1980s the scope broadened to include people working at the intersection of science and religion."
- Ygg2 6y agoI think the article is the philosophical equivalent of "Does tomato cure cancer?". No, but under certain condition it appears to help.