tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post2950743408801792389..comments2024-03-12T03:53:57.725-04:00Comments on Faith and Theology: Philip Clayton and Paul Davies: the re-emergence of emergenceBen Myershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03800127501735910966noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-14292713809187496572007-07-17T15:27:00.000-04:002007-07-17T15:27:00.000-04:00Oh, by the way, to all interested, Moltmann will b...Oh, by the way, to all interested, Moltmann will be engaging with science in an upcoming conference at Duke for the Wesleyan Theological Society (along with Randy Maddox and James K.A. Smith, among others). <A HREF="http://bp3.blogger.com/_baPpA-T9KHU/RlUKJVRHnXI/AAAAAAAAAA4/-GoJTPFW9wI/s1600-h/2008+WTS+poster.jpg" REL="nofollow">Here's</A> a link to the poster if you're interested. Peace.Dave Belcherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08964414652031988664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-54073553992245479682007-07-17T15:21:00.000-04:002007-07-17T15:21:00.000-04:00Thanks for the response Ben. I guess this is somee...Thanks for the response Ben. I guess this is someething I'll have to do some more investigation on! I'm completely unfamiliar with this new strain of thought (I'm really bad at science--I literally did awful in Biology, Chemistry, and Physics in high school (all D's), and only performed well in the more obscure Geology and Astronomy in college!). Thanks again.Dave Belcherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08964414652031988664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-16756926180734527012007-07-16T08:05:00.000-04:002007-07-16T08:05:00.000-04:00In God and Science (1996, SCM) Arthur Peacocke use...In <I>God and Science</I> (1996, SCM) Arthur Peacocke uses downward causation to express the idea that "God is the ultimate Boundary Condition of all-that-is" (p.19). God interacts casually with the world-as-a-whole without intervening in lower level events. To me this depersonalises God and fuzzies the boundary between creator and creation...any thoughts? I'm going to have to check out McGrath's take on this.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the review Ross (and Ben!)Alex Abecinahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02337081558954684046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-59112157912588984212007-07-15T19:30:00.000-04:002007-07-15T19:30:00.000-04:00Hi Dave: the parallel to Moltmann's "Gestalt" is a...Hi Dave: the parallel to Moltmann's "Gestalt" is an interesting question. The simple answer is: I don't know! I've never thought about Moltmann's view in relation to emergence -- there could be a real parallel here, even though Moltmann hasn't engaged directly with scientific work on emergence.Ben Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03800127501735910966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-13684993482340809932007-07-15T19:20:00.000-04:002007-07-15T19:20:00.000-04:00Ever read Isaac Asimov? He illustrates it pretty ...Ever read Isaac Asimov? He illustrates it pretty well...Drewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03148452877425621293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-35187097195308483912007-07-15T09:26:00.000-04:002007-07-15T09:26:00.000-04:00Ben, sorry for this question, since I haven't had ...Ben, sorry for this question, since I haven't had a chance to check out the book yet, but is this at all similar to what Moltmann describes as "Gestalt" in his <I>Coming of God</I>?Dave Belcherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08964414652031988664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-75015299680297320352007-07-15T01:37:00.000-04:002007-07-15T01:37:00.000-04:00I can't speak to "downward causation" per se, but ...I can't speak to "downward causation" per se, but certain features of quantum mechanics manifest the limitations of a gross conception of causation defined by stuff pushing-pulling against stuff. The delayed-choice experiment and other two-slit interference experiments (e.g., Englert, Scully, and Walther), and EPR-type experiments such as Hardy's would be ones to consider. This does not mean, however, that QM should *ever* be used as validation for any of the boutique spiritualities of third-rate gnosticism so common today. Sorry, that was a preemptive strike. I'll step off my soapbox now...<BR/><BR/>Some theorists believe that a functional quantum computer will require engineering that does not segregate hardware (concrete) and software (abstract). Here's a clumsy example. Suppose your CPU was not a complex system of teeny tiny transistors and passive elements wired together on a silicon substrate, to which you applied electrical signals sequentially according to instructions that are encoded and stored elsewhere. Rather, suppose you were able to write the program code *on* the silicon (or whatever material would actually work in this integrative way) and, because the formal distinctiveness and arrangement of the code was *itself* functional, the hardware would then begin executing those instructions, i.e., it would become a self-operating system in which hardware and software were not independent. Even more crudely, suppose you could write the instruction to "spin one radian per second" in this functional code on a piece of wood and, in the right environment and under the right conditions, the wood would indeed spin at one radian per second. And even more remarkably, if you broke off a splinter of the wood, the splinter would still execute the instruction, positioned as if the whole piece of wood were still there. Think fractals and electromagnetic feng shui :-) Very speculative, of course, but that's what quantum entanglement invites!joel hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03680719551624473328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-20315205237524474812007-07-14T22:17:00.000-04:002007-07-14T22:17:00.000-04:00Hi - thanks for the review. The idea of 'downward ...Hi - thanks for the review. The idea of 'downward causation' is really interesting, though I've never quite decided if it actually makes sense. It would be interesting to know if there is any strong scientific basis for some kind of 'downward causation'.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-33461216173666097202007-07-14T07:21:00.000-04:002007-07-14T07:21:00.000-04:00Yeah, Nancey Murphy is great - and Philip Clayton'...Yeah, Nancey Murphy is great - and Philip Clayton's <I>Mind and Emergence: From Quantum to Consciousness</I> (2006) is very good.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-51819691381219325172007-07-14T01:24:00.000-04:002007-07-14T01:24:00.000-04:00sweet.Nancy Murphy, of course, has some pertinent ...sweet.<BR/>Nancy Murphy, of course, has some pertinent discussions in considerations of the mind/body/soul problem.<BR/><BR/>you are loading up my booklist faster than credit card can breathe. :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com