Well, you heard it guys. I guess the physicists can stop researching this one anymore. The great one has spoken and shared his all-knowing wisdom with all of us.
Well, I guess Stephen Hawking can hang up his gloves now and go golfing.
Protestantism - always 50 years behind the times.
Catholicism - 100 years.
Born-Again Christians - 200 years.
Islam - 300 years.
Don't worry, they're catching up. Just takes a while. :)
Yes they are really hip and modern with the Science stuff. I shall cook them some pancakes.
"In 1992, Pope John Paul II acknowledged in a speech that the Roman Catholic Church had erred in condemning Galileo 359 years earlier for asserting that the Earth revolves around the Sun."
Some acknowledgement.. In four conclusions the appointed commission managed to twist it so that the fault lay entirely with Gallilei and the Church was blameless.
1. Gallilei was wrong for asserting that it was true that the Earth revolves around the Sun, because the scientific method would have allowed him only to make a testable hypothesis that the Earth revolves around the Sun and that the truth of the matter remained to be seen. Gallilei didn't understand his own scientific method.
2. In Gallileo's time it wasn't understood by the Catholic Church that you need not take Biblical texts literally, that you were at some liberty to interpret Biblical texts to fit your current needs.
3. Cardinal Bellarmine however did understand this and interpreted the Bible in the exact right way and as opposed to Gallileo did understand Gallileo's scientific method correctly.
4. As soon as real evidence arose that the Earth indeed revolved around the Sun then the Catholic Church immediately accepted that the Earth revolved around the Sun in accordance with a correct application of the scientific method. After that the enlightened Catholic Church hastened to lift the ban on his writings in 1822.
And so in 1992 they acknowledged being wrong, but not really.
The second article you linked to made me sick to the stomach.
The Holy Father was trying to heal the tragic split between faith and science which occurred in the 17th century and from which Western culture has not recovered.
I don't know what to say about that. At first I was going to mock it, but it's not even wrong. I couldn't read on.
Edit: and now I looked at the first one. Interesting that the church has decided to resolve the Galileo case once and for all just when it's becoming more and more apparent that it's a backwards organized crime syndicate.
No one called the Universe a fluke.
Below are some metaphysical musings.
Life may just be natural property of the Universe, vis a vis a field, just as natural as a electro magnetic field and gravity. Consciences it self appears to be interwoven in an electromagnetic field, but the field of life is what gives entity as oppose to being a lifeless computer. It may be that Higgs Boson is not the God particle after all.
I dare say life is as eternal as the branes it resides in ( no pun or play on words intended, so don't clam up.)
The electromagnetic field theory of consciousness is a theory that says the electromagnetic field generated by the brain (measurable by electrocorticography) is the actual carrier of conscious experience. This theory has been proposed by Susan Pockett and Johnjoe McFadden. Quantum brain dynamics as elaborated by Mari Jibu, Kunio Yasue and Giuseppe Vitiello also fall into this category. Related are E. Roy John's work and Andrew and Alexander Fingelkurt's theory "Operational Architectonics framework of brain-mind functioning".
The starting point for McFadden and Pockett's theory is the fact that every time a neuron fires to generate an action potential, and a postsynaptic potential in the next neuron down the line, it also generates a disturbance in the surrounding electromagnetic (EM) field. McFadden has proposed that the brain's electromagnetic (EM) field creates a representation of the information in the neurons. Studies undertaken towards the end of the 20th century are argued to have shown that conscious experience correlates not with the number of neurons firing, but with the synchrony of that firing. McFadden views the brain's EM field as arising from the induced EM field of neurons. The synchronous firing of neurons is, in this theory, argued to amplify the influence of the brain's EM field fluctuations to a much greater extent than would be possible with the unsynchronized firing of neurons.
McFadden thinks that the EM field could influence the brain in a number of ways. Redistribution of ions could modulate neuronal activity, given that voltage-gated ion channels are a key element in the progress of axon spikes. Neuronal firing is argued to be sensitive to the variation of as little as one millivolt across the cell membrane, or the involvement of a single extra ion channel. Transcranial magnetic stimulation is similarly argued to have demonstrated that weak EM fields can influence brain activity.
McFadden proposes that the digital information from neurons is integrated to form a conscious electromagnetic information (cemi) field in the brain. Consciousness is suggested to be the component of this field that is transmitted back to neurons, and communicates its state externally. Thoughts are viewed as electromagnetic representations of neuronal information, and the experience of freewill in our choice of actions is argued to be our subjective experience of the cemi field acting on our neurons.
McFadden's view of freewill is deterministic. Neurons generate patterns in the EM field, which in turn modulate the firing of particular neurons. There is only conscious agency in the sense that the field or its download to neurons is conscious, but the processes of the brain themselves are driven by deterministic electromagnetic interactions. The feel of subjective experience or qualia corresponds to a particular configuration of the cemi field. This field representation is in this theory argued to integrate parts into a whole that has meaning, so a face is not seen as a random collection of features, but as somebody's face. The integration of information in the field is also suggested to resolve the binding problem.
Susan Pockett has advanced a theory, which has a similar physical basis to McFadden's, with consciousness seen as identical to certain spatiotemporal patterns of the EM field. However, whereas McFadden argues that his deterministic interpretation of the EM field is not out-of-line with mainstream thinking, Pockett suggests that the EM field comprises a universal consciousness that experiences the sensations, perceptions, thoughts and emotions of every conscious being in the universe. However, while McFadden thinks that the field is causal for actions, albeit deterministically, Pockett does not see the field as causal for our actions.
The concepts underlying this theory derive from the physicists, Hiroomi Umezawa and Herbert Frohlich in the 1960s. More recently, their ideas have been elaborated by Mari Jibu and Kunio Yasue. Water comprises 70% of the brain, and quantum brain dynamics (QBD) proposes that the electric dipoles of the water molecules constitute a quantum field, referred to as the cortical field, with corticons as the quanta of the field. This cortical field is postulated to interact with quantum coherent waves generated by the biomolecules in neurons, which are suggested to propagate along the neuronal network. The idea of quantum coherent waves in the neuronal network derives from Frohlich. He viewed these waves as a means, by which order could be maintained in living systems, and argued that the neuronal network could support long-range correlation of dipoles. This theory suggests that the cortical field not only interacts with the neuronal network, but also to a good extent controls it.
The proponents of QBD differ somewhat as to the way in which consciousness arises in this system. Jibu and Yasue suggest that the interaction between the energy quanta (corticons) of the quantum field and the biomolecular waves of the neuronal network produces consciousness. However, another theorist, Giuseppe Vitiello, proposes that the quantum states produce two poles, a subjective representation of the external world and also the internal self. Consciousness, according to Vitiello, is not in either the external representation or the self, but in the opening of the self to the representation of the external world.
The field theories of consciousness do not appear to have been as widely discussed as other quantum consciousness theories, such as those of Penrose, Stapp or Bohm. However, David Chalmers argues that quantum theories of consciousness suffer from the same weakness as more conventional theories. Just as he argues that there is no particular reason why particular macroscopic physical features in the brain should give rise to consciousness, he also thinks that there is no particular reason why a particular quantum feature, such as the EM field in the brain, should give rise to consciousness either. While at least one researcher claims otherwise, Jeffrey Gray states in his book Consciousness: Creeping up on the Hard Problem, that tests looking for the influence of electromagnetic fields on brain function have been universally negative in their result.
Locating consciousness in the brain's EM field, rather than the neurons, has the advantage of neatly accounting for how information located in millions of neurons scattered through the brain can be unified into a single conscious experience (sometimes called the binding problem): the information is unified in the EM field. In this way EM field consciousness can be considered to be "joined-up information". This theory accounts for several otherwise puzzling facts, such as the finding that attention and awareness tend to be correlated with the synchronous firing of multiple neurons rather than the firing of individual neurons. When neurons fire together their EM fields generate stronger EM field disturbances; so synchronous neuron firing will tend to have a larger impact on the brain's EM field (and thereby consciousness) than the firing of individual neurons. However their generation by synchronous firing is not the only important characteristic of conscious electromagnetic fields—in Pockett's original theory, spatial pattern is the defining feature of a conscious (as opposed to a non-conscious) field.
The different EM field theories disagree as to the role of the proposed conscious EM field on brain function. In McFadden's cemi field theory, the brain's global EM field modifies the electric charges across neural membranes, and thereby influences the probability that particular neurons will fire, providing a feed-back loop that drives free will. However in the theories of Susan Pockett and E. Roy John, there is no necessary causal link between the conscious EM field and our consciously willed actions.
If true, the theory has major implications for efforts to design consciousness into Artificial intelligence machines; current microprocessor technology is designed to transmit information linearly along electrical channels, and more general electromagnetic effects are seen as a nuisance and damped out; if this theory is right, however, this is directly counterproductive to the process of creating an artificially-intelligent computer, which on some versions of the theory would instead have electromagnetic fields that synchronized its outputs—or in the original version of the theory would have spatially patterned electromagnetic fields.
No fluke eh? What a relief.
Now does he mean fluke in the context of a flat fish? or the worm variety of fluke? Or is he trying to say accidental occurrence?
As far as I can ascertain the man in the pointy hat is not a scientist, a physicist, an astronomer, or anything remotely having to do with the matter, idea, or statement that he made as a definitive fact.
In fact as far as I can tell he is the head of a corporation. Selling fear and God to the general public. Bibles, wafers, wine, salvation, candles, fish bumper plates, rosary beads, crucifix's, and tidings. All of these are products of the church and it's business. But aside from story telling, since exorcisms are down, and molestation from priests and lawsuits are up, I believe that the Pope should be focused on teaching the members of his board to keep their hands off of children and their business on what they are able to sell to the sheep who follow them.
My standing rule that the higher up the ladder you go in Christian leadership, the lower the intelligence and logic, is again proven. Not that one needed the Pope to prove that little gem.