Eben Alexander's Newsweek Article

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/10/07/proof-of-heaven-a-doctor-s-experience-with-the-afterlife.html

Atheist Thomas Nagel's new book

Here it is...hold on to your hats!!!

Mind and Cosmos -- Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False

Neurosurgeon Eben Alexander's latest article

http://www.aansneurosurgeon.org/210212/6/1611

"My coma taught me many things. First and foremost, near-death experiences, and related mystical states of awareness, reveal crucial truths about the nature of existence. And the reductive materialist (physicalist) model, on which conventional science is based, is fundamentally flawed. At its core, it intentionally ignores what I believe is the fundament of all existence — the nature of consciousness."

My latest original song "Everybody but Me"

Science at the Tipping Point -- Dr. Eben Alexander

"One thing that we will have to let go of is this kind of addiction to simplistic, primitive reductive materialism because there’s really no way that I can see a reductive materialist model coming remotely in the right ballpark to explain what we really know about consciousness now.."

http://www.skeptiko.com/154-neurosurgeon-dr-eben-alexander-near-death-experience/

Anita Moorjani

This is great. She also has a great new book out "Dying to be Me."

Logical Verification of the Goldbach Conjecture-pdf

The reason that Beatles records sounded just like the Beatles is that the inverted stamper (that stamped out all those vinyl records) contained all the patterning (in inverse form) of the original (positive) record cutting.

The reason that the Goldbach conjecture can be verified, is that the set of all primes numbers contains (in inverse form) all of the patterning of the set of prime multiples. The equidistant patterning of prime multiples imposes (stamps) upon the primes the equidistant patterning necessary for endlessly successful Goldbach pairing.

For instance, in order for the even number 20 to have a successful Goldbach pair, two prime numbers equidistant from 10 must be found (say 13 and 7) both of these numbers are 3 numbers in distance from the mid point 10. This equidistant patterning is provided by the prime multiples (of 2 and 3).

"Multiples" are by definition equidistant or "evenly spaced." The result is that all prime number-cluster positions (the spaces between prime multiples) are likewise equidistant/evenly spaced. Being evenly spaced they are perfect for Goldbach pairing.

With the exception of "1" all numbers are either primes or multiples of primes. The pattern of prime multiples is subsequently perfectly transferred to the primes.

Within the system, there is no source of Goldbach defeating non-equidistance.

Schooling vs Learning

The important thing to remember is that children and indeed all people, are sacred (infinite in value) and are to be treated accordingly. This value is not seen by orthodox science. According to orthodox materialistic "science" children (and all people) are just the meaningless accidental byproduct of a meaningless accidental universe.

Apple News

NEWS......Hot off the press.........Apple announced today that it has developed a breast implant that can store and play music. The iTit will cost from $499 to $699, depending on cup and speaker size. This is considered a major social breakthrough, because women are always complaining about men staring at their breasts and not listening to them..

Evolutionary Informatics Lab Thriving

The Dembski/Marks informatics lab is doing well and has now produced five new articles, with four of them peer reviewed and published at IEEE.

See - http://evoinfo.org/
-----------

By Darwin or Intelligent Design?

Was this "instrument" produced by Intelligent Design or instead by Darwin's selectively filtered accidents? Darwin or Design how can one tell? Can the attributes of design be mathematically quantified in order to warrent a design inference? Is there something fundamentally (and observably) different in the nature of designed entities vs the nature objects produced by chance (or selectively filtered chance - Darwinism)?

My Proposed Equation for "Information."

My latest article on the subject of "information" can be found HERE.

Al Gore to be sued for AG Warming Fraud?

Happy Christmas Everyone!

This is a Christmas-Jungle song I wrote and produced in 2005.

Climategate: The story finally breaks in Canada

After 15 days Rex Murphy has finally broken the story in Canada..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgIEQqLokL8

This is apparently not true for other countries (such as USA) where the media continues to ignore "Climategate."

My Vision of Science.

I just purchased a copy of "Signature in the Cell" at "Chapters" book store in Kelowna, BC Canada. Even though I do not live in Kelowna anymore, we happened by the store while visiting family in Kelowna. Even though I did not think of it at the time, this was the very book store where I first discovered Michael Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box" and subsequently discovered ID science. Unfortunately I had some difficulty finding "Signature in the Cell." I was looking in the familiar science section (where I had found Behe's book) and all four copies the new book as it turned out were in the "Religion" section. Having never been to the religion section I needed help to find it. A minor inconvenience perhaps, but an interesting one. Some kind of mysterious motive force (gravity? electromagnetism?) had pushed ID science from the science section all the way to the religion section. Perhaps Behe's book should also have been forced into the religion section but the force failed? It is nice to know that some forces (gravity/electromagnetic) are reliable. This turn of event caused me to think about my vision of "Science" -- as opposed to "Religion" and of the social forces at play here.

"Science" for me is distinct from "religion" in that in science there are no gospels. The ID hypothesis -- that mind came first and matter came second as the product of mind --("idealism") is not a gospel, it is just a hypothesis -- just a theory -- just a model regarding the possible nature of the world. The opposing hypothesis, that matter came first and mind came second (materialism) is also just a hypothesis about the nature of the world. My vision of science is that of dicipline of investigation without gospels.

While Religion has its gospels, Science (as I see it) does not. The fact that the ID hypothesis has been expelled from the science section (and that I have yet to find any religion in these books) suggests to me that that the materialist hypothesis is now operating as a materialist gospel and that science's internal religious corruption (material-ISM) is being unfairly projected onto the ID hypothesis. Of course it is possible that many will claim that the materialist hypothesis should be gospelized and that real science requires gospelization and (subsequent removal of ID) at this basic level. This of course is not my vision of "science." My vision of science is that of a dicipline of inquiry that encourages free debate and echews all gospelization.

The Brookfield Ontological Argument for Design

In introducing his new book "Signature in the Cell" Steven C. Meyer uses combinatrics and "combinatorial explosion" as an argument against the proverbial "typing monkey." While the combinatrics argument is basically sound, it seems to me that another, more effective and complimentary argument, could be used here – "The Brookfield Ontological Argument for Design." There is a clear ontological (basic substance) difference between monkey shakespeare and real Shakespeare. Scientists who question this do so at their own peril (more on this later).

Both typing systems are letter "writing systems" (abc..) and subsequently both are bound by system-level law to produce sequences of letters. Real Shakespeare however is bound by numerous other laws while monkey shakespeare is not. Real Shakespeare is bound by the laws of spelling, grammar, syntax, plot development etc. Moreover, real Shakespeare is bound by the spacio-temporal laws of physics in that it must map to those laws in order to make sense to humans who live within those laws (within space and time). Divergences from those laws (science fiction) must not occur at random but must be suitably framed (laws again).

When one is asking as to the source of the finely tuned laws of physics or design in biology one is not asking as to the source of illusionary laws/design (monkey shakespeare) but real laws and real design (real Shakespeare). The mere amplification of system-level probabilistic resources (infinite typing monkeys, infinite universes, deep time etc.) provides no explanation whatsoever for the existence of higher order laws or design. "Design" is itself a higher order pattern of lawful correspondence to a telic attractor. Monkey shakespeare (being utterly devoid of higher order laws, patterns, or divergences of any kind) is nothing but lawless system-level order (random letters). An infinite amount of random typing monkeys produces nothing but an infinite amount of lawless system-level order (letters). Infinite universe arguments against design are subsequently worthless. While they are indeed multiplying probabilistic resources (producing more monkey shakespeare), they are doing so in the wrong location (no real Shakespeare).

The discipline of science appears to have been developed by people who had some kind of spiritual belief in a "law maker" who subsequently believed in the reality (not illusion) of physical laws (upon which we can depend and build our science). They also believed that we might be sufficiently like the "law maker" (anthropomorphically resonant) in order to understand these laws. It seems to me that without some of the core convictions (anthropomorphic God) of the early believers we would have no science. It also seems to me that many of the modern arguments against design are quite anarchistic in that they consistently undermine the notion of laws that are real, design that is real and science that is real. Scientists who call science into question, do so at their own peril.

Re - Van Sun article "Religion in Disguise"

The Vancouver Sun last year published a set of articles about ID, Creationism and science. After publication of "Religion in Disguise" comments were enabled and myself and many others commented (pro and con ID). Alas our comments have all been removed and only the article now remains. I have decided I might as well re-post my largest deleted comment here for the benefit of anyone interested. Unfortunately I do not have copies of any of the other (shorter) comments -- they are probably gone forever.

I would just like to say that I am indeed grateful to the Vancouver Sun for
publishing my last comment regarding my philosophy of the value(sacredness) of
humankind.

"Metamorphic Geologist" however, has asked regarding ID's "top
secret research program." I can only speak for myself and my own work. I am
studying a possible relationship between classical "information" and certain
fundamental laws of physics, specifically the second law of thermodynamics and
the second law of black hole dynamics. I am attempting to facilitate an
"info-dynamic" unification of these laws of physics leading ultimately to a
unification of Relativity and Quantum mechanics. This requires the study of all
related fields -- the information theories of Shannon and Kolmogorov
(Algorithmic Information Theory {AIT}), statistical mechanics and general
relativity and QM. In order to clarify these relationships I have proposed the
addition of a new element to both Shannon's and Kolmogorov's theories of
information -- a correlational improbability figure (or K-coupling in K-theory
{AIT}). This figure is intended to mathematically quantify the amount of order
in any given piece of information. If there is no *correlation* between the
email that you sent your friend and the email that your friend receives, then
the "information" that you sent him/her has been lost. It is this essential
"correlated-ness" that my figure is intended to quantify.

I also recently proposed the existence of two types of Kolmogorov complexity (informational and non-informational). Informational (i)K-complexity (such as is found in say, DNA coding) is always originated by intelligent design, whereas non-informational (m)K-complexity, being wholly parasitic upon the pre-existing complexity of its medium, does not represent "complexity origination" at all. Jeff Shallit of the University of Waterloo and a leading critic of ID recently made the following statement in response to Tom Bethell’s concerns about the origin of DNA *coding* (and subsequent *correlations*):

"Bethell shows a profound misunderstanding of information theory when he claims, 'Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA was asked how the all-important coding information found its way into the DNA in the first place. It's so complex that a reliance on random events will never get us there.' Bethell apparently doesn't understand that in the Kolmogorov theory of information, complexity is the same as randomness. It's easy to get complexity; all you need is a source of random events." -- Jeff Shallit from "Bethell the Buffoon" 09,2007

If you were to smash a window using "a source of random events" (using the proverbial "monkey with shotgun"?) you would produce a random (m)K-complex mess of broken glass, but this raw, molecular-positional-complexity is not structural complexity. "Information" such as DNA coding is a "built up" form of coordinated, correlated structural complexity. Random (uncoordinated, unspecified, and uncorrelated) events cannot produce this type of (informational/structural) K-complexity. Randomization in fact destroys this "built up" (i)K-complexity. The breaking of windows is not going to produce the *specified* structural/informational complexity of a "built up" glass house nor a house nor DNA. Jeff Shallit is here confusing non-informational (m)K-complexity with structural/informational (i)K-complexity. The path of a "random walk" through a pre-existing complex medium reveals only the *pre-existing* K-complexity of that medium.

"Randomness," is a uniform probability distribution over a set of possible outcomes. Being *uniform* it is subsequently non-complex -- by definition. If the jackpot of a slot machine appears too frequently or too infrequently relative to the other outcomes, then the probability distribution is non-uniform, non-random and therefore, "unfair."

I have also pointed out at ISCID that there exists a longstanding problem for the Second Law of Thermodynamics known as "Poincare Recurrence" (first pointed out by mathematician Henri Poincare in 1890). This problem can be resolved by reformulating the second law of thermodynamics as a law of information dynamics. This is because system *finiteness* is an imposition of a residual orderly constraint (information/correlation) upon the contents of any otherwise internally free system.

My notion of correlational improbability while being an extension of Shannon and Kolmogorov’s theories does not underminethese theories nor their past successes – just as my theory of spacetime erosion does not undermine Einstein’s theory of spacetime curvature. The idea is to provide reformulations and clarifications of existing theories that are more amenable to scientific progress and unification. Einstein’s concept of "curvature" is presently blocking a quantum description of relativity IMO. A solution here would have to unify, not only quantum mechanics and general relativity, but also thermodynamics and black hole dynamics (general relativity).

As an ID theorist I am addressing a number of such issues and
proposing a number of possible solutions to these problems. From my point of
view, my work is obviously work in science and not religion --- just as
thermodynamics is obviously science and not religion. However, the question has been raised and clarification is needed in order for the public to determine
whether or not my science really is just "religion in disguise." To this end, I
once again encourage the Vancouver Sun to question me further regarding my
science (and also my philosophy if you wish) – and to do so in a public forum
such as this. It is time for this matter to be settled once and for all.

Submitted to VANCOUVER SUN Wed November 12 2008

Bizarre.

In response to Mike Egnor Timothy Sandefur writes...

"... to teach the (non-existent) “weaknesses” of evolution in a government
classroom is almost always (a) contrary to the lesson plan—and therefore a
violation of a teacher’s employment contract—or (b) in reality an attempt to
teach creationism to school children as true."

Bizzare..

"The non-existent 'weaknesses' of [Darwinian] evolution"?!?

Darwin's "Origin of the Species" proposes to originate new species through the use of randomization (random variation, random mutations, random gene duplication, random genetic drift, etc) plus natural selective destruction that destroys (weeds out/filters out) the unfit. But both randomization (that throws functionally integrated biological systems off target) and "Natural Selection" (that destroys the unfit) are destruction functions.

One glaring weakness of Darwinism therefore is that it is utterly illogical to expect new biological construction(+) to be the result of these (and any) destruction(-) functions (I.E. agents of doom). It is utterly illogical to expect randomness (the logical opposite and utter absence of order) to produce new biological order. Filtered accidents are still accidents.

If Darwin's book had been called "The (microevolutionary) Filtration of the Species" at least it would have been logical. Darwin's theory was illogical "out of the box." An illogical formulation is a catastrophic weakness of any scientific theory. Einstein's general theory of relativity has its weaknesses (such as its failure to integrate well with Quantum mechanics) but at least it is logically sound!
-----------------------------------------------

Academic freedom is for Everyone!

I like Michael Egnor,

"Censorship has no place in our society. The academic freedom of all people — even of people like Richard Dawkins who don't respect academic freedom for others — should be protected. I support academic freedom, and I oppose the Oklahoma resolution, just as I oppose Darwinist censorship of open discussion of evolution in public schools. Richard Dawkins should speak at the University of Oklahoma, and he should be treated with courtesy and respect. Ben Stein should have been allowed to give the commencement address at the University of Vermont, and he should have been treated with courtesy and respect. Teachers and administrators and students who have questions about Darwin’s theory should speak up in schools, and they should be treated with courtesy and respect. We should hear more from Dawkins and Darwinists, and we should hear more from those who disagree with them as well. These issues should be discussed freely and vigorously in the public forum, including public universities and public schools."

Right on! Academic freedom is not just for those we like, or those we agree with, or those who treat us with respect. Academic freedom is for all! If Dawkins was invited then let him speak, but be sure to let the leaders from the other side (of the issue) speak as well! Academic freedom is for everyone!
--------------------------------------