On this ID the Future from the archive, Baylor University computer engineering professor Robert J. Marks hosts Ola Hössjer of Stockholm University and Daniel Díaz of the University of Miami to discuss a recent research paper the three contributed to the Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, “Is Cosmological Tuning Fine or Coarse?" Although it's no easy question to answer rigorously, the paper sheds new light on just how finely tuned our universe--and our existence--actually is. In this conversation, Marks, Hössjer, and Díaz unpack the long answer.
Classifying organisms is an important function of biology. But if phylogenetics is ultimately based on a floundering theory of origins, how helpful is it to our understanding of living things? On this ID The Future, host Andrew McDiarmid and paleoentemologist Gunter Bechly unpack some of the major problems with arachnid phylogeny and its implications for the common descent hypothesis.
A Washington Post headline recently declared that a "monumental experiment suggests how life on earth may have started." The reality, however, is far more sobering. In this episode of ID the Future, host Eric Anderson sits down with accomplished medical engineer and origin of life author, Robert Stadler, to discuss what this new research actually shows and the relevance to abiogenesis.
More episodes and show notes at idthefuture.com.
On this episode, host Pat Flynn continues his conversation with Dr. Selmer Bringsjord about his chapter in the recent volume Minding the Brain, titled “Mathematical Objects Are Non-Physical, so We Are Too.” The discussion focuses on the first part of the argument, which asserts that mathematical objects are non-physical. Bringsjord explains that formal thinking, such as understanding algorithms, cannot be fully determined by physical processes. He uses the example of the sorting algorithm QuickSort to illustrate how different physical embodiments of the algorithm do not capture its true nature. Bringsjord argues that there must be a non-physical relationship between the user and the concept of the algorithm in order to truly understand it. Flynn emphasizes the significance …
On this episode, host Pat Flynn is joined by Dr. Selmer Bringsjord, author of a fascinating and provocative chapter in the recent volume Minding the Brain. Dr. Bringsjord argues for the immateriality of mathematical objects as well as the immateriality of the human person. The argument challenges physicalism and raises questions about the nature of consciousness and the human person. The discussion also touches on the nature of mathematical objects and their non-physical existence. Dr. Bringsjord presents his argument in a simple way, using examples like the number four and triangularity, to illustrate the immateriality of these concepts. The episode concludes with discussion of the significance of this argument and its implications for physicalism. This is Part 1 of a two-part …
In this episode, hosts Angus Menuge and Robert J. Marks conclude their three-part discussion with Dr. Robert Larmer about his chapter on methodological naturalism in the recent volume Minding the Brain. The trio argue that methodological naturalism is not the only viable approach in scientific inquiry and that it can be an obstruction to discovering the truth. They suggest that explanations should be based on how well they explain rather than being prescribed in advance. They also criticize the assumption that science requires the adoption of methodological naturalism, which guarantees that non-physical causes can never be recognized. Dr. Larmer proposes an alternative approach called methodological pluralism, which allows for a more open-minded and evidence-based exploration of …
