| Author | Message | ||
     Blake |
Innes, If we follow the science, we must conclude that the universe is not infinite. It had a definite beginning. The most reasonable escape hatch left for naturalists is now the "multiverse", "an unparsimonious extravagance" according to prominent anti-God atheist Richard Dawkins. I share your deep contempt of the misuse and abuse of religion by evil men. So did Jesus. Some people deeply disdain motorcycles because they've seen what they do, and want no part of it. Back to QM... There may be an interesting corollary to the QM logic showing the necessary existence of a transcendent consciousness (God). If we reject and separate ourselves from God, and our choice is honored by the deity, are we rejecting continued existence? If according to our wishes, God no longer looks upon us, will we cease to exist as we pass from the view of our fellow contingent conscious beings, perhaps stuck in an eternal chaotic waveform of potentialities with all the other similarly inclined consciousnesses, never again able to be coherent or to re-emerge materially? | ||
| Blake |
Matt (Pwnzer), Infinity can be useful in mathematics as a theoretical concept, but as you recognize, there is no actual infinite in material existence. I sometimes run into the problem of the absurdity of an actual infinity when developing mathematical simulations for structures. When the stiffness matrix includes a zero term, the related displacement under load goes to infinity. Computer no like. Such a result indicates an unstable structure, or (usually the case) that I neglected to properly model the structure's restraints. Dividing by zero yields infinity. Dividing infinity by anything other than itself yields infinity. Subtracting infinity from infinity can yield any answer you like. Truly absurd. Some confuse the idea of a potential infinity with an actual infinity; for instance there is the idea of the potential infinity of time into the future, but at no actual point in time will there be an infinite amount of time. It's just a way of expressing the idea of an unending progression. | ||
| Ourdee |
If we reject and separate ourselves from God, and our choice is honored by the deity, are we rejecting continued existence? If according to our wishes, God no longer looks upon us, will we cease to exist as we pass from the view of our fellow contingent conscious beings, perhaps stuck in an eternal chaotic waveform of potentialities with all the other similarly inclined consciousnesses, never again able to be coherent or to re-emerge materially? Or maybe "I Am" stops one from flowing like a wave and splatters one up against a chalkboard for ever. Wouldn't it be hell after being alive to exist as a dot on the wall? "My" theology has an end point to the span of time we get. My deity is more than generous. Do I kill in His Name?, No, the battle is His. Whoa boy, you's gettin' off topic. Back to QM corollaries. What if his mercy and subsequent deified observation of us allowed us to pass the test as waves entering "Heaven" divided by how much we knew and equally supplying the "much" required of us to make the grade, there by being separated into groups on separate clouds in heaven. (taking liberty here) So, this man passes from this world and meets Saint Peter at the pearly gates with two narrow slits in them. Peter takes him from cloud to cloud showing him around. The man suddenly asks loudly, "What is that cloud off in the distance?" Peter with his finger to his lips tells him to be quiet, that's where the pentacostals are, They think they're the only ones up here. | ||
| Glitch |
So we've had it wrong all this time! Only the watched pot boils | ||
| 1313 |
Only the watched pot boils You know the old saying, "The watched pot never boils"? Well I have a corollary saying based on my life's experiences: A watched pot my never boil, but an unwatched pot is sure to boil OVER! I now return you to your normal thread, 1313 | ||
| 46champ |
Thanks Blake this thread again proves why this is a unique web site in all of cyber space. | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
If we follow the science, we must conclude that the universe is not infinite. It had a definite beginning. How can we know this to be so? If we now accept that observation changes matter, how can we accept that the universe had a beginning if we can't be certain that our observation hasn't changed what we thought we were seeing. The only thing we can be totally certain of is that we know that we don't know. We (humans) have developed equipment to see what we think is the result of the Big Bang & equipment to see the smallest of particles & their effects. However we have no way of knowing if said equipment is showing us everything that is there or distorting what is. History has taught us that what we observe today may be completely debunked by tomorrow's technology. I read a good deal of SF & Fantasy & people like Heinlein & Asimov & Pratchett et al, have all put it much better than I ever can. My dream is to live long enough to see "The Breakthrough" that opens the stars to us, perhaps if I observe in the right way I could facilitate it. To quote the immortal bard, from Hamlet. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. | ||
| Glitch |
So, if by observing us, God has made us exist, what does that make us, while we're observing particles making them exist? | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
So, if by observing us, God has made us exist, what does that make us, while we're observing particles making them exist? Perhaps we are just part of a God's apparatus for observing such phenomena & he's saying to his god mates "Here, come & look at this..." | ||
| Aesquire |
A watched pot my never boil, but an unwatched pot is sure to boil OVER! Proving that God does not exist. Or that one of the observations is not interpreted correctly.  Your choice. I go for "we don't know". The Universe as Petri dish experiment is classic SF. The Big Bang as the result of "Hey Bubba, Watch This!" actually seems likely to me. I'm not arguing for that interpretation, but it makes more sense to me than Scientology. | ||
| 46champ |
but it makes more sense to me than Scientology. Boy that is a reach way to stick yourself out there on a limb Pat | ||
| Aesquire |
If you follow a religion created as a bar bet by a science fiction writer, and enjoy it, I'm not going to mock you. To your face. There are lots of jokes that the Universe is from a kiddie home "Create A Universe" kit, like back in the old days they had Chemistry Sets. It's not my personal belief, but I'd laugh like a hyena if it turns out to be so. Then again, I thought the original Ren & Stimpy was funny. So take that for what it's worth. | ||
| Kenm123t |
AES could be the kilts too tight ? | ||
| Blake |
>>> How can we know this to be so? What do you know for certain, and how do you know it? >>> If we now accept that observation changes matter, how can we accept that the universe had a beginning if we can't be certain that our observation hasn't changed what we thought we were seeing. Observation also creates the applicable coinciding history. Our scientific observations are thus accurate for that history, just as our delayed observations of the quantum duality are accurate. Something must be non-contingent, the instigating source of existence. QM indicates that consciousness is pre-requisite to material existence, exactly opposite of what naturalists and materialists would have us believe. That ought to be awesome news. No? | ||
| Aesquire |
There is no doubt that the revelations of QM show that the purely materialistic, deterministic world view is wrong. How much can be salvaged, I'm not sure. Incomplete, or wrong in it's basis? time will tell. Many people complain about "evolution" as though it's a godless communist plot to destroy spirituality. And it has been used as such a tool, by bad men. So have Christian values been cherry-picked and perverted for the goals of evil men. Observe the Liberation Theology movement, it's origins and end results. Soviet inspired and promoted revolution in S. America, racism in the US, a "faith" called "Demonic" by a former Pope. ( and how often do you think I agree with a freaking Pope? ) Certainly Darwin's book from long ago is wrong in some detail. It's incomplete, of course, since Darwin knew nothing of DNA and the mechanism's of mutation. We don't have anywhere near a complete understanding of these things today. I posted a report on how genes seem to work that indicates that Lysenko may have had a glimmer of insight. Even though he was wrong as a practical matter, and caused/made worse a famine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-25156510 Lysenkoism is a classic case of Pravda-Science, where one theory becomes official truth no matter what the evidence or results are. Naturally, that kills a lot of people. I leave it to you to spot any recent trends along those lines. "The Science Is Settled" Because of years of skepticism about "proving god exists" arguments, including, of course, the "you can't prove it, so shut up and sit down" argument that some religious educators fall back on when they can't refute some student's "logic"....... I'm still thinking on this disproof of simplistic materialism being proof of theism. There are still assumptions being made with nothing but classical philosophy holding them up. We don't know what happened before the Big Bang/the Word. We don't know how to look behind the curtain, or past the blast front, or before the Beginning. For example, the laws of physics must work just the way they do for us to be here. Change the way sub atomic particles interact in any way, and you can't exist. This doesn't mean they have to be that way in any Universe, or that intelligent life cannot exist in some other Universe with other laws. Just not us. Or maybe not, but "Stop telling God what to do" seems a sound principal. And, besides, I'm not getting any tv shows from alternate Universes, so what difference does it make. Multiverse concepts may be a big cheat, or be the way it is, but we can't access those other Universes with our current tech, if ever, so it remains a curiosity, and plot device, not a useful tool. | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
Aesquire, if there was a "like" button to your last post, I'd have clicked it. Blake, I'd not go so far as awesome news, some puzzling data & tenuous extrapolations leading to an interesting interpretation is my limit. I've seen nothing to prove or disprove the existence of God or gods, though I keep an open mind on the subject. | ||
| Midknyte |
Crap! Now we've done it... http://io9.com/we-might-be-destroying-the-universe -just-by-looking-at-1514652112 | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
You all better be hoping that I believe in you, you're possibly all figments of my imagination & may disappear forever if I stop thinking that you exist. Or then again, maybe I'm a figment of yours, & if that's the case, wtf are you thinking about? I'll stick with Sartre "I think, therefore I am" (I think) | ||
| Blake |
I think that everyone really does know that materialism is false. http://youtu.be/s5px8V40FGM My goodness Innes, isn't the possibility that life has profound ultimate meaning a wonderful thing compared to materialism, which says that life is devoid of any ultimate meaning? I mean if we were able to choose, which would be the better choice, the one with free will, enduring consciousness and meaning, or the one purely material, absurd, and absent any ultimate meaning? (Message edited by Blake on February 04, 2014) | ||
| Blake |
Though from a different perspective, the possibility of departing this life in complete death, total non-existence/oblivion might be appealing. I sure don't see you in that camp. The oblivion part would bother me a lot less than the absurdity and utter meaninglessness aspect of materialism. | ||
| Aesquire |
So now we exist, scientifically, in a world where reality is far more fluid, and the clockwork world of the past seems childish and over simplified. Feel free to discuss the nature of the Creator, but I feel that certainty of things that we cannot know is a matter of faith, not science. Always, at the edge of what is known, is the unknown. In the old days sea monsters and blank spots left much to the imagination. Today, we can see satellite photos of valleys on Mars. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1650_Jansso n_Map_of_the_Ancient_World_-_Geographicus_-_OrbisT errarum-jansson-1650.jpg Yet, what is unknown is still far larger that what is known. Time after time people will state that we know it all now, and they are always wrong. When we look at the unknown we always learn more, and a lot of what we learn is we have far more to learn. http://www.flixxy.com/hubble-ultra-deep-field-3d.h tm http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/to-wolcott-balestie r/ | ||
| Aesquire |
I've seen nothing to prove or disprove the existence of God or gods, though I keep an open mind on the subject. Have your read "They" by Heinlein? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They_(Heinlein) One of the great shorts by Niven. Highly recomended. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Return_of_William _Proxmire If you keep an open mind, ( as I try to ) work on keeping stuff that is wrong from drifting in. Various techniques exist to do so, I wish I knew them.  My late Sifu in Tai Chi was insistent that there were spirits other than ourselves in the universe. That meditation would open your mind to observing this, and that in advanced meditation one could spirit walk. ( to use a poetic American Indian term, The Mandarin is equally poetic, IIRC, he called it "taking a walk". ) He warned that precautions had to be made to defend yourself from these spirits when taking a walk. A tether to the physical body, ( golden thread in eastern faiths ) awareness of self, etc. to keep you safe. Spirits could be good, indifferent, or predatory. These beliefs are common in many meditative belief systems. None of that has any conflict with most organized religions, my Sifu was conventional protestant Christian, and practically, that is simply the observations of a person sitting there with his eyes closed..... some see more than others, and what your brain interprets from available stimuli varies from person to person. And can be trained. What I find worth sharing, is that you practice "centering" gathering energies from around you, ( in eastern meditation often by "breathing in the fire in the air" ) techniques used in most forms of meditation, and for protection against predators, radiating that energy as a white light, to the minds eye. ( also used in Kundalini and other faiths ) Again, I see no conflict in this with most other faiths. ( there are some rules on sorcery that seem reasonable in most faiths, I don't think this applies ) Just food for thought. I can't claim to be the best pupil, having been yelled at for racing meditation with another student....  ( joke spoiler: A competitive attitude is the opposite of the desired result. We were timing each other with a biofeedback machine, to see who could get to Alpha state fastest. ) | ||
| Pwnzor |
God's Debris A great read, doesn't take very long and it's FREE. | ||
| Sifo |
I couldn't help but be reminded of God's Debris by this thread. It could almost be used to argue truth in that book. | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
I'll have to do some reading. I'm neither materialist or theist, I just don't know, & I think that nobody knows for certain, though many believe in both camps. The only thing I'm certain of is that I'm uncertain. | ||
| Aesquire |
Then you are wiser than most. | ||
| Pwnzor |
Innes, you'll like God's Debris. It doesn't matter whether you're religious or not, it is as it says, "a thought experiment". | ||
| Midknyte |
http://sploid.gizmodo.com/here-are-the-three-ways- that-the-universe-will-be-destr-1516128374/@caseychan | ||
| Blake |
>>> ... certainty of things that we cannot know is a matter of faith, not science. Can we be certain of that? How do we know which things are unknowable? Faith = trust Science = verificationism Verificationism as a world view has been universally rejected by philosophers since around the early 20th century when it was shown that the very foundational principles of science itself (the accuracy & reliability of human perception, the validity of logic and human reasoning) defy scientific verification. Given that, does Innes have it right? Is our uncertainty the only thing we may justifiably be certain of? | ||
| Aesquire |
I don't know. |
