What would count as proof of God

[Jarhyn]

In the meantime, you might ask yourself: What would a universe that was NOT designed look like?

Wouldn't one anticipate chaos, if anything?

Why? The word anticipate implies prior experience with whatever phenomena you might be talking about, and we have no experience with the formation of universes, or how they turn out. Perhaps universes can only be one way, or perhaps they are able to take on an infinite number of forms, each with their own characteristics. We have no way to tell at present.

Perhaps they might. But I certainly wouldn't expect order. Why would I?

Why wouldn’t you?

Because I exist in a universe where entropy is a driving force. For the same reasons that you say you expect anthropocentric designs (you are surrounded by people and their works), I tend to expect chaos (as I am surrounded by change and decay). Expectation is not an objective phenomenon.

You are ignoring the initial conditions of the universe, which was a state of low entropy, and the conditions within the universe in the Stelliferous Era which we live in, which evolved using naturalistic processes from those initial conditions. Life is a process which accelerates the rate at which the universe becomes more disordered, and exists within a tiny window of time when the conditions permit. Those conditions which allow ordered structures like living things to exist is very, very brief and will pass soon.

An interesting idea is that at some point, everything in our universe will decay and there will only be one solid state, where everything is never going to touch anything ever again.

It will be as "nothing", infinite and empty and unchanging.

Then it will contain something, on account of everything expanding too fast for the vacuum fluctuations to come back together even in an instant of time. A bunch of stuff will come to exist, very quickly. It could be expanding like that for an eternity or no time at all depending on how one graphs a static thing with a single meaningful property.

If the expansion ever stops or slows down, or something changes at all about this geometry, when it "comes back" and stops inflating, a single particle will exist at the nexus of every infinitely expanded virtual particle collection, and then all that will give rise to the same damn thing, as mutated by infinite turbulence at every point.

Or something?

I just know that when you're ripping apart the quantum vacuum fluctuations as they always happen everywhere as they must, something weird is bound to happen. You're going to get a LOT of something from nothing, and it won't disappear in a puff of instant annihilation the way it did before the epoch when time and space at every point are ripping apart faster than C. It conjurors images of "white holes" albeit at every point in the universe, hot and dense, and damn near symmetrical assuming the rip ever ends.

 

[steve_bank]

The idea of the universe running down, thermal death, implies there was a finite beginning. The BB Theory does not start at time zero, it does not explain the origins of the intial conditions.

 

[Jarhyn]

The idea of the universe running down, thermal death, implies there was a finite beginning. The BB Theory does not start at time zero, it does not explain the origins of the intial conditions.

Except it doesn't. It can extend 'infinitely'* in each direction.

*What happens "before" and after the infinite spinlock does not matter especially if it can be shown that these states are identical, at which point the whole thing is a waveform behavior.

 

[atrib]

In the meantime, you might ask yourself: What would a universe that was NOT designed look like?

Wouldn't one anticipate chaos, if anything?

Why? The word anticipate implies prior experience with whatever phenomena you might be talking about, and we have no experience with the formation of universes, or how they turn out. Perhaps universes can only be one way, or perhaps they are able to take on an infinite number of forms, each with their own characteristics. We have no way to tell at present.

Perhaps they might. But I certainly wouldn't expect order. Why would I?

Why wouldn’t you?

Because I exist in a universe where entropy is a driving force. For the same reasons that you say you expect anthropocentric designs (you are surrounded by people and their works), I tend to expect chaos (as I am surrounded by change and decay). Expectation is not an objective phenomenon.

You are ignoring the initial conditions of the universe, which was a state of low entropy, and the conditions within the universe in the Stelliferous Era which we live in, which evolved using naturalistic processes from those initial conditions. Life is a process which accelerates the rate at which the universe becomes more disordered, and exists within a tiny window of time when the conditions permit. Those conditions which allow ordered structures like living things to exist is very, very brief and will pass soon.

An interesting idea is that at some point, everything in our universe will decay and there will only be one solid state, where everything is never going to touch anything ever again.

It will be as "nothing", infinite and empty and unchanging.

Then it will contain something, on account of everything expanding too fast for the vacuum fluctuations to come back together even in an instant of time. A bunch of stuff will come to exist, very quickly. It could be expanding like that for an eternity or no time at all depending on how one graphs a static thing with a single meaningful property.

If the expansion ever stops or slows down, or something changes at all about this geometry, when it "comes back" and stops inflating, a single particle will exist at the nexus of every infinitely expanded virtual particle collection, and then all that will give rise to the same damn thing, as mutated by infinite turbulence at every point.

Or something?

I just know that when you're ripping apart the quantum vacuum fluctuations as they always happen everywhere as they must, something weird is bound to happen. You're going to get a LOT of something from nothing, and it won't disappear in a puff of instant annihilation the way it did before the epoch when time and space at every point are ripping apart faster than C. It conjurors images of "white holes" albeit at every point in the universe, hot and dense, and damn near symmetrical assuming the rip ever ends.

You might be interested in some of Roger Penrose's ideas on conformal cyclic cosmology.

 

[Jarhyn]

In the meantime, you might ask yourself: What would a universe that was NOT designed look like?

Wouldn't one anticipate chaos, if anything?

Why? The word anticipate implies prior experience with whatever phenomena you might be talking about, and we have no experience with the formation of universes, or how they turn out. Perhaps universes can only be one way, or perhaps they are able to take on an infinite number of forms, each with their own characteristics. We have no way to tell at present.

Perhaps they might. But I certainly wouldn't expect order. Why would I?

Why wouldn’t you?

Because I exist in a universe where entropy is a driving force. For the same reasons that you say you expect anthropocentric designs (you are surrounded by people and their works), I tend to expect chaos (as I am surrounded by change and decay). Expectation is not an objective phenomenon.

You are ignoring the initial conditions of the universe, which was a state of low entropy, and the conditions within the universe in the Stelliferous Era which we live in, which evolved using naturalistic processes from those initial conditions. Life is a process which accelerates the rate at which the universe becomes more disordered, and exists within a tiny window of time when the conditions permit. Those conditions which allow ordered structures like living things to exist is very, very brief and will pass soon.

An interesting idea is that at some point, everything in our universe will decay and there will only be one solid state, where everything is never going to touch anything ever again.

It will be as "nothing", infinite and empty and unchanging.

Then it will contain something, on account of everything expanding too fast for the vacuum fluctuations to come back together even in an instant of time. A bunch of stuff will come to exist, very quickly. It could be expanding like that for an eternity or no time at all depending on how one graphs a static thing with a single meaningful property.

If the expansion ever stops or slows down, or something changes at all about this geometry, when it "comes back" and stops inflating, a single particle will exist at the nexus of every infinitely expanded virtual particle collection, and then all that will give rise to the same damn thing, as mutated by infinite turbulence at every point.

Or something?

I just know that when you're ripping apart the quantum vacuum fluctuations as they always happen everywhere as they must, something weird is bound to happen. You're going to get a LOT of something from nothing, and it won't disappear in a puff of instant annihilation the way it did before the epoch when time and space at every point are ripping apart faster than C. It conjurors images of "white holes" albeit at every point in the universe, hot and dense, and damn near symmetrical assuming the rip ever ends.

You might be interested in some of Roger Penrose's ideas on conformal cyclic cosmology.

I might be, if I were interested in knowing that quite yet.

For me this stuff is kind of like solving a puzzle: If I look at all the answers, I don't get to figure them out myself, and we get good at what we practice.

I'm kind of doing a min/max this run, with JUST barely enough "looking it up" to do an otherwise full dump on "figuring it out" (plus, I suppose, a little bit here and there in 'actually staying alive').

I know I'm going to have to balance a few more points towards "looking it up" and I do know I'm almost out of expendable skill points coming on 40 as I am, but I'm keeping an eye on that.

 

[steve_bank]

The idea of the universe running down, thermal death, implies there was a finite beginning. The BB Theory does not start at time zero, it does not explain the origins of the intial conditions.

Except it doesn't. It can extend 'infinitely'* in each direction.

*What happens "before" and after the infinite spinlock does not matter especially if it can be shown that these states are identical, at which point the whole thing is a waveform behavior.

Arguing unprovable cosmology is like arguing unprovable theology. To me it all comes down to causation and something from nothing. Dispense with causation and conservatin of mass then you can argue anything, including creationism.



Paraphrasing Descartes,leave the woo to the astrologers and apply yourself to peoblems that are solvable.

 

[Jarhyn]

The idea of the universe running down, thermal death, implies there was a finite beginning. The BB Theory does not start at time zero, it does not explain the origins of the intial conditions.

Except it doesn't. It can extend 'infinitely'* in each direction.

*What happens "before" and after the infinite spinlock does not matter especially if it can be shown that these states are identical, at which point the whole thing is a waveform behavior.

Arguing unprovable cosmology is like arguing unprovable theology. To me it all comes down to causation and something from nothing. Dispense with causation and conservatin of mass then you can argue anything, including creationism.



Paraphrasing Descartes,leave the woo to the astrologers and apply yourself to peoblems that are solvable.

Except I'm not arguing unprovable.

If we can demonstrate mathematically that this is what happens at the rip boundary, that in these conditions time becomes unimportant and things become inflationary, and everything gets spun back up to a state of low entropy, that isn't unprovable. Unprovable would be to say that all is a result of some critter hitting a reset button after the MMO season is over to start the next season.

 

[steve_bank]

The idea of the universe running down, thermal death, implies there was a finite beginning. The BB Theory does not start at time zero, it does not explain the origins of the intial conditions.

Except it doesn't. It can extend 'infinitely'* in each direction.

*What happens "before" and after the infinite spinlock does not matter especially if it can be shown that these states are identical, at which point the whole thing is a waveform behavior.

Arguing unprovable cosmology is like arguing unprovable theology. To me it all comes down to causation and something from nothing. Dispense with causation and conservatin of mass then you can argue anything, including creationism.



Paraphrasing Descartes,leave the woo to the astrologers and apply yourself to peoblems that are solvable.

Except I'm not arguing unprovable.

If we can demonstrate mathematically that this is what happens at the rip boundary, that in these conditions time becomes unimportant and things become inflationary, and everything gets spun back up to a state of low entropy, that isn't unprovable. Unprovable would be to say that all is a result of some critter hitting a reset button after the MMO season is over to start the next season.

That is why I posted an electrical circuit that will mathematically oscillate forever. Cosmology at best is an extreme mathematical extrapolation, none of it provable. The BB is a good theory based on scince we can demonstrte, but to me that is as far as it goes. In pop cilture it has become a modern creation myth. People say 'the universe began with the BB', which the theory does not say. It says givem a thoertecal initial condition the unverse we see today follows from an event. The theory works because it is designed to wok, not berciase it is physically true.

I will category reject any theory that negates causation and conservation of matter. Hawking claiming he coud prove the unverse cretes itself shows that being grounded in scince does not mean one is always scintific.

There is no poosible way to test any cosmolgy like the BB. I deffer to Popper, to be objective science it must be testable. The same kind of tesabilty we demand from theists. Because a theory like the BB can result in what we see today does not man the theory is correct.

A cosmology can and was crafted with the Earth as the center of the universe. The model accuracy predicted astronomical motions in the day, but we now know it was wrong. Theory is not reality or the map is not the countryside.

 

[steve_bank]

Adding as a general principle I am equaly sketical of all things human.

I am equally skeptical at what comes form politics, media, region, philosophy, and science.

I am equally skeptical of both creationism and cosmology as it pertains to origins and a genesis.

 

[atrib]

I'll cease it here, before it becomes a toing and froing - you have a point of view, fair enough..

I am from a working class backgound. I was one of those kids, that loved school dinners lol, speaking od dinners I smell burning.

There is no shame in not knowing stuff. It is impossible for a single human to know everything about everything that humans as a group know. But if you want to challenge skeptics, you have to educate yourself on what they say. You can't just make up stuff.

Indeed there's no shame when it is indeed the case. And (I'm sorry I need to say here) when it comes to pride or ego (or having some personal grudge) by falsely ascribing "making things up" to someone, who isn't - would just make you look a little foolish, especially by the person, who has to educate himself.

So...

Did I ever make any claim that Egnor said anything about souls in his talk? You were so eager, to make the false statement, you bypassed that bit of logic, which should have told you: "There's is no evidence for me saying it, therefore I can't quote it directly." Common Sense?
Or did you try and bluff it?

You didn't say anything in your post. You just posted a link to a video that we had discussed previously, and I pointed out that the video did not support the claim you were making at that (earlier) time.

Why don't you explain what your point was, and how the video supports whatever claim you want to make, so we can discuss it. Post the timestamp for the part of the video we should be looking at, because I am not going to spend another half hour viewing a video I have already watched once. I can't read your mind - I need to know what your specific position is, and how the video supports this position. This is not an unreasonable request. Several people have asked you to do this, but so far you have declined to clarify.

Learner, are you going to explain what your point was, and how the video you posted supports your position?

 

[Learner]

Sorry about the delay,

During the earlier time discussion, if I recall without going back to the original pages, the first mentioning and post I made of Dr. Egnor and the video title, which implies as it reads, 'the case against materialism.' As I previously stated, I did not say Egnor said anything about souls....

When, and if I mentioned anything about souls, then this would ONLY be from a suggested hypothetical viewpoint I make and NOT A CLAIM! I made the suggestion for conversation, taking from what I saw from the context of the video, the documented experiments by neuro-surgeons, demonstrating cases i.e. the mind is beyond the physical brain etc.

The second mention of the video was a response to Rheas post which also regarded Biblys post of his the "soul catching" experiments that have been done, and showing nothing. So, I mentioned Egnor simply because there seemed to be some results at least, even though these do not prove the existence of souls but there is definitely a need for continous further study investigation.

Further more to your (plural) methods of detecting, the "we haven't detected any interactions" on the human scale & four forces flaw.

Even with both experiments in Egnors lab and Bilbys lab reports, they will show you that the ONLY method for detecting the "disturbances" of the four fundamental forces is by merely monitoring what goes on with the brain or body through scanners but these scanners are NOT configured or apt enough to detected the four fundamental forces interacting directly!!

So I must ask you, Rhea and Bibly and anyone else who jumped on this band-wagon without giving thought.


WHAT WAS THE APPRATUS, or MACHINE, if existing out there, that would be configured to instantly detect and monitor the actual interactions or non-interactions of the fundamental four forces to humans on the human scale....and in real time?

(May take a while to respond again, because I have to focus time on some crucial things happening here)

 

[bilby]

Sorry about the delay,

During the earlier time discussion, if I recall without going back to the original pages, the first mentioning and post I made of Dr. Egnor and the video title, which implies as it reads, 'the case against materialism.' As I previously stated, I did not say Egnor said anything about souls....

When, and if I mentioned anything about souls, then this would ONLY be from a suggested hypothetical viewpoint I make and NOT A CLAIM! I made the suggestion for conversation, taking from what I saw from the context of the video, the documented experiments by neuro-surgeons, demonstrating cases i.e. the mind is beyond the physical brain etc.

The second mention of the video was a response to Rheas post which also regarded Biblys post of his the "soul catching" experiments that have been done, and showing nothing. So, I mentioned Egnor simply because there seemed to be some results at least, even though these do not prove the existence of souls but there is definitely a need for continous further study investigation.

Further more to your (plural) methods of detecting, the "we haven't detected any interactions" on the human scale & four forces flaw.

Even with both experiments in Egnors lab and Bilbys lab reports, they will show you that the ONLY method for detecting the "disturbances" of the four fundamental forces is by merely monitoring what goes on with the brain or body through scanners but these scanners are NOT configured or apt enough to detected the four fundamental forces interacting directly!!

So I must ask you, Rhea and Bibly and anyone else who jumped on this band-wagon without giving thought.


WHAT WAS THE APPRATUS, or MACHINE, if existing out there, that would be configured to instantly detect and monitor the actual interactions or non-interactions of the fundamental four forces to humans on the human scale....and in real time?

(May take a while to respond again, because I have to focus time on some crucial things happening here)

You are too poorly educated in the essential skills needed for this discussion to be able to contribute meaningfully to it. That's not a moral failing - I would be equally incapable and incompetent to discuss the finer points of Arabic Literature, not because I am stupid, but because I don't speak Arabic.

To even begin to engage in a conversation about Arabic Literature without appearing to be an arrogant fool, first I would need to spend many years becoming fluent in Arabic. Anyone can do this, but it does take years of effort. It's not something you or I could expect to learn by asking a few Arabic speakers questions on an Internet discussion board.

Your grasp of physics is like my grasp of Arabic. I cannot replace your missing years of education on the subject with a couple of quick responses in this thread.

Your parents and educators have doomed you to a life of never understanding this topic, unless you choose to put in years of hard work; Just as mine doomed me to a life of never understanding Arabic unless I choose to put in years of hard work.

The difference is that I know that I am utterly clueless when it comes to understanding Arabic; While you seem to think that your mere knowledge that physics exists qualifies you to understand how it operates. I know Arabic exists; I can recognise it written down; But I don't pretend to be able to comprehend it, if only those who do speak it would answer a couple of simple questions.

Go away and learn the basics. Or remain ignorant and unable to contribute to (or even glean anything from) discussions between those who have learned them.

There is no reason why you can't learn this stuff. But there are plenty of reasons why it's not possible for you to
learn it in this thread.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

WHAT WAS THE APPRATUS, or MACHINE, if existing out there, that would be configured to instantly detect and monitor the actual interactions or non-interactions of the fundamental four forces to humans on the human scale....and in real time?

I'll take desperate pleas for $1600 Mayim.

 

[Learner]

Hopefuly no more theoretical ideas at last? Something more 'concrete' perhaps, especially when offered such incentives.

 

[Learner]

You are too poorly educated in the essential skills needed for this discussion to be able to contribute meaningfully to it. That's not a moral failing - I would be equally incapable and incompetent to discuss the finer points of Arabic Literature, not because I am stupid, but because I don't speak Arabic.

To even begin to engage in a conversation about Arabic Literature without appearing to be an arrogant fool, first I would need to spend many years becoming fluent in Arabic. Anyone can do this, but it does take years of effort. It's not something you or I could expect to learn by asking a few Arabic speakers questions on an Internet discussion board.

Your grasp of physics is like my grasp of Arabic. I cannot replace your missing years of education on the subject with a couple of quick responses in this thread.

Your parents and educators have doomed you to a life of never understanding this topic, unless you choose to put in years of hard work; Just as mine doomed me to a life of never understanding Arabic unless I choose to put in years of hard work.

The difference is that I know that I am utterly clueless when it comes to understanding Arabic; While you seem to think that your mere knowledge that physics exists qualifies you to understand how it operates. I know Arabic exists; I can recognise it written down; But I don't pretend to be able to comprehend it, if only those who do speak it would answer a couple of simple questions.

Go away and learn the basics. Or remain ignorant and unable to contribute to (or even glean anything from) discussions between those who have learned them.

There is no reason why you can't learn this stuff. But there are plenty of reasons why it's not possible for you to
learn it in this thread.

Seven paragraphs of the same rhetoric reveals your deep passion for serious discussion (of sorts).

 

[Elixir]

I am utterly clueless when it comes to understanding Arabic

The tragedy of the modern age is that understanding can be so easily faked that even the fakers believe it.
Their access to information stands in for understanding.


أنا جاهل تمامًا عندما يتعلق الأمر بفهم اللغة العربية
'ana jahil tmaman eindama yataealaq al'amr bifahm allughat alearabia

 

[bilby]

You are too poorly educated in the essential skills needed for this discussion to be able to contribute meaningfully to it. That's not a moral failing - I would be equally incapable and incompetent to discuss the finer points of Arabic Literature, not because I am stupid, but because I don't speak Arabic.

To even begin to engage in a conversation about Arabic Literature without appearing to be an arrogant fool, first I would need to spend many years becoming fluent in Arabic. Anyone can do this, but it does take years of effort. It's not something you or I could expect to learn by asking a few Arabic speakers questions on an Internet discussion board.

Your grasp of physics is like my grasp of Arabic. I cannot replace your missing years of education on the subject with a couple of quick responses in this thread.

Your parents and educators have doomed you to a life of never understanding this topic, unless you choose to put in years of hard work; Just as mine doomed me to a life of never understanding Arabic unless I choose to put in years of hard work.

The difference is that I know that I am utterly clueless when it comes to understanding Arabic; While you seem to think that your mere knowledge that physics exists qualifies you to understand how it operates. I know Arabic exists; I can recognise it written down; But I don't pretend to be able to comprehend it, if only those who do speak it would answer a couple of simple questions.

Go away and learn the basics. Or remain ignorant and unable to contribute to (or even glean anything from) discussions between those who have learned them.

There is no reason why you can't learn this stuff. But there are plenty of reasons why it's not possible for you to
learn it in this thread.

Seven paragraphs of the same rhetoric reveals your deep passion for serious discussion (of sorts).

Yes.

It's entertaining and enjoyable to discuss reality in depth.

Lots of people like Arabic Literature, but it's not my thing.

Lots of people like physics, and I am always happy to discuss the subject with them.

But just as Arabic Literature discussions have no place for people who insist on having strong opinions despite not speaking and refusing to learn Arabic, discussing the nature of reality with people who insist on having strong opinions despite not understanding and refusing to learn physics, is not entertaining.

Crashing an Arabic Literature club as a loud and proud ignoramus would be recognised by most people as incredibly rude and boorish.

Yet here you are...

 

[Elixir]

@Learner you seem to be betraying your username.
Characterizing bilby’s kind advice as “rhetoric” bespeaks unwillingness and/or inability to learn.

 

[Learner]

@Learner you seem to be betraying your username.
Characterizing bilby’s kind advice as “rhetoric” bespeaks unwillingness and/or inability to learn.

Not at all Elixir, I was intrigued with the post which seemed to me, like responding to my post but not really actually answering the question.

 

[Learner]

You are too poorly educated in the essential skills needed for this discussion to be able to contribute meaningfully to it. That's not a moral failing - I would be equally incapable and incompetent to discuss the finer points of Arabic Literature, not because I am stupid, but because I don't speak Arabic.

To even begin to engage in a conversation about Arabic Literature without appearing to be an arrogant fool, first I would need to spend many years becoming fluent in Arabic. Anyone can do this, but it does take years of effort. It's not something you or I could expect to learn by asking a few Arabic speakers questions on an Internet discussion board.

Your grasp of physics is like my grasp of Arabic. I cannot replace your missing years of education on the subject with a couple of quick responses in this thread.

Your parents and educators have doomed you to a life of never understanding this topic, unless you choose to put in years of hard work; Just as mine doomed me to a life of never understanding Arabic unless I choose to put in years of hard work.

The difference is that I know that I am utterly clueless when it comes to understanding Arabic; While you seem to think that your mere knowledge that physics exists qualifies you to understand how it operates. I know Arabic exists; I can recognise it written down; But I don't pretend to be able to comprehend it, if only those who do speak it would answer a couple of simple questions.

Go away and learn the basics. Or remain ignorant and unable to contribute to (or even glean anything from) discussions between those who have learned them.

There is no reason why you can't learn this stuff. But there are plenty of reasons why it's not possible for you to
learn it in this thread.

Seven paragraphs of the same rhetoric reveals your deep passion for serious discussion (of sorts).

Yes.

It's entertaining and enjoyable to discuss reality in depth.

Yes of course, but I would have thought just one paragraph would be suficient, but I suppose you wanted to make sure, I got it. Or was it something else?

Lots of people like Arabic Literature, but it's not my thing.

Lots of people like physics, and I am always happy to discuss the subject with them.

I wanted to learn about the apparatus used as detector, if one existed, and not the usual gathering of data by connecting wires to the brain and body, then formulating some theoretical idea from the data gathered etc. & etc.. Which is not like watching actual recorded footage in process, so to speak.

But just as Arabic Literature discussions have no place for people who insist on having strong opinions despite not speaking and refusing to learn Arabic, discussing the nature of reality with people who insist on having strong opinions despite not understanding and refusing to learn physics, is not entertaining.

I trully wanted to learn why you previously claimed no God was possible, If I correctly got your claim right. Don't know if any physicists make that type of claim, taking on the burden of proof. 'We don't know' or 'there's no evidence' is usually the norm I would have thought.

Crashing an Arabic Literature club as a loud and proud ignoramus would be recognised by most people as incredibly rude and boorish.

Yet here you are...

Rude, I can learn here. People usuualy learn only the rude words in any language, in Arabic too.