Author Topic: A Reminder  (Read 8036 times)

Lord J Esq

  • Moon Stone J
  • Hero of Time (+5000)
  • *
  • Posts: 5463
  • ^_^ "Ayla teach at college level!!"
    • View Profile
Re: A Reminder
« Reply #60 on: September 22, 2009, 12:30:44 am »
No, gathering kittens and ninjas in a room is how you profit. Read the prompt!   :kamina

FaustWolf

  • Guru of Time Emeritus
  • Arbiter (+8000)
  • *
  • Posts: 8972
  • Fan Power Advocate
    • View Profile
Re: A Reminder
« Reply #61 on: September 22, 2009, 02:01:23 am »
Quote from: Lord J
I don't see why one Big Bang should in any way require the agency of a deity in a way that more than one Big Bang should not.
In the case of infinitely successive Big Bangs, you've got all the universe's matter and energy there and ready to go in time for the most recent Big Bang. In the case of a single Big Bang, there's a great big void, and some of us will be tempted to fill that void with a "first cause." Some will ultimately replace "first cause" with "God," and therein lies a spot in scientific studies to which all manner of wondrous religious ideas can potentially cling.

But in the end, I have to agree with you that a "God"'s presence or lack thereof is equally applicable to both models. It's just that the contractionary/expansionary model (the "cyclic model") has a logical advantage in combating theistic interpretation by "trumping" God with something that's already eternal. I wouldn't be so ready to dismiss it either; while Hoyle's Steady State model of the universe appears to no longer be treated seriously, the cyclic model is something separate and appears to be a contender thanks to the Dark Energy Uboa mentioned earlier.

It's dangerous, of course, to claim absolute truth on the basis of things like this that the armchair observer doesn't have a chance at understanding the deeper nuances of, and which the world's greatest minds still disagree on. However, I feel it could be equally dangerous to hesitate bringing up cosmology and other less-understood sciences in our discourse and explore their meaning to us, as long as we make that caveat clear. Shuttering up scientific knowledge, theories, and opinions can only decrease human curiosity relative to a free flow of information and discourse; therefore, if something in science excites us, we should feel free to say what it is, and why it excites us. There's already a huge amount of theory locked in for-pay scientific journals, and I fear that very fact is depriving some individuals the chance encounters that would have made them interested in some scientific field.


As for the processes that would be necessary for everlasting life, this is what I was imagining.

1. Human brain preservation. This is becoming more sophisticated with modern vitrification methods, but we don't know just how good it is at retaining information and human experience either. This is ultimately the great unknown in life extension. I will have to presume that there is no mind/body dichotomy, and that the totality of our awareness is locked into something physical just as sure as our computer hard drives can be turned off and still contain our Word documents when some juice is injected back into them.

Obviously those whose brains become physically destroyed will be incredibly unlucky (if they entertain a desire to experience earthly life infinitely).

2. Nanomachines for the repair of tissues damaged in the presumably imperfect vitrification process, plus for brain mapping, the process of recording the brain's physical structure and thus capturing all life experience accumulated within that brain. So, add ninjas...but really, really small ones.

3. Mind uploading, also something already being discussed in some scientific circles. Given Moore's Law's uncanny ability to fulfill itself, I'd imagine that computers capable of containing a "savestate" of a human brain could come into being even before nanomachines. Currently our best machines can simulate a small portion of a rat's brain.

4. Some process for imprinting the mapped brain structure onto a fresh brain devoid of experience (if the goal is continual human life and not life inside a machine of some sort). The brain could be kept in a vat with glaring eyes connected to it if you like, and it could live like Renee Descarte. Or, hopefully a new body can be grown around the brain.

5. Time travel. This would hypothetically allow for one's escape from the ultimate fate of the universe, if it indeed has an ultimate fate.

6. PROFIT


Points 2, 3, 4, and 5 are probably what some would call "pseudo-scientific mysticism and wishful thinking." I admit that readily, and it is a fair criticism. However, there was once a point in time at which it was perfectly fair to criticize humanity's ability to fly with wings or set foot on the moon on those exact grounds. While those examples are not proof that what has not yet happened will happen, they demonstrate that what has not yet happened may happen. The fact that significant progress has been made on point 1 and there is ongoing (non pseudo) scientific exploration pertinent to points 2 and 3 gives me heart that humanity will transcend every limit currently placed on it, including mortality, if we only have the desire to pursue it.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2009, 02:54:43 am by FaustWolf »

Lord J Esq

  • Moon Stone J
  • Hero of Time (+5000)
  • *
  • Posts: 5463
  • ^_^ "Ayla teach at college level!!"
    • View Profile
Re: A Reminder
« Reply #62 on: September 22, 2009, 03:01:34 am »
It's dangerous, of course, to claim absolute truth on the basis of things like this that the armchair observer doesn't have a chance at understanding the deeper nuances of, and which the world's greatest minds still disagree on. However, I feel it could be equally dangerous to hesitate bringing up cosmology and other less-understood sciences in our discourse and explore their meaning to us, as long as we make that caveat clear. Shuttering up scientific knowledge, theories, and opinions can only decrease human curiosity relative to a free flow of information and discourse; therefore, if something in science excites us, we should feel free to say what it is, and why it excites us. There's already a huge amount of theory locked in for-pay scientific journals, and I fear that very fact is depriving some individuals the chance encounters that would have made them interested in some scientific field.

This side-topic perhaps deserves its own thread. Science really is the instrument of ultimate understanding; to abuse it is unlike anything else. One could perhaps draw a parallel to engineering, where abuse would lead to technological failures. Even now you might well be content to try all kinds of experimental paper airplane designs in your search for the best, but would you feel comfortable being in charge of building an actual modern jetplane, given your current level of expertise in aerospace engineering?

You shouldn't be comfortable, because you're not qualified. So, then: Just because there isn't an airplane to fall out of the sky if someone make a mistake, we should all go ahead and bring these ridiculous cosmological ideas into our discussions on life, the universe, and everything? Even though many of these ideas are not scientific and bear little resemblance to actual cosmology? Even though, owing to their erroneousness, they are likely to obscure the subject rather than illumine it?

Given how little I see people bring up simple science to accentuate their everyday conversations, I am particularly wary when they suddenly bust out into speculative discussions on the very frontier of modern science. What they are saying is science fiction, but it's not treated as fiction: People talk about it as though all their wild ideas were true. That's what troubles me. It's no problem at all to be speculative; that's more like building paper airplanes to see what might happen. But when someone touches the claim of speaking the truth, when in fact they don't know what they're talking about, innocence is lost and anti-intellectualism takes over. Hadriel, an ex-Compendiumite, was the worst when it came to this. He'd talk about wormholes and string vibrations and dark energy as if all those things were perfectly settled science and he had a doctorate to profess them. But I see others make the same mistakes to a lesser degree whenever these kinds of subjects come up.

It is crucial that people be able to distinguish between real scientific knowledge and fantastical make-believe, and that they never use the latter to support claims of fact.

I would hate for people to say, "Oh, it's too much trouble to learn about science." It is a terrible loss for society when individuals come to the conclusion that science belongs only to trained professionals in white coats. Science belongs to everyone one of us, and has its place in our daily lives. We should all be taught, better than we currently are, to understand what the scientific method is and what the principles of good experimentation are. However, we should also be taught to respect that science cannot simply be made up, and that we should always avoid making scientific claims when we don't actually grasp the concepts we are invoking. Science, like an automobile, must be wielded responsibly and with respect...because bad things happen otherwise.

FaustWolf

  • Guru of Time Emeritus
  • Arbiter (+8000)
  • *
  • Posts: 8972
  • Fan Power Advocate
    • View Profile
Re: A Reminder
« Reply #63 on: September 22, 2009, 04:43:56 am »
To be fair, a lot of us have already spent considerable time in environments where cosmology is discussed openly. It's only natural for those who spent more time with Carl Sagan than Big Bird to try and keep up with the latest discoveries and advances once their interest has been sparked, and yes, even to bring that into regular discourse. We should be able to make a distinction between "Hey, I think I know about airplanes, let's build one!" and "Hey, I saw this new theoretical wing design pop up on the Aerodynamics wiki! Could this change air travel one day?"

On another level, we are already well entrenched in a war with cosmology-aided indoctrination. From all sides. These are the people who are trying to build airplanes, or perhaps use the airplanes with a concrete goal to transport people somewhere. I'm sure we can do enough digging to find other sciences that have been so victimized.

I'm clearly unqualified to specify how the universe really works with any certainty, or to propose an official model of my own; but even an armchair enthusiast can develop enough familiarity with the concepts that are out there to tell that both these specific examples are oversimplifications and leave out critical facts and alternative hypotheses, probably to serve ulterior persuasive motives.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2009, 05:01:30 am by FaustWolf »

GenesisOne

  • Bounty Seeker
  • Dimension Crosser (+1000)
  • *
  • Posts: 1215
  • "Time Travel? Possible? Don't make me laugh!"
    • View Profile
Re: A Reminder
« Reply #64 on: September 22, 2009, 01:48:13 pm »
But in the end, I have to agree with you that a "God"'s presence or lack thereof is equally applicable to both models. It's just that the contractionary/expansionary model (the "cyclic model") has a logical advantage in combating theistic interpretation by "trumping" God with something that's already eternal. I wouldn't be so ready to dismiss it either; while Hoyle's Steady State model of the universe appears to no longer be treated seriously, the cyclic model is something separate and appears to be a contender thanks to the Dark Energy Uboa mentioned earlier.

I agree, Wolf.  A Steady State universe model is not to be taken seriously, and for good reason:

The theory ran up against the reality of the observations of the universe. There are no stars greater than 14 billion years old, even though small stars can have a lifetimes greater than 30 billion years. In addition, all the galaxies we see are fully formed. The only "young" galaxies we see are those that are at the limits of the age of the universe (i.e. very far away). In reality, because of relativity, in looking at young galaxies, we are looking at galaxies that were forming only 1 billion years after the Big Bang event (it has taken the light 12 billion years to reach the earth). Because of these problems, there are virtually no cosmologists today who believe in the steady state universe.

That said, I now have to swing the pendulum back and say that the cyclic model (aka the Oscillating Universe) doesn't hold water under scrutiny either, and for good reason:

The ability of the universe to oscillate is dependent upon a certain critical mass. This critical mass is required to slow the expansion of the universe and force a contraction. If this total mass is not present, which seems likely, then the universe will continue to expand into eternity. Even if there were enough mass to cause the universe, the result of that collapse would be a "Big Crunch" as opposed to another Big Bang.  

The reason that the universe would not "bounce" if it were to contract is that the universe is extremely inefficient (entropic). In fact, the universe is so inefficient that the bounce resulting from the collapse of the universe would be only 0.00000001% of the original Big Bang. Such a small "bounce" would result in an almost immediate re-collapse of the universe into one giant black hole for the rest of eternity.

Check out this article for more reference.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v302/n5908/abs/302505a0.html

It's an MIT Professor.  That should at least provide some credibility, right?

To date, the Big Bang theory is the most credible and well-supported theory for the origins of the universe.  However, there have been objections to it:

"Apart from being philosophically unacceptable, the Big-Bang is an over-simple view of how the Universe began, and it is unlikely to survive the decade ahead."
(Maddox, John 1989. Down with the Big Bang. Nature  340: 425)

"...smacks of divine intervention."
(Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time).

And there's this one bit from Christopher Isham:

"Perhaps the best argument in favor of the thesis that the Big Bang supports theism is the obvious unease with which it is greeted by some atheist physicists. At times this has led to scientific ideas, such as continuous creation [steady state] or an oscillating universe, being advanced with a tenacity which so exceeds their intrinsic worth that one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his/her theory."

(Isham, C. 1988. "Creation of the Universe as a Quantum Process," in Physics, Philosophy, and Theology, A Common Quest for Understanding, eds. R. J. Russell, W. R. Stoeger, and G. V. Coyne, Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory, p. 378)

What says you, FW?

FaustWolf

  • Guru of Time Emeritus
  • Arbiter (+8000)
  • *
  • Posts: 8972
  • Fan Power Advocate
    • View Profile
Re: A Reminder
« Reply #65 on: September 22, 2009, 02:57:33 pm »
I think cosmology is so easily wrapped up in philosophical goals and wish fulfillment on either side that we need to give the science some room to breathe, without trying to crush specific theories unduly. Alternative theories need to compete freely for survival amidst gradually acquired evidence. Since both you and J have the impression that even the most recent cyclic models are becoming outdated in the face of accumulating observational evidence, I will review the available criticism of it for my own edification. Therein lies some worth to discussing these things.

I don't mean to get into a huge argument and swing around concepts I don't have the mathematical tools to investigate first hand; I just want some five year old Chrono fan to see the confusion and the wonder and decide to go into cosmological science so s/he can figure it out once and for all. That is my goal.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2009, 03:35:04 pm by FaustWolf »

Thought

  • Guru of Time Emeritus
  • God of War (+3000)
  • *
  • Posts: 3426
    • View Profile
Re: A Reminder
« Reply #66 on: September 22, 2009, 03:09:28 pm »
We should be able to make a distinction between "Hey, I think I know about airplanes, let's build one!" and "Hey, I saw this new theoretical wing design pop up on the Aerodynamics wiki! Could this change air travel one day?"

If I might make a different analogy: we have awoken to find ourselves on a plane that is already in flight. There is no pilot around, but a few of the other passengers have, through careful experimentation, figured out how a few switches in the cockpit function, and maybe have a few guesses at what is keeping the plane aloft, but no one’s mastered the controls. We can either sit down, saying we don’t know how the plane flies (or even what principles are keeping it aloft), or we can get in the cockpit and use what little we know to the best we can. Our actions might doom us all, but our inaction certainly will.

Further, on what grounds do you assume that, in a multiverse, there would be a permeable boundary between constituent universes?

Because if there is ever a way to prove that the multiverse exists, then there would have to be some way to observe it either directly or indirectly, yes? If we can observe something, it tends to mean that interactions with it are possible. Thus if we can every prove it, we can use it. Probably.

Additionally, the multiverse has been used to explain where dark energy/matter are. They’re in another universe that is effecting ours.

If we can’t observe, then it is a moot point all together. The multiverse might be there but we have no way of knowing, so no means of interaction, and no reason to even pursue interactions. We can't prove its there, after all.

But I must apologize. When someone says something is impossible, my first instinct is to start imagining ways that they are wrong. In this case it was a bit of a bird-walk.

I'm not immediately aware of the specific "theological implication" to which you are referring.

It is that the universe seems to have required "fine tuning" to exist as it does. If I am recalling correctly, given the range of variables that effected the start of the universe (and everything since), there is somewhere around 101000 possible outcomes, with only a handful producing one anywhere like ours (the vast majority should produce universes that fail to start, or ones that start but never develop).

Of course, there is the analogy of the intelligent puddle that attempts to address this oddity. If the universe didn't happen to produce life, we wouldn't be around to realize that it didn't. This is like a puddle that imagines the hole it inhabits was created just for it, because it fits it so well. The problem with that analogy is, while it legitimately urges us to be cautious, there truly are some puddles that find themselves in holes that were created just for them. We tend to call these puddles “swimming pools.”

The statistics seem to imply that our universe, being like it is, is significant; the P value is ridiculously low. However, with an n=1, the statistics are also ridiculously shaky and no reasonable conclusion can be drawn. But it is enough to allow reasonably-intelligent people to continue to believe in a divine origin of the universe. Even if it isn’t true, it gives enough room for it to be supposed.

Which is why the multiverse is such an attractive concept to some scientists. Instead of a single roll of the dice producing a livable universe against unimaginable odds, there were an unimaginable number of dice rolls to overcome these odds, once again seemingly removing even the faintest whiff of the divine. And of course, a cyclical brane model for the multiverse would indicate that not only is there one multiverse, but that multiverses keep getting created again and again and again, not only allowing for our universe to exist, but essentially necessitating it (a non-cyclical brane model would still have multiple multiverses, but those would be of a finite number). But... then we start getting the problem of Boltzmann brains. Totally improbable things become reality when given enough chances; indeed, the improbable should outnumber the probable, so it would actually be more likely that we popped into existence as-is a few seconds ago with memories of a developing world (that never actually existed), rather than the universe as we know it developing on its own.

Ah, philosophy, is there anything it can’t suppose is false on a whim?

That said, I now have to swing the pendulum back and say that the cyclic model (aka the Oscillating Universe) doesn't hold water under scrutiny either, and for good reason.

One of the great advantages of the cyclic model, however, is that we don't have the problem of what caused the big bang. As soon as all matter and energy gets recompressed into a geometric point, it explodes again. Without that, we have the problem of all the matter and energy in the universe existing in a "cosmic egg" for an infinite amount of "time" before the big bang. What caused it to change? Is change even possible before the big bang? Is time even possible? Is “is” even possible?!

To note, theories regarding the multiverse also tend to have this advantage.

The big crunch under a cyclical model, if it happened, could be very efficient if it would be drawing in everything that was expelled beforehand. One might suppose that some energy or matter would escape the big crunch; that is certainly a possibility, but space isn't a constant. As the universe contracts, space too would be contracting, so anything that was too far away would be drawn back in as well, just because the space between it and this super black hole (I will call it... the Omega Hole) would shrink. Now I know that this goes in the face of what that article you linked to claimed, so I will admit that I am very likely overlooking something. This MIT professor seems to assume that something is being lost with every "bounce" of the universe. Given my limited knowledge of the topic, I am unable to identify what would be lost, where it would go, or why it wouldn't be retrieved.

The answer to the beginning of the universe may well be as the BioLogos foundation notes:

Quote
The common sense assumption that everything must have a cause or a reason to be as it is also suffers from what is called the fallacy of composition. This fallacy comes about when we assume that properties of the parts apply to the whole. For example, just because every member of the human race has a mother, we cannot infer that the human race itself has a mother. Similarly, a collection of spherical things would not itself have to be spherical. In discussions about the origins of the universe, we would say that just because every individual part of the universe has a cause, that does not mean that the entire universe has a cause.

As a side note, even if there was a failed big crunch, things wouldn't end in a black hole; even that would evaporate eventually. Heat Death for the win!

I will have to presume that there is no mind/body dichotomy, and that the totality of our awareness is locked into something physical just as sure as our computer hard drives can be turned off and still contain our Word documents when some juice is injected back into them.

Oddly enough, zombies have been used by philosophers to explore that very possibility (well… p-zombies). I'm not going anywhere with that comment, I just found it random-yet-interesting enough to be worth sharing.

Quote from: Thought
Additionally, while I generally accept the Christian belief that Jesus is the only means of salvation, I also reject the notion that only those exposed to one of the gospels (or in general someone who has heard the name “Jesus”) will make it to heaven.

Admittedly I am little surprised that you believe Jesus is the only means to salvation, in some form or another.  Could you elaborate on what you mean by this?

First, allow me to establish this stance in the common form and then explain how I differ. However, I must stress that these comments are from "inside" a religion, which means that certain religious concepts are assumed to be correct. Thus I must ask the read to suspend disbelief to a degree for a little while.

A basic Christian tenant is the need for salvation. Some believe that this is due to original sin, though I reject such a notion on scriptural grounds as well as rational ones (which, in the context of religion, may be an oxymoron, but as I said, “suspension of disbelief”). For me, salvation is necessitated due to individual "sins," with sin being defined as essentially "that which turns away from God." Anywho, that isn’t particularly important for the present. While it is possible for a human to live in a sinless manner, it tends to be incredibly unlikely (happening somewhere around 2 or 3 times, as recorded in the bible at least). A crime committed is a crime that must be atoned for, which is why I tend to reject the notion that if you are "just a good person" you'll go to heaven. "Good" is the baseline, that which is required. Something needs to atone for the deficit created by crimes. Jesus then, in some manner, satisfies that need.

This is one of those points where Christianity comes across as a hindrance to critical thinking; Christians don't know exactly why Jesus' time on earth and death were needed. Why couldn't God just wave his hand and forgive everyone? Why was pain and suffering needed? Individual Christians sometimes have personal answers to these questions, but there isn't a universally or even widely accepted dogma to this effect. There are indeed a great number of Christians who can't give you an answer at all. My particular answer involves time travel (more or less). But be that as it may, the belief goes on in that while other sacrifices might alleviate a little bit of culpability, there is really only one that does the job fully and eternally. Thus, in order to completely atone for sins (those in the present, future, or past) one would need to accept Jesus' sacrifice.

Why it doesn't count regardless of if someone accepts it or not is a very simple matter, but one that often gets brought up so allow me to address it. If I give you a thousand dollars, you can't very well spend it if you don't first accept it. Like that, like this.

This generally leads a great many Christians to the belief that one has to hear the literal gospel as contained in the Christian bible and specifically "accept Jesus Christ as their lord and savior" for God to cut them in on the deal. This is supported by particular interpretations of various bible verses, such as when Jesus claims that he is "the way, the truth, and the light; no one comes to the father except through" him.

I find this stance to often be a stumbling block for a lot of people. Darwin rebelled against his earlier Christian faith because he could not tolerate the belief that a good God would send good people to hell just because they didn't happen to pray a special prayer. Indeed, this stance does cause a problem: what of people who have never been exposed to Christian religion (either because they lived before Jesus, or they live in a part of the world that hasn't been exposed to it yet)? If one accepts a strict stance on this topic, one must generally believe that God condemns them through no fault of their own, which is against the common-but-not-universal Christian belief in free will.

Now my own stance on this matter is largely summarized in the Chronicles of Narnia. Names aren’t important but intent is key. Anyone who earnestly seeks for the divine will find a connection to God and the will be sort of “grandfathered” into the salvation that Jesus provides. Now this isn't just me being an apostate without cause; particular interpretations of scripture support this stance (for example, it is stated the Jewish patriarchs are saved, even though they had no idea who Jesus was; they were quite literally "grandfathered in." Likewise, Jesus states that anyone who seeks for him will find him, in a non-literal but still meaningful sense. And others). One might suppose that if an ethereal connection is all that is necessary, then an exact connection through the gospels is extraneous and could be done away with. I reject such an assumption based on detailed knowledge being better and more useful than merely a working understanding. See above regarding my airplane analogy. I’m a big proponent of using what you have but adjusting your thinking on the fly.

But the effective end result is that while I get to believe that Christianity is "right," I am not required to believe that all non-Christians are damned for all time. Though, this is such a convenient stance that I have often wondered if it is nothing more than wishful thinking. So far my theological pursuits seem to uphold it, but as I said, my beliefs are constantly evolving.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2009, 05:45:22 pm by Thought »

GenesisOne

  • Bounty Seeker
  • Dimension Crosser (+1000)
  • *
  • Posts: 1215
  • "Time Travel? Possible? Don't make me laugh!"
    • View Profile
Re: A Reminder
« Reply #67 on: September 22, 2009, 04:26:41 pm »
Quote
One of the great advantages of the cyclic model, however, is that we don't have the problem of what caused the big bang. As soon as all matter and energy gets recompressed into a geometric point, it explodes again. Without that, we have the problem of all the matter and energy in the universe existing in a "cosmic egg" for an infinite amount of "time" before the big bang. What caused it to change? Is change even possible before the big bang? Is time even possible? Is “is” even possible?!

Yes, it is possible .  The Big Bang model allows for the creation of time as a dimension at 0 to 10-43 second.  We know only that at least 9 dimensions of space existed as what is called singularity. All of the universe-to-be existed as a point of no volume. Time as we know it was created.

Quote
To note, theories regarding the multiverse also tend to have this advantage.

But the multiverse theory lacks something that all hypotheses require: empirical testability, which without hard physical evidence is unfalsifiable.  This theory lies outside the methodology of scientific investigation to confirm or disprove.

Then there’s Occam’s Razor.  Need I say more?

Quote
The big crunch under a cyclical model, if it happened, could be very efficient if it would be drawing in everything that was expelled beforehand. One might suppose that some energy or matter would escape the big crunch; that is certainly a possibility, but space isn't a constant. As the universe contracts, space too would be contracting, so anything that was too far away would be drawn back in as well, just because the space between it and this super black hole (I will call it... the Omega Hole) would shrink. Now I know that this goes in the face of what that article you linked to claimed, so I will admit that I am very likely overlooking something. This MIT professor seems to assume that something is being lost with every "bounce" of the universe. Given my limited knowledge of the topic, I am unable to identify what would be lost, where it would go, or why it wouldn't be retrieved.

Perhaps, except the universe, as an entropic engine, is very inefficient. The universe has a mechanical efficiency of 1/100,000,000 of a percent. Engineers in the audience will tell you that anytime an engine falls below a 1% mechanical efficiency, it will not oscillate. The universe falls 8 orders of magnitude short of that limit. Therefore, it’s physically (to an extent) impossible.

The multiverse sounds scientific, but it is really philosophical wishful thinking, since there is no evidence supporting the idea. If one really thinks about it, the multiverse is impossible over the entire period of eternity (which is what atheists would propose for the age of the "invisible" part of our universe - if such a thing exists at all). The problem is that our part of the multiverse has managed to make itself completely inaccessible to contraction and future expansion. If it were possible for one part of the multiverse to become thermodynamically dead, it would be expected to be possible for others. Even if entry into such a state is extremely unlikely, eternity is a very, very long time. Certainly by now (over all eternity), the entire multiverse would have entered into one of these thermodynamically dead zones. So, one would expect the entire multiverse to have suffered thermodynamic death by now. Therefore, it makes absolutely no sense that the universe is eternal with the characteristics that we observe.


What says you , Wolf?

KebreI

  • Errare Explorer (+1500)
  • *
  • Posts: 1607
  • A true man never dies, even when he's killed
    • View Profile
Re: A Reminder
« Reply #68 on: September 22, 2009, 05:04:50 pm »
Perhaps, except the universe, as an entropic engine, is very inefficient. The universe has a mechanical efficiency of 1/100,000,000 of a percent. Engineers in the audience will tell you that anytime an engine falls below a 1% mechanical efficiency, it will not oscillate. The universe falls 8 orders of magnitude short of that limit. Therefore, it’s physically (to an extent) impossible.

The multiverse sounds scientific, but it is really philosophical wishful thinking, since there is no evidence supporting the idea. If one really thinks about it, the multiverse is impossible over the entire period of eternity (which is what atheists would propose for the age of the "invisible" part of our universe - if such a thing exists at all). The problem is that our part of the multiverse has managed to make itself completely inaccessible to contraction and future expansion. If it were possible for one part of the multiverse to become thermodynamically dead, it would be expected to be possible for others. Even if entry into such a state is extremely unlikely, eternity is a very, very long time. Certainly by now (over all eternity), the entire multiverse would have entered into one of these thermodynamically dead zones. So, one would expect the entire multiverse to have suffered thermodynamic death by now. Therefore, it makes absolutely no sense that the universe is eternal with the characteristics that we observe.

I just want to point out that there was a single original idea there, thpse were a direct quote from Hugh Ross and Rich Deem. At least give credit dude.



Edit: Not trying to sound accusatory, sorry.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2009, 05:13:54 pm by KebreI »

Uboa

  • Acacia Deva (+500)
  • *
  • Posts: 587
    • View Profile
Re: A Reminder
« Reply #69 on: September 23, 2009, 09:29:45 am »
There is nothing supernatural or magical about our brains or our bodies. Wondrous though they are, they are absolutely mundane, and knowable.

I am backtracking here to a point which, on the surface, I had no problem with.  But, something about this actually caused me to stew for the past couple of days.  Looking at Lord J's post again, I don't know that I should be disquieted at all by it, because my gut reaction to this quote is probably way out of line considering his intentions.  Still, I can't shake this feeling that I should offer a caveat to this, because I feel like the word "knowable" as it sits there is only presenting half, if that, of a very important whole picture which is often neglected in the context of the debate that was at hand here.

I wonder if this is one of those things where one would have to be raised at least partially in a new atheist community to understand.  I don't think that this issue I'm about to raise applies to atheism as a whole, but specifically to the new atheist movement with which I've already made my grievances known.  The reason for that is the new atheists have this tendency to portray science as this all-powerful force with which all problems can be solved and everything can be known, and my understanding is that they do so in order to counter the influence of the supposed all-powerful and all-knowing gods of religion.  I'm aware it's no coincidence that my reaction to J's statement stems from my distaste for the new atheism, as J's statement was given to counter the powerful idea of the afterlife.  But, like the all-powerful portrayal of science in the new atheism, the word "knowable", to me, is a misrepresentation of the actual state of our relationship to ourselves and our surroundings, because it conveniently leaves out a great deal of what we have to contend with in our lives and negates the impact and profoundity of that contention.

It seems to me that most people, religions, and institutions built upon ideas do not sufficiently respect the concept of the unknown.  Religions often try to justify certain beliefs with the "gaps", the unknowns, of our scientific understanding, and often seek to blanket part or all of existence in the "known" that is their set of beliefs.  Individual persons have a hard time admitting their lack of knowledge to themselves and others, despite that proceeding as though they know something they do not will only lead to a great deal of trouble.  Particular branches of academia do not sufficiently address gaps in our understanding of how things work, and don't prepare students for dealing with unknowns which could destroy themselves professionally as well as devastate others.  All of this seems like a terrible and wasteful avoidance mechanism, and all because there's this tendency to cling to what we know in the battlegrounds of our ideologies.  We want to believe that what we know is best, so we find ways of bolstering our supposed knowledge in our spare time instead of challenging ourselves.

We are born into a great unknown, and I don't think there has been a person who has died in the history of humanity that has made but a dent in that unknown on their own.  Buddha, Einstein, and Galileo, with their profound insights, still only scratched the surface in the grand scheme of things.  Consider, they were lucky, as circumstance allowed them more leaps in insight than most on this earth will ever be blessed with.  Most of us do not have the luxury of a life that will lead to great insight.  Still, we spend our lives gathering knowledge, making connections, and processing data to know the world as we need to, but the imperfections of these processes often find ways to grind us to a halt in our lives.  We also often grind to a halt when we encounter a new and strange situation, one for which our preparation up to that particular point in our life has little to offer us. 

These instances in our lives are often painful and worrisome.  But as upsetting as these events may be, when you think about it, this is the contention with the unknown that essentially makes us who we are, or evolves our understanding of ourselves.  I'm waxing into the personal realm, into the field of individual experience, because in this realm the most important knowledge we can gain is through this contention.  From our earliest days we contend with the great unknown, and children who are denied this contention in some form or another are often permanently at a loss for it.  If we spend our days in the comfortable, and realistically, often uncomfortable realms of what we know, we lose our tenacity, and we lose chances at obtaining valuable understanding.  On the other hand, if we make a habit of grappling with things we do not understand, or if we make a habit of trying things with which we have no previous experience, we uncover a much fuller potential for ourselves.  We also stand to augment our existing knowledge tremendously.  Individuals can often gain perspective of psychological damage and hangups through life-changing encounters the (up to that point) unknown, and this perspective would not have come without said encounter, or it would have come at a much slower rate. 

The point that sparked my need to divulge all of my concern here is essentially this:  It troubles me deeply that those who use science to make such a hard stand against religion with the intention of broadening minds have this tendency to get caught up in science's, ironically, brilliant and profound successes in the expansion of our realm of knowledge.  Again, I understand why they do this, but too often they don't know when to hit the off switch, so to speak.  An image of this flaw which has haunted me over several years is that of children in a "Free Thought" church learning to work circuit boards during Sunday school.  "That's great!" some may be tempted to say, however I couldn't help but feel the opposite way.  Instead, I felt that the minds of those children were not being challenged in such a way that would be more beneficial to them.  They, and their parents, were comfortably exploring the realms of the known with which scientific advancement has blessed us.  In an activities or hobbyist group that would be fine, but in a progressive Sunday school setting I couldn't help but feel as though I was witnessing an opportunity for important critical thinking being cast aside in favor of bolstering the truths revealed by science, perhaps so the children would not be tempted to be led astray by religion.

The capacity for knowledge from scientific discovery makes us a ridiculously powerful species, and one could say too powerful if we're unable to harness that knowledge in a way that won't lead to our demise.  True, this knowledge helps those blessed enough to be aided by it to live longer, healthier, and happier lives.  But, the fact remains that in the big picture of human experience, scientific knowledge comprises only a tiny part of that picture to any experiencer outside the realm of the study of hard sciences.  The comfortable knowns in our lives, from a subjective point of view, are not the most memorable or notable points to us.  If they are, then that seems to me to be a sign of lacking perspective and dangerous stagnation.  However, reflections on a life in proper perspective will likely hold meetings with the unknown and the outcomes of those meetings which are of most importance, because they are what shape who we are on a very deep level.

Believe it or not, it really is not my intention to accuse Lord J of the fault that I find with the new atheism.  Right or wrong on my part, it was this minute point that he made that caused me to reflect extensively on my own conflicted feelings toward using science, or "knowledge" at large, to counter religion due to the strange light in which this endeavor often casts science/knowledge.  I was actually troubled enough to the point where I had to say something to get this off my chest, something which is entirely a reflection of the depth of my own grievances.  Read this as a side note, not a point in a debate.

Lord J Esq

  • Moon Stone J
  • Hero of Time (+5000)
  • *
  • Posts: 5463
  • ^_^ "Ayla teach at college level!!"
    • View Profile
Re: A Reminder
« Reply #70 on: September 20, 2011, 11:29:02 pm »
I was looking for an appropriate religion thread to put a post about religious charity, and I found this thread. It's not the right fit for my charity post, but it's a quality thread! I am bumping it for new Compendiumites.

Truthordeal

  • Dimension Crosser (+1000)
  • *
  • Posts: 1133
  • Dunno what's supposed to go here. Oh now I see.
    • View Profile
    • Youtube Account
Re: A Reminder
« Reply #71 on: September 21, 2011, 01:26:24 am »
I was looking for an appropriate religion thread to put a post about religious charity, and I found this thread. It's not the right fit for my charity post, but it's a quality thread! I am bumping it for new Compendiumites.

I checked the dating on the first time I posted here. It was exactly two years ago tonight. That being said, I'm taking another crack at this. In the two years since I first posted on this board, I've been through two years at a Christian liberal arts college, met some people I feel are truly enlightened, and some whose views and the way they expressed them revolted me so much that they made me really think about how I stand in this whole "God" thing, as well as a few other areas. In other words, I've grown up a bit since last you saw me, and a heck of a lot since the last time I posted in a thread like this one. I've changed a bit, so I feel my answer from two years ago needs changing. And now that I'm a distance from home, I've been able to process situations that were difficult to wrap my head around when I was back downstate.

I'm trying not to read too much of my old answers to avoid cheating, but here it goes.

1. When it comes to religion/spirituality, what do you believe, if anything?

I still believe in the Christian concept of God. I still believe in the divinity and sacrifice of Jesus. I still believe that God is not an interventionaist deity. He'd rather sit back in his cosmic rocking chair and sip iced tea(for it is the nectar of the gods) than deal with our petty squabbles. I also believe that He is the creator; He created everyone and everything. He got the ball rolling for evolution. Humans are the apex right now, but we still have a long way before we can emulate the ideals of his Son, Jesus Christ.

Suffering is still caused by human will. Actions or inaction determine this. That being said, He is a god of justice. Our job in this world is to act as stewards. We all have a duty to leave this world a better place than we left it. I came to this conclusion after re-reading the New Testament, particularly the Gospels and the Parable of the Talents. How you go about doing that depends on your individual gift. If you help to progress the world, you'll have a spot in Paradise when your life is over.

I'm still as flippant about religion as always though, constantly lampooning it. In retrospect, this probably has to do with the almost Quaker-level modesty which I've approached the subject; I tend to see wearing your spirituality on your sleeve as obnoxious or ostentatious. That's why I never use "cuz the bible sed so" as a reason to do something.

I remember asking about the afterlife in this thread, and now's confession time. For the longest time, mostly when I was younger, I was clinging to the concept of God because I was scared of death. In that time, I deconverted, reconverted, then found myself faced with the same issue. I read a Steven Hawking book recently where he made the case that there is no God, and there's no purpose for him. After reading it, I considered the possibility that there was no God, and still felt very calm and good about the concept of having no afterlife.

Obviously, I'm still a Christian today, so that's not the end of the story. It's just where I feel like leaving off for now.


2. How did you come to believe it?


As you can probably tell, I've switched from a morally driven mindset to a justice driven one. We have to do what's right, not what's adequate. The status quo is unacceptable in many different ways and we all need to work to change it. I made this jump in mindsets, as I mentioned before, from re-reading the New Testament, and experiencing things through the collegiate-intellectual world, and especially seeing how taking a neutral stance can often lead to regression.

My first real experience with the latter happened in, fittingly enough, a critical thinking class. The professor set up a blog for us to discuss noteworthy news items on. One day he posted a question about whether or not we believed homosexuals were living in sin and...well, I forget how he worded the rest of it. Point is, I was the studious one in the class, so I left a decent explanation of why I didn't think that was the case: how Jesus never mentions it, how Paul probably didn't have the same understanding of the matter that we do today, etc. Given that I was in the middle of evangelicals, I expected a few people would say I was wrong, but that wasn't the case. Most of the people did that. And their only argument was from Leviticus of all places. When I responded that they were going to hell for wearing a polyester blend I got a deluge(felt the word was necessary, given the place) of comments back saying that I should be more civil.

And that's when I realized Lord J was right. Sometimes you have to hammer logic into people, at least in an intellectual setting. Bigotry and ignorance won't go away on their own and while I have to live with it in some cases(friends, family) in situations where intellectual integrity is at stake, I cannot.

It's worth pointing out that the New Testament reading came before this. I had the notion for a while that community service was the way to improve the world. Now I'm not so sure that's enough for me.

Everything in my previous post was from my start to then, so I think I'll leave that unchanged.


3. Do your parents (or did they when alive) believe the same?


Sorry, digression time.

When I was teacher shadowing at a high school this past year, my cohort teacher had an empty period for an hour, so I went next door to help a Biology teacher with his class for that period. As you can imagine, one day the theory of evolution came up. One student asked, verbatim, "how does this fit in with God?"

My point with that is, I'm glad I never grew up in a context where that was an issue. Even in southern South Carolina, one of the most conservative states in the union. I've come to the conclusion now that my dad is pretty irreligious. He learned all the facts and trivia in Bible school, but doesn't really care for the religion aspect itself.

My mother's still an atheist, my grandparents are still SBC, and The Woman My Father MarriedTM still does not matter to me.

But since then my dad and my step-mom have gotten married and I've learned a good bit about her side of the family. Her mom and step-dad are both Nazarenes, from, what I can tell, is a very Gospel-driven, community type church. When it comes to their religion, they are very smart. Unlike most Christians who are functionally agnostic, these people are both functionally and spiritually with Christ. They're very anti-judgmental; the type that are really driven on the love-aspect of Jesus' teachings. It's really a great thing to be around, especially when you're around as many of the opposite types of Christians as I am up here.

So, yes and no. My parents were very casual about religion during my upbringing, and I know my mother doesn't believe it(she still supports me from afar though). My dad probably does, but he's not an outwardly religious person. My new grandparents from marriage do, and so does my step-mom.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2011, 01:29:27 am by Truthordeal »