Proof (Blog)

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Cron

I mean this with no offense and no negative emotions, but I think that attitude is ridiculous.

in other areas of your life you wouldn't let someone tell you something way out there and accept "proof, who cares?" as a response.......unless you were a literal fool.

That's funny, because I think that an attitude of requiring proof from someone who tells me something that's way out there is ridiculous! No offense meant or negative emotions on this side, either.

If a man tells me that each of the cells in his body is run by its own individual elf, and all the cell elves get together every Groundhog Day to optimize operations, do you think I should require proof from him that it's true? Do you think I should try to prove him wrong? I don't see how that would add anything to either his life or mine -- proof, who cares?

Likewise with a woman tells me that she's had some exciting experiences with out of body experiences, or speaking with dead relatives, or experiencing a waking-like consciousness inside of a dream. What good would proof do me? Proof -- who cares?

My having that attitude makes you believe that I'm a literal fool (as opposed to a figurative fool? ) and that's fine with me. Why would I want to prove otherwise? Who cares?

[cdn2wheeler]

Originally Posted by Angela

If a man tells me that each of the cells in his body is run by its own individual elf, and all the cell elves get together every Groundhog Day to optimize operations, do you think I should require proof from him that it's true? Do you think I should try to prove him wrong? I don't see how that would add anything to either his life or mine -- proof, who cares?

It matters when the guy gets sick and is in the hospital. If the docs start chasing after elves, or trying to keep the guy in a more-or-less living state until Groundhog Day, well, yea, it matters.

Originally Posted by Angela

Likewise with a woman tells me that she's had some exciting experiences with out of body experiences, or speaking with dead relatives, or experiencing a waking-like consciousness inside of a dream. What good would proof do me? Proof -- who cares?

It matters when this woman gets duped by a so-called "psychic" who says, in effect, "Pay me a lot of money even though you can't afford it and are living on cat food. For a substantial fee I can help you come to terms with the fact that your relative died."

[Angela]

Originally Posted by cdn2wheeler

It matters when the guy gets sick and is in the hospital. If the docs start chasing after elves, or trying to keep the guy in a more-or-less living state until Groundhog Day, well, yea, it matters.

Not to me. If the guy were a danger to himself or to others, it would matter to me to get a professional involved. But it would make absolutely no positive difference in this situation for me to require and demand proof from Mr. Cell Elf. In fact, I would say it would probably cause problems in this case. Even if I were a doctor, I don't think my treatment would require him proving his belief or me proving to him that he's wrong. Do you?

It matters when this woman gets duped by a so-called "psychic" who says, in effect, "Pay me a lot of money even though you can't afford it and are living on cat food. For a substantial fee I can help you come to terms with the fact that your relative died."

It's not my job to make choices for people. If I believed my elderly neighbor
was being conned in a scam, what might make a difference is letting her know what I've learned about scams, and asking her to consider letting me help her extricate herself. I also might notify the authorities. But again, demanding and requiring proof of any sort from my elderly neighbor or from the psychic would make no positive difference.

Action might make a difference in any of your "what-if" situations, but demanding or requiring proof is not an action that would make a positive difference.

[tekomino]

Angela, IMO as soon as you start voicing opinions publicly people will engage you in discussion, debate what you said, ask for clarification and proof. It is normal, we all do that. Best way to avoid this is to keep opinions for yourself...

[Angela]

Originally Posted by tekomino

Best way to avoid this is to keep opinions for yourself...

Tekomino, why would would I want to avoid this?

[Mr.Mustache]

Originally Posted by Tynan

As for virtual particle pairs - this is why they are PAIRs. The two halves balance each other in every way (charge, etc). Once again nature avoids breaking conservation laws. Otherwise space itself would glow with new energy all the time.

Thank you for the clarification.

Originally Posted by Tynan

The life forms to follow the laws. Not the other way around.

I'm not sure what you mean by this exactly.

Originally Posted by Tynan

Also note that there are many modern physics theories that posit multiple universes. Under this model, most universes are empty of life. We think ours is perfect for it because it just happens to be the one that we are in. But it's not that improbable because there is either a very large number or an infinite number of universes.

That is one theory yes. Is it easier to believe in a trillion useless universe just for the sake of refuting the fine-tuning argument or to accept it? The multiverse hypothesis is fringe but my argument is not.

Originally Posted by Tynan

These observations are much more easily explained as hallucinations than as verifiable experiences. If we are following Occam's Razor here, there is no reason to believe that consciousness can exist outside a brain.

I think you would like to think that it would be easier to explain them away as hallucinations but in many cases the "consciousness creates the experience" hypothesis doesn't fit the bill. Based on the evidence it is far easier to believe consciousness can exist outside the brain.

Originally Posted by Tynan

Try to understand that the big bang posits a small beginning of spacetime. Not space. Time itself did not exist 'before' the big bang. The concept of 'before' the big bang is meaningless.

This is the opinion of Stephen Hawking but not all feel this way. It is true that before the big bang the concept of linear time would be meaningless but contemporary physics allows for speculation beyond the confines of finite time. That argument used to refute the first cause is simply an "out". There is no evidence of energy appearing from nowhere so the concept of some kind of energy outside of space-time as we know it is worth considering.

Originally Posted by Tynan

What I do know is that 'the universe just was' is a hell of a lot SIMPLER than the god hypothesis (any of its many variations). Once again, if we're following Occam's Razor, God is as unnecessary as the dragon in the garage.

How so? If we are following occams razor the insane amount of cosmic coincidence it would take to be an atheist is a little extreme in my opinion. I think randomness as argument is absurd.

Originally Posted by Tynan

Also note that the big bang theory is not a philosophical idea. It is an expression of mathematical models which have been developed to match our observations of our universe very precisely. If we take these models (which consist of an expanding spacetime universe governed by relativistic laws) and extrapolate them backwards, we find a point of infinite density and temperature and a universe of zero size about 13 billion years ago. At this point our models break down.

Exactly. The closer mathematically physicist get to the first moment of the big bang our concepts of space and time break down. That refutes the claim that it is "meaningless to ask what came before the big bang". Like I said it is meaningless in terms of cause and effect rendering the who created god argument illogical.

Originally Posted by Tynan

Note a continuous Occam's Razor theme here. I'm saying that many beliefs are UNNECESSARY, not that they are provably wrong. They are not disprovable because they don't make real predictions. This means they contain no information. Better to forget them completely. They're just cluttering your brain.

Likewise my friend. The atheist/materialist world view is followed like a dogma to the point of absurdity.

[Dan.Linehan]

Here's a high-level overview of the different dimensions and multiverses.

Imagining the Tenth Dimension

[Dan.Linehan]

"But when do I get to meet God?"

Originally Posted by Erin Pavlina

Just look in the mirror, right now. Go ahead, I’ll wait. There, you saw him/her/it. It’s really that simple people. You’re a projection of one aspect of God. If you believe in subjective reality then you’re just God focusing on you right now and that’s why it seems like you’re you and he’s him and she’s well… nevermind. The point is, God is within you. God is you. You are God. Learn that now and you can save yourself years of having to eat baby food. Big plus in my book.

Still the best answer in my book, atheist or not.

Know thyself.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

Complexity implies moving parts, how the gears mesh.

I don't follow...

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

I don't know what god is but I know what god is not ie a machine or physical object.

Really? God couldn't be a machine or physical object in a universe separate from ours? You know this?

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

To objectify the designer with words like "complex" or "simple" is not to grasp the concept of a designer.

What's the concept of a designer, in your words?

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

I simply meant that you cannot completely explain what I am through the theory of evolution alone.

No, but that's not the point of the theory of evolution. It explains how you came to have your biological attributes. So the lack of a complete materialistic theory of consciousness at this moment means we agree on this point. No, we can't completely explain ourselves. Yet.

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

Consistency does not equal validity.

Not in absolute terms, but in terms of utility and predictability, consistency is far superior to inconsistency. And in terms of explanation, an explanation which is consistent with observations of the thing being explained is a valid explanation. It may not be true or complete, but it is valid.

But to be clear, I'm not saying dreams should be ignored because they're usually not consistent. They're just generally an inferior way of attempting to understand what we observe while awake.

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

Two sheets of paper arguing whether what they are seeing is spiritual or scientific is ridiculous; someone diving into a pool could be considered both or neither even from a 3-d perspective, let alone in 2-d. They don't even know what they're seeing.

Agreed, that's ridiculous. But arguing about what it is they actually see, in order to understand it and perhaps even benefit it (or from it, more likely)? That's not so ridiculous is it?

Originally Posted by The Universal Call

Conclusions:
1. A consciousness was randomly created and randomly created the universe. or
2. Randomness created a flix flax flux (interesting note: flax is a synonym for "luck" in Sweden, hehe ) and Big Bang was initiated.
If someone have an alternative to these conclusions or see a fault in the premises and arguments then please tell me so. Otherwise we should be able to agree that either of these should have happened, no? (without bringing in the Astral World, please)

I actually agree with what seems to be your general position, that seemingly random events could produce the universe and everything in it, including consciousness, but there's a few points along the way where we disagree.

Originally Posted by The Universal Call

There was nothing, no time and no space. There's no way anything "complex" can be performed in this "nothingness". There is no foundation even for something "simple" to happen, afterall there is no time and no space.

Basically, that's unknown. As Tyler pointed out, if we go back in time far enough our models break down. We don't truly know what there was before the big bang. Therefore we can't conclude that there was nothing. At some point there was something, but we so far we only have speculation about what came before.

Originally Posted by The Universal Call

But... think about this. One thing and one thing only could happen, it requires no time, and it requires no space, no complexity, nothing to be initiated. It isn't anything "simple" or of the sort, it is not a concept or a thought - it just happens. Randomness (note: not coincidence). It requires nothing, in this sense it surely is rather illogical and works against what can be measured in our human sense - but seen at this level it is also the most simple, yet fundamental and obvious solution.

It's not that simple because it doesn't explain how that randomness occurs. As you said, in effect it's the same as the God argument; it obfuscates rather than explaining. Neither argument contributes to our understanding.

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

The constants of nature are so fine-tuned that a slight deviation (and I mean ridiculously slight) would make life impossible in the universe.

Only life as we know it.

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

Concerning your problem of "who created god" argument. The first cause, that of creation (the big bang scientists believe) probably didn't happen by itself. If it didn't just cause itself then the "first cause" emerged outside of space-time as we know it. Only within the context of space and time does "who created god" sound like a good argument. It just isn't.

Right. But regardless it still requires explanation, or at the very least verification, which of course is impossible unless we can take ourselves outside of space-time to where that "first cause" exists, and do so in a way which is verifiable.

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

Consciousness is not a mechanism.

Is this your belief, or a fact you expect me to accept? (see below)

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

I also do not concede that consciousness (or gods consciousness) needs to be "explained" implying a physical object. We don't know what consciousness is so concluding that I need to somehow show you a mechanism by which god works is illogical.

You don't need to explain anything if you're simply stating your belief. But you're not, you're claiming specific facts as true. Do you except others to accept that those facts are true? If that's the case, explanation is required. If you don't care what we think then that's fine, we can move on.

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

Next you assume consciousness needs a brain. Why? There is no evidence backing that up. I on the other hand have evidence for consciousness being separate from body. That is the phenomenon of NDEs, ESP, PK, spontaneous remembrance of past lives in children etc. but I'll just quickly go over NDEs, which haven't been explained (as of yet) by physical means. As i mentioned in another post, some of NDEs occur when there is no detectable brain-functioning, casting doubt that the brain created the experience (in some cases like Pam Reynolds it was impossible).

Hmm... You pointed out that we don't know what consciousness is. Therefore the evidence that you have cannot be of consciousness, but rather of some phenomenon which you (and others) have labeled as consciousness. Likewise neuroscientists have done a lot of research of various aspects of what they have labeled consciousness.

Originally Posted by Tynan

As for virtual particle pairs - this is why they are PAIRs. The two halves balance each other in every way (charge, etc). Once again nature avoids breaking conservation laws. Otherwise space itself would glow with new energy all the time.

Hmm... One other important point is that the existence of virtual particles is questionable. They're mainly used to describe processes and may not exist in any observable sense.

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

I'm not sure what you mean by this exactly.

I'm pretty sure he means that the laws exist regardless of the life forms which obey them. Tynan can confirm

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

That is one theory yes. Is it easier to believe in a trillion useless universe just for the sake of refuting the fine-tuning argument or to accept it?

Neither is easier. Neither tell us what is actually going on. They're both just ideas. We should go and find out if they're right, or accept that they both could be wrong.

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

I think you would like to think that it would be easier to explain them away as hallucinations but in many cases the "consciousness creates the experience" hypothesis doesn't fit the bill. Based on the evidence it is far easier to believe consciousness can exist outside the brain.

Easier? How so?

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

How so? If we are following occams razor the insane amount of cosmic coincidence it would take to be an atheist is a little extreme in my opinion.

It's very difficult to grasp at a holistic level, but just as with natural evolution, if you break down the entire explanation to smaller, more easily understood chunks, the whole makes much more sense. It's not necessarily right, but it's neither extreme nor insane.

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

"But when do I get to meet God?"

Still the best answer in my book, atheist or not.
Know thyself.

Hmmm... Are you saying to forget proof of God and focus on understanding yourself? That I can agree with. But the suggestion that we are God... No... But that doesn't stop me from doing what you suggest, so it's irrelevant, right?

[The Universal Call]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Basically, that's unknown. As Tyler pointed out, if we go back in time far enough our models break down. We don't truly know what there was before the big bang. Therefore we can't conclude that there was nothing. At some point there was something, but we so far we only have speculation about what came before.

Actually, whilst I have a great desire to try and understand and deduce what was before the Big Bang I'd like to argue that we'll never be able to do more than speculate what was before... Sad as it is

As can be seen however I'm generally more pessimistic towards the theist explanation, albeit I'm not overly stubborn about it. I do realize that it could be "the" explanation.

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

It's not that simple because it doesn't explain how that randomness occurs. As you said, in effect it's the same as the God argument; it obfuscates rather than explaining. Neither argument contributes to our understanding.

Ah, of course. Nice of you to notice. So listen, I have two possible universes (both with their possible subhappenings and "explanations" and whathaveyou, whatever people want to throw in there):
Finite
Infinite
Would anyone like to argue that there's an inbetween? That'd be awesome because I've never figured out anything inbetween Okay, so the infinite universe to begin with...
Time and space always exists and always have. The Big Bang and Big Crunch which happens infinitely many times in this infinitely long and infinitely "big" universe continously removes all evidence of there ever being a time or space before - that is to say we only see what is after the Big Bang and then the Big Crunch comes and takes that away - repeat. That is the only way to explain infinity in scientific terms because we have to take into consideration that we have observations that prove that Big Bang has happened. But... of course there's a reason why so little people believe in an infinite universe, and that's because we also have observations that the universe is expanding, oh my...
A good question is; in relation to what? How can a universe "expand", I mean, in relation to WHAT is it expanding?? People claim "nothingness", that which is between atoms as well, a "nothing". Well, if a "nothing" exist, and it arguably isn't the opposite of space, then shouldn't nothingness be able to be infinite, otherwise, what is beyond? And then we have the expanding universe in relation to the "other nothingness" outside? I guess that would make sense, otherwise we have the infamous "wall" that is the "stop" of the universe, and quite frankly that makes even less sense.
If there is one thing that I believe that a human can't do, then it surely must be to imagine infinity, please try it yourself, it IS impossible - because our minds are limited to our world; we will never be able to think infinity because we have NEVER observed it. From what I've been able to collect from other people, the thought of "infinity" is impossible, and maybe they are right. I wouldn't know, since I've never been able to grasp the concept and apply it...

So, about the finite universe then... Here we have several popular theories that try and explain the universe by space, so to speak, how it isn't infinite. Imagine that you're at the border of the universe (trying to prove this practically should be really hard since the universe is expanding faster than you can go in your spaceship, tadaa, hehe); even though you go straight forward, the universe BENDS you, so however you try you just going in your ol' universe. Or, imagine that you are going straight forward PAST the border, and you're at the OTHER side of the universe. No warp, no hokus-pokus, nothing of that sort - the other side is just there, and, you're just there. Inexplicable? Illogical? Remember, outside of the border of the expanding Big Bang, there should be no time nor space, so who's to say that this is impossible? If space is corrupt then it could very well mean you're at the other side. There are no "laws" over there that govern you. So, possible? Yes. Would science buy it? Probably not, I don't blame them for wanting concrete solutions to it all. Like randomness, and many other theories (read: God, haha, oh my, sorry, I am embarrassed, truly ) it sounds just like an excuse. But hey, if the premises are correct then the answer is rather logical, innit? I'm not saying I believe it but I won't dismiss it..
In general, the question about finity is not space, but it is time. Universe cannot always have existed, can it? So the opposite, must be that universe is finite. It had a beginning, to ask for something before the beginning is to ask for something which surely we all know cannot be observed or calculated - like Big Bang theorists say, why bother? "It will all just be speculations anyway and according to our theory there wasn't anything before the Big Bang."
But people don't buy this, they want a cause, an explanation, a main argument is the law of energy conservation, remember? How can nothing create something? The scientists,? they say: Randomness

People won't buy an infinite universe, nor a finite universe, nor randomness as an explanation. And I don't blame them, I actually agree it doesn't explain it in a satisfactionable way from all views.

To finish, mind if we get a little philosophical? Have you ever played with the idea that the universe HAD to exist? Hm, have you? I mean, if you're denying that then you shouldn't exist, should you? Obviously it DID happen, so what if it just had to? No cause, no begininng - no "then it was there", but rather "there it is". The Big Bang wasn't in relation to anything, no "before" and no "cause", not even randomness! Imagine that there are two alternatives, let us make this real simple for us:
1. The universe exists
2. The universe doesn't exist
No inbetween, no cause in either, no randomness in either, one of them just HAD to be - there are NO more alternatives. And I am 100% confident on this. Don't you agree? "The universe exists" isn't in relation to anything resembling time, no cause, remember - it just IS.
Or, the universe doesn't exist. Let me quote this webpage:

Originally Posted by Webpage

We cannot imagine nothingness, that is, if we are referring to a nothing prior to existence. We can describe the type of nothing that is common in our lives, the nothing that we encounter everyday. There is nothing here or there. There is nothing to talk about. There is nothing in the refrigerator. That type of nothing is something empty, something lacking substance, something uniform or plain or simple. But the other nothing that is prior to existence is a special case in terms of semantics and meaning. By definition, words simply can’t describe it, so it is different than everything else that we define with words and everything else imaginable.

Please read the rest of the webpage for at least an interesting thought on the subject. A non-existence, by its very definition; cannot exist! "Nothing prior to existence" just cannot be. Dare I draw another one of my scary conclusions? The universe HAD to exist. That's it, search is over, if it had to exist there doesn't have to be a cause, it just is there. This cannot be explained by science, sadly, but logically, doesn't it make sense?

Wow, okay, tell me if you found something wrong with this analysis. I will happily read through that.

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

The constants of nature are so fine-tuned that a slight deviation (and I mean ridiculously slight) would make life impossible in the universe.

Um, what slight deviations? If you mean the relation between Earth and Sun, water-conditions, and those circumstances, then you are most utterly being assumptive. I'm not saying I have proof but the likelihood of there being no other life in the universe except for on Earth, from an objective reality scientific view is about null.

Please clarify.

[Mr.Mustache]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Neither is easier. Neither tell us what is actually going on. They're both just ideas. We should go and find out if they're right, or accept that they both could be wrong.

They are not both just ideas. The concept of a multi-verse is just an idea thought up to try and refute the fact of fine-tuning. If you change one constant of nature a tiny fraction the universe would be radically different making it impossible for ANY life-form to come into being; a tiny deviation would determine whether stars could form or not. We have one unique universe.

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Really? God couldn't be a machine or physical object in a universe separate from ours? You know this?

God by definition transcends the physical. If don't believe in any higher power you must concede that the idea is of a higher power as in transcendent.

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

But to be clear, I'm not saying dreams should be ignored because they're usually not consistent. They're just generally an inferior way of attempting to understand what we observe while awake.

I agree dreams are an inferior way of understanding what we observe while awake and what we observe while awake is an inferior way of understanding our dreams. Me question was ontological. I was asking why we can't consider dreams "real", why don't we consider the dream world a real one all its own? That was crucial to Steve's point.

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Right. But regardless it still requires explanation, or at the very least verification, which of course is impossible unless we can take ourselves outside of space-time to where that "first cause" exists, and do so in a way which is verifiable.

We cannot verify that at this time if ever. My point isn't that god is empirically verifiable only that circumstantially it is a better assumption than random cosmic coincidence.

Also, when I say consciousness is not a mechanism or that god doesn't need an explanation (in the usual meaning of word at least) I mean the same thing. That is when I see the color blue I cannot explain what it is like to see the color blue. You can't explain sight to blind man. You cannot break down the sensation of the color blue to anything less than the color blue. The concept of god and conscious awareness go hand in hand. If god is a conscious force then such an entity doesn't require an explanation typical to a physical object because its like the sensation of music or the color blue ie you have to experience it.

Originally Posted by Universal Call

Time and space always exists and always have.

Cause and effect is product of linear time. If time is infinite then it is impossible to trace back any line of cause and effect. Lets say space was infinite, I could divide space infinitely so how could motion exist? You couldn't move through space because you could divide any distance an infinite number of times. Most if not all scientists agree that space-time is finite. If the big crunch happened infinitely it would not be the same universe being rolled out and in over and over, each would be its own finite universe even if they ended in cycles.

Originally Posted by Universal Call

How can a universe "expand", I mean, in relation to WHAT is it expanding?? People claim "nothingness", that which is between atoms as well, a "nothing". Well, if a "nothing" exist, and it arguably isn't the opposite of space, then shouldn't nothingness be able to be infinite, otherwise, what is beyond? And then we have the expanding universe in relation to the "other nothingness" outside? I guess that would make sense, otherwise we have the infamous "wall" that is the "stop" of the universe, and quite frankly that makes even less sense.

I think what you are doing here is discovering by rational means that our finite space-time universe is an illusion of a much bigger picture. Contemporary physics already validates this to some degree. What is the bigger picture? Perhaps it is the astral plane?

[The Universal Call]

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

Cause and effect is product of linear time. If time is infinite then it is impossible to trace back any line of cause and effect. Lets say space was infinite, I could divide space infinitely so how could motion exist? You couldn't move through space because you could divide any distance an infinite number of times. Most if not all scientists agree that space-time is finite. If the big crunch happened infinitely it would not be the same universe being rolled out and in over and over, each would be its own finite universe even if they ended in cycles.



I think what you are doing here is discovering by rational means that our finite space-time universe is an illusion of a much bigger picture. Contemporary physics already validates this to some degree. What is the bigger picture? Perhaps it is the astral plane?

First of all, your first paragraph, nice to hear that fact. I'd just like to point out that I am in no way trying to defend or prove an infinite universe so that no one will make that assumption I am just seeing how it should be like from both views, i.e. a finite, vs an infinite universe. Quite frankly I have little hope in the infinite universe. But, also, I find it awkwardly amusing that people won't accept a finite universe either But hopefully we will soon realize how the finite universe must be structured like, so please notice the "it must exist"-theory, I find it viable, and valid (no matter if it is "the truth" or not, whatever).

Second paragraph; yes, exactly, rational thought. My up-to-date largest school-assignment ever- I will be focusing on trying to explain the universe from a scientific, logical, and philosophical way. It will be exciting. This is a useful conversation/arguing for me. The more we disagree with each other the closer we will get to see what works and what doesn't.

Like my first post in this thread acknowledges, maybe the astral plane DO have something to do with this. Interesting

Originally Posted by Sir Mustache

Also, when I say consciousness is not a mechanism or that god doesn't need an explanation (in the usual meaning of word at least) I mean the same thing. That is when I see the color blue I cannot explain what it is like to see the color blue. You can't explain sight to blind man. You cannot break down the sensation of the color blue to anything less than the color blue. The concept of god and conscious awareness go hand in hand. If god is a conscious force then such an entity doesn't require an explanation typical to a physical object because its like the sensation of music or the color blue ie you have to experience it.

If we want to get into the definition of things.. Likewise, nothing cannot be observed nor experienced - it simply doesn't exist. This is a strong argument for me why nothing cannot have existed (so to speak, it gives: something must exist).

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by The Universal Call

Actually, whilst I have a great desire to try and understand and deduce what was before the Big Bang I'd like to argue that we'll never be able to do more than speculate what was before... Sad as it is

I'm confident that if there is a way, we'll find it.

Originally Posted by The Universal Call

How can a universe "expand", I mean, in relation to WHAT is it expanding?? People claim "nothingness", that which is between atoms as well, a "nothing". Well, if a "nothing" exist, and it arguably isn't the opposite of space, then shouldn't nothingness be able to be infinite, otherwise, what is beyond? And then we have the expanding universe in relation to the "other nothingness" outside? I guess that would make sense, otherwise we have the infamous "wall" that is the "stop" of the universe, and quite frankly that makes even less sense.
If there is one thing that I believe that a human can't do, then it surely must be to imagine infinity, please try it yourself, it IS impossible - because our minds are limited to our world; we will never be able to think infinity because we have NEVER observed it. From what I've been able to collect from other people, the thought of "infinity" is impossible, and maybe they are right. I wouldn't know, since I've never been able to grasp the concept and apply it...

I think the main problem we have in grasping the concept of an infinite, expanding universe, is that everything we observe is finite. The only infinite concepts are abstract ones, and since the universe is apparently a concrete entity, we expect to be able to think about it in the same way we think of everything else we observe, concrete.

We imagine that when astronomers look as far into the universe as possible, they see all that there is to see, at least as long as their telescopes are good enough. But many observations combine to show that space itself is stretching, as opposed to the universe expanding, and as it does the light that comes to us from far away also stretches. From our point of view it seems as if that light comes from something that's moving away from us, even though it's not moving relative to the space it occupies (and neither are we). But the further away something is, the more stretched the light becomes, and the faster the distant object appears to be moving away. But there is a limit which is reached when the object appears to be moving away at the speed of light. We can't see anything beyond that limit. It could be that there is a 'wall' of some kind just beyond that limit. Or it could be that the universe extends infinitely. (and the only way I can get close to comprehending infinity is by thinking of an unending train of thought. The galaxies go on and on, and beyond them are more, and more, and this keeps going. If it were possible for me to never stop thinking, then I would have had a thought which accurately reflected reality. (note that i don't actually believe that. not enough information))

Originally Posted by The Universal Call

To finish, mind if we get a little philosophical? Have you ever played with the idea that the universe HAD to exist? Hm, have you? I mean, if you're denying that then you shouldn't exist, should you? Obviously it DID happen, so what if it just had to? No cause, no begininng - no "then it was there", but rather "there it is". The Big Bang wasn't in relation to anything, no "before" and no "cause", not even randomness! Imagine that there are two alternatives, let us make this real simple for us:
1. The universe exists
2. The universe doesn't exist
No inbetween, no cause in either, no randomness in either, one of them just HAD to be - there are NO more alternatives. And I am 100% confident on this. Don't you agree? "The universe exists" isn't in relation to anything resembling time, no cause, remember - it just IS.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. The universe exists, so it had to exist? Rather circular argument isn't it?

Originally Posted by The Universal Call

Or, the universe doesn't exist. Let me quote this webpage:

Please read the rest of the webpage for at least an interesting thought on the subject. A non-existence, by its very definition; cannot exist! "Nothing prior to existence" just cannot be. Dare I draw another one of my scary conclusions? The universe HAD to exist. That's it, search is over, if it had to exist there doesn't have to be a cause, it just is there. This cannot be explained by science, sadly, but logically, doesn't it make sense?

Ironically that page's word play makes use of flaw which it points out in the issue with the standard definition of nothing. It says that any attempt to apply a label to true nothingness means that we have applied the label to something, and something cannot be nothing. But that logic is only possible if you don't consider the purpose of abstract concepts. Our use of language allows us to apply any word to any thing (or lack of thing) without affecting the thing itself. In other words (heh), words do not affect reality. I can call this keyboard a spanner, and if any time I want to refer to this thing I type on, I use the word 'spanner', that doesn't change the thing I'm typing on. I won't be able to suddenly start using it to undo bolts on my car.

In short, a definition is irrelevant to something's existence or non-existence, so it doesn't follow from an unclear definition, or an inability to come up with a satisfactory definition, that there is no alternative to existence.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

They are not both just ideas. The concept of a multi-verse is just an idea thought up to try and refute the fact of fine-tuning. If you change one constant of nature a tiny fraction the universe would be radically different making it impossible for ANY life-form to come into being; a tiny deviation would determine whether stars could form or not. We have one unique universe.

Once again, that conclusion is bound by our limited understanding of the universe. As far as I'm aware none of our models of the universe completely account for everything that we observe within it, or everything we have accepted to have occurred within it. The example we've already mentioned is those first few instants of the Big Bang. So if our models are incomplete, can you say with certainty that changes in the unknown parameters of reality which the models are based upon, would not allow some type of existence?

I'll grant that changes would make our universe impossible, but I'm yet to see any argument that logically demonstrates that no universe with some form of life would also be impossible.

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

God by definition transcends the physical. If don't believe in any higher power you must concede that the idea is of a higher power as in transcendent.

That's your definition. It doesn't account for many others. Your concept of god is a transcendent one, but if there is a god, it might not be so. But sure, if the point you were making was that a transcendent god is not a machine or a person, I'll concede that. However, since you said you don't know what god is I couldn't assume you defined it as transcendent, hence I couldn't reach any valid conclusion about what you expected a transcendent designer to be. Nor could I know what kind of evidence you'd expect of that undefined designer's designs.

Btw, if I don't believe in a higher power, or rather believe there is no higher power, then I axiomatically deny the existence of that higher power, however it's described (which means I don't have to concede the idea of a transcendent higher power. Just pointing out that a concession isn't strictly necessary).

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

I agree dreams are an inferior way of understanding what we observe while awake and what we observe while awake is an inferior way of understanding our dreams. Me question was ontological. I was asking why we can't consider dreams "real", why don't we consider the dream world a real one all its own? That was crucial to Steve's point.

The answer could still be the same. That the real world is consistent, and the dream world is (usually) not. Since we spend most of our time in the real world, and since the dream world is usually forgotten, and since (for most people) the real world seems so much more, well, real, it's understandable that we don't consider the dream world to be a real one on its own.

Of course that doesn't mean it isn't. But from my perspective all those previous points apply, resulting in the dream world being rather useless as far as understanding reality is concerned. If I had any experiences or proof that the dream world is (or could be) superior to the real world in terms of understanding reality, then I'd probably agree with Steve.

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

We cannot verify that at this time if ever. My point isn't that god is empirically verifiable only that circumstantially it is a better assumption than random cosmic coincidence.

We're agreed on the first point. But I think the second point is a matter of differing degrees of intuitive grasp over the many concepts involved in understanding the "god argument" versus the "cosmic evolution" argument. And that intuition is not only shaped by knowledge and understanding, but by social and cultural influences.

So seeming "circumstantially better" is a factor of individual circumstances rather than the circumstances of either religious or cosmological evidence or argument.

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

Also, when I say consciousness is not a mechanism or that god doesn't need an explanation (in the usual meaning of word at least) I mean the same thing. That is when I see the color blue I cannot explain what it is like to see the color blue. You can't explain sight to blind man. You cannot break down the sensation of the color blue to anything less than the color blue. The concept of god and conscious awareness go hand in hand. If god is a conscious force then such an entity doesn't require an explanation typical to a physical object because its like the sensation of music or the color blue ie you have to experience it.

The concept of qualia?

The issue with that is that the thing which is blue can still be explained. Likewise the thing which makes the music. Also the thing which makes it possible for you to experience a colour or a tone (transmission of light or sound, nerve signals etc.).

So while your experience of god doesn't need to be explained, in terms of defining god as an entity or a force or a process, it can be explained. Maybe you don't need it to be explained, but that doesn't seem to be what you're asserting. Though I've asked you to clarify that. And while god may be transcendent, consciousness is not (by virtue of our experience of consciousness. Though arguably consciousness can be transcendent).

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

Cause and effect is product of linear time. If time is infinite then it is impossible to trace back any line of cause and effect.

Linearity and infinity are not mutually exclusive concepts. Take sequential numbers as an example. Or are you referring to infinite regression in the direction of a first cause?

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

Lets say space was infinite, I could divide space infinitely so how could motion exist? You couldn't move through space because you could divide any distance an infinite number of times.

Right. Zeno's paradoxes. However both experience and logical proof show that the paradoxes aren't so insurmountable. Sure philosophers still argue about them, yet it seems pointless to argue that motion doesn't exist when we experience it. It seems far more reasonable to focus on understanding what that experience is, rather than saying it can't happen. (kinda like NDEs, ODEs, etc).

[The Universal Call]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

If it were possible for me to never stop thinking, then I would have had a thought which accurately reflected reality.

I believe the only way to experience or comprehend (imagine?) infinity is to be it (your metaphor works). Yeah, I am confident that a human can't do it.

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. The universe exists, so it had to exist? Rather circular argument isn't it?

Of course, but there's only four sides of the coin mate (wait, four? lol). If not "The universe exists so it had to exist" then either "The universe doesn't exist so it had to exist" or "The universe exists so it didn't have to exist" or simply "The universe doesn't exist so it didn't have to exist".
1st side; Makes sense to me.
2nd side; Let's just skip that one.
3rd side; I'm confused. But at least we know the universe does exist, why it still was triggered if it didn't have to, yeah, that's quite random, just as the "random"-theory itself.
4th side; But obviously the universe does exist so this side has to be wrong, or am I seeing it wrong here?

Please notice any flaws in this way of looking at it. But from what I can see here then the 1st side makes the most sense, even if it is a circular argument. Therefore, in the beginning of time the Big Bang simply was initiated without a cause- the universe just had to be.

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Ironically that page's word play makes use of flaw which it points out in the issue with the standard definition of nothing. It says that any attempt to apply a label to true nothingness means that we have applied the label to something, and something cannot be nothing. But that logic is only possible if you don't consider the purpose of abstract concepts. Our use of language allows us to apply any word to any thing (or lack of thing) without affecting the thing itself. In other words (heh), words do not affect reality. I can call this keyboard a spanner, and if any time I want to refer to this thing I type on, I use the word 'spanner', that doesn't change the thing I'm typing on. I won't be able to suddenly start using it to undo bolts on my car.

In short, a definition is irrelevant to something's existence or non-existence, so it doesn't follow from an unclear definition, or an inability to come up with a satisfactory definition, that there is no alternative to existence.

Sadly, I see what you are getting at. I didn't consider this. However, I still want to run by the notion that this point of view could be a damn good way to look at things. But maybe that just means I'm stubborn.

[Mr.Mustache]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

So if our models are incomplete, can you say with certainty that changes in the unknown parameters of reality which the models are based upon, would not allow some type of existence?

Not for certain because certainty doesn't exist. I read a book a while back that I believe was called: Just Six Numbers. The book explains how cosmologists have arrived at six numbers that if altered just slightly would change the universe in a radically way making the existence of life (a tricky phenomena to begin with) extremely unlikely. A tiny deviation would make it impossible for stars to form for example. Cosmologists now take this for granted.

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

That's your definition. It doesn't account for many others. Your concept of god is a transcendent one, but if there is a god, it might not be so.

I have never heard of a single culture that does not conceive of a god as transcendent or doesn't conceive of a god at all.

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Of course that doesn't mean it isn't. But from my perspective all those previous points apply, resulting in the dream world being rather useless as far as understanding reality is concerned. If I had any experiences or proof that the dream world is (or could be) superior to the real world in terms of understanding reality, then I'd probably agree with Steve.

Continuity and consistency don't equal "real". Those are just assumptions. There is no objective reason to believe that waking reality is "superior" to dream reality.

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

So seeming "circumstantially better" is a factor of individual circumstances rather than the circumstances of either religious or cosmological evidence or argument.

Based on evidence design in nature is on an even playing field with naturalism. It is my subjective interpretation of the facts is what leads me to believe in design. So, you are correct. However, you seem to want to reject design out of hand which I don't believe is reasonable.

The concept of qualia?

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

The issue with that is that the thing which is blue can still be explained. Likewise the thing which makes the music. Also the thing which makes it possible for you to experience a colour or a tone (transmission of light or sound, nerve signals etc.).

Yes, qualia. The hard problem of conscious is the fact that nerve signals, light and sound do not explain what it is like to see the color blue. That takes awareness. You wouldn't know what light and sound is if you hadn't experienced those phenomena. Which is why reality could just as easily be subjective rather than objective. Neural impulses do correspond with conscious states but a correlation is not a cause.

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Or are you referring to infinite regression in the direction of a first cause?

Yes.

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Sure philosophers still argue about them, yet it seems pointless to argue that motion doesn't exist when we experience it. (kinda like NDEs, ODEs, etc).

It is a fact that we experience motion but motion could simply be an illusion. I'm not saying that we should just pretend we don't experience motion rather I was pointing out that space-time is finite. I also believe space-time is an illusion of a greater reality. If you shift your awareness away from the physical (astral travel) space and time become meaningless concepts (BTW this is just what I believe). In other words your perceptions make your reality( this is just what I believe as well lol so don't throw a fit ).

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by The Universal Call

Of course, but there's only four sides of the coin mate (wait, four? lol). If not "The universe exists so it had to exist" then either "The universe doesn't exist so it had to exist" or "The universe exists so it didn't have to exist" or simply "The universe doesn't exist so it didn't have to exist".
1st side; Makes sense to me.
2nd side; Let's just skip that one.
3rd side; I'm confused. But at least we know the universe does exist, why it still was triggered if it didn't have to, yeah, that's quite random, just as the "random"-theory itself.
4th side; But obviously the universe does exist so this side has to be wrong, or am I seeing it wrong here?

Please notice any flaws in this way of looking at it. But from what I can see here then the 1st side makes the most sense, even if it is a circular argument. Therefore, in the beginning of time the Big Bang simply was initiated without a cause- the universe just had to be.

The key assumption here is that A necessarily follows B. So the heart of the issue seems to be the assumption of a necessary cause as implied by the existence of the thing being caused. Which is valid, if you accept the laws of cause and effect. But you've also suggested that the existence of the thing is the cause. Not so valid

btw (3) might be less confusing if worded as, "The universe exists but it didn't have to exist." In that case A is related to but independent of B. That's what I believe. Something caused it, but I have no idea what, and because I don't know I can't say that it necessarily had to.

Originally Posted by The Universal Call

Sadly, I see what you are getting at. I didn't consider this. However, I still want to run by the notion that this point of view could be a damn good way to look at things. But maybe that just means I'm stubborn.

Yes, yes that's probably what it means

I guess a more important question is what does this view do for you? And what do you want it to do for you? Make you happy? Provide an answer? Provide more questions?

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

I have never heard of a single culture that does not conceive of a god as transcendent or doesn't conceive of a god at all.

So? Many individuals in many cultures have denied the existence of the gods their culture believes in. And it's beside the point. So to bring it back, from what I understand of what you've said, a transcendent god as designer provides a simpler explanation of the universe than coincidence. Is that right?

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

However, you seem to want to reject design out of hand which I don't believe is reasonable.

Nope. That would be unreasonable. What I reject is the claim that design is a better explanation. It specifies an undefinable entity working through undefined means as part of the 'explanation', which is no explanation at all.

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

Yes, qualia. The hard problem of conscious is the fact that nerve signals, light and sound do not explain what it is like to see the color blue. That takes awareness. You wouldn't know what light and sound is if you hadn't experienced those phenomena.

Hmm yeah, I don't understand why it's a hard problem (I need to study it more I think). We understand how perception, awareness, attention, memory and emotion work, at a neural level. We have explanations for all of them. In concert they explain how we perceive something and why we experience them as we do. Psychology and neuroscience have all the bases covered {edit: not completely covered, but at least covered well enough that the fundamental details are all that remain, as well as a complete theory which combines it all}). Where's the problem {edit:is it the lack of a comprehensive theory}?

It is like what it is like to see the colour blue because our retina detects light of a certain wavelength, and generates and sends signals to our visual processing centres. We attend to those signals, either because the blue thing is something we have chosen to focus on, or it's something that has triggered a sense of alertness (perhaps it's a blue ball flying towards our head). That attention signals our memory and may construct a recollection of previous experiences of that or similar blue things. Accompanying those memories are emotional responses which help shape the immediate emotional response. And on top of all that is the awareness of those various processes, which is a function of attention. (note that I've left out a hell of a lot of detail because, well, that would take a few books to cover)

And the question of why all of that happens is answered by evolution (or design). It happens because it helps us survive (blue fruits that look like the blue fruit Barry ate before he died are bad. I feel queasy just looking at them. I'd better leave them alone). Or it happens because God wanted it to happen that way (which is good enough for some, but not for me)

I truly don't understand where the problem is...

[Mr.Mustache]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Nope. That would be unreasonable. What I reject is the claim that design is a better explanation. It specifies an undefinable entity working through undefined means as part of the 'explanation', which is no explanation at all.

Random coincidence isn't an explanation either. I just happen to believe the facts imply design. We are all agnostic because we don't know but I believe we could eventually know. I'm just pointing out that atheists don't have a leg up on theists; just the bible. We don't know fundamentally what reality is so we don't know what exactly determines the laws of nature. However, if the foundation of those laws are the result of random volatile energy then why is the universe so consistent and fine-tuned? You have to resort to unverifiable theories about a multiverse or billion previous big bangs before that didn't end in heat death to negate the argument. The anthropic principle however could very well be verifiable.

Reality could just as easily be created by our perception than the other way around. Because we can only know with certainty that we "know" than why should we assume there is an objective reality at all? In which case God could be called the grand total of awareness. Isn't that simpler than assuming we are the product of cosmic accident occurring "out there" in "reality"?

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

It is like what it is like to see the colour blue because our retina detects light of a certain wavelength, and generates and sends signals to our visual processing centres. We attend to those signals, either because the blue thing is something we have chosen to focus on, or it's something that has triggered a sense of alertness (perhaps it's a blue ball flying towards our head). That attention signals our memory and may construct a recollection of previous experiences of that or similar blue things. Accompanying those memories are emotional responses which help shape the immediate emotional response. And on top of all that is the awareness of those various processes, which is a function of attention. (note that I've left out a hell of a lot of detail because, well, that would take a few books to cover)
I truly don't understand where the problem is...

You are just describing the integration that correlates to a conscious state. You cannot explain what it is like to see the color blue unless you have experienced it. I'm really just repeating myself so:

Hard problem of consciousness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For more indepth reading:

Papers on Consciousness (David Chalmers) click the top link.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

Random coincidence isn't an explanation either.

For sure.

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

However, if the foundation of those laws are the result of random volatile energy then why is the universe so consistent and fine-tuned?

We'd probably need an intuitive understanding of quantum physics to grasp that idea.

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

The anthropic principle however could very well be verifiable.

All reasonable values of all fundamental parameters of all the laws which govern reality modeled extensively and accurately? That's a huge task, but yeah, not an impossible one. Maybe.

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

Reality could just as easily be created by our perception than the other way around. Because we can only know with certainty that we "know" than why should we assume there is an objective reality at all? In which case God could be called the grand total of awareness. Isn't that simpler than assuming we are the product of cosmic accident occurring "out there" in "reality"?

Simpler, yes, because it builds explanation into the assumptions. The conclusion (God = awareness/consciousness/perception = reality) is the same as the assumption (awareness/consciousness/perception = reality = God). But as I've said, that's no explanation at all. (just in case it wasn't clear, I also don't believe "random coincidence" or "cosmic accident" is a valid summary of the Big Bang theory, the theory of evolution, or all the other established theories which those phrases may be referring to)

At this point I think we can safely conclude we're going to keep going 'round in circles so it's probably best to leave it

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

You are just describing the integration that correlates to a conscious state. You cannot explain what it is like to see the color blue unless you have experienced it. I'm really just repeating myself so:

Hard problem of consciousness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For more indepth reading:

Papers on Consciousness (David Chalmers) click the top link.

Hmmm ok. I might start a new thread when I've had time to read and think.