"...but intelligent people believe in God" Analysis, Discussion, and Debate

[Willamena]

It is a thought experiment.

It shows what would happen if a ridiculous claim was in those circumstances and compares the result to religion.

I swear this is why people need to learn basic philosophy or argumentation in schools.

It is pretty much the same process as for the non-ridiculous claim, though (evidence->belief->reinforcement), except that the "ridiculous" claim has first bumped up against previously reinforced beliefs, which is why it was initially rejected.

 

[Willamena]

Religious use these techniques because they work. Multi-level marketing uses similar techniques, I suspect politics too.

Right. Normal modern society works in this manner to propagate and sustain all the beliefs of the society, not just the ridiculous ones. Societies, as the group mind, are self-sustaining.

As you become aware of how these techniques used to manipulate thinking, choices they loose their effectiveness.

On the contrary, thanks to Freud and his era of psychological philosophers they speak directly to how minds work, so the methods of public relations are not going away any time soon.

The mind is a funny thing. If you hear some "truth" repeated over and over, consciously you may reject it but sub-consciously it can begin to affect your thinking to the point where what seem ridicules before starts to seem more reasonable. Almost like it's being programmed in and covertly becomes your own thoughts.

Folks may think they're intelligent and skeptic but that's no guarantee they are immune from this kind of subconscious influence.

Precisely like programming.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It talks about not predicting a Big Bang singularity, not that it didn't happen.

You had said that option [2] - that despite appearances, the universe has always existed - has been ""virtually ruled out - and I presented an idea that suggests otherwise.

From the article: "The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. "

how did risk management get involved? Without evidence, the only difference between the choices on the issue at hand (a laissez-faire God creating the universe or not), is hope, or the lack thereof. How does that involve risk? Believe whichever makes you feel better.

I had written, "for me, the default position on anything that cannot be shown to be correct/exist or incorrect/nonexistent is to suspend judgement and behave according to the principles of risk management, which basically asks that given I must choose to act or not act despite having incomplete knowledge, and given that either choice could be wrong, which mistake if made is the most absorbable."

I was referring to the situations where situations in which we must not only make a choice about belief, but about action as well. What is the default position for each choice, and how do we determine it?

On the belief spectrum of belief, disbelief, or the suspension of judgment, we have three choices, but on the action spectrum of action or inaction, we have just two, and so cannot sit on the fence as we can in the belief spectrum. We must make a choice if action is.

We agree to suspension of judgment on undecidable matters as the default position in the belief spectrum, but what is the default position on the action spectrum when we are forced to choose between acting and not acting and there may or will be consequences resulting from that choice?

That's where the principles of risk management comes in. The default position on the act-don't act axis is to make the choice that, if wrong, costs the least.

 

[Willamena]

The research actually points to the opposite of children being indoctrinated with beliefs. Children are born with a natural tendency to believe in divine concepts which has not been taught to them and that it is secular conditioning that knocks this out of people in the end. Even infants who have been brought up as atheists will still hold a belief in divine concepts. People have a hard time denying that there may be something beyond what we see that is responsible for everything and have to work at it to keep that belief away. So belief is not something that is taught and indoctrinated into and out of people.

Indoctrination can be more subtle. Even without any formal teaching, children are able to pick up abstract beliefs that the society in general perpetuates. They look at why a person is doing what they are doing, and saying what they are saying, to grasp what is behind the actions and the words. That includes divine concepts and the belief that inspires this "looking behind" process, the belief that they are intelligent people who have to fit in.

 

[sayak83]

All we do know is that the universe had a start. The Big Bang rang a bell that's still ringing, i.e. the CMBR (cosmic microwave background radiation). But we know absolutely nothing about what caused or preceded it. A leading proponent of multiverses, Stephen Hawking, pretty much went over the edge starting around 20 years ago. He's even had to back down (kicking and screaming) from his claim to have shown that there is no God, based on evidence from before the Big Bang which was bogus. I know his situation is sad, but he's turned bitter and it's clouded all his thinking.


It talks about not predicting a Big Bang singularity, not that it didn't happen. What quantum interpretation are they applying their new equations to? And how do they account for the (accelerating) expansion of the universe without that expansion having a beginning, and what about the CMBR?


The Transactional Interpretation of QM answers all quantum weirdness, including non-local vs. local issues, the double slit experiment and entangled particles.



Just saying that whether there are multiverses or just one universe, that has no bearing on whether God initiated things or not.




That's exactly what I'm saying. Without evidence, the default position involving two or more possibilities, is I don't know agnosticism which puts the possibilities on the shelf, neither/none of which can be a default position.




Not that part, no. To begin with, how did risk management get involved? Without evidence, the only difference between the choices on the issue at hand (a laissez-faire God creating the universe or not), is hope, or the lack thereof. How does that involve risk? Believe whichever makes you feel better. If I'm right, you have to hear me say I told you so; and if you're right, neither of us will ever know. Hmmm, I guess that choice could be a form of risk, but with no consequences in this universe, and minimal in the next.

You are confused. The Big Bang singularity is not needed for the Big Bang theory at all. All that is needed is that the universe expand from a hot and dense state. Singularity is simply a hypothetical approximation used to treat the early period of the universe using GR when it's assumptions fail. All current methods of cosmology remove this hypothetical singularity. The problem isn't that there aren't enough models that are mathematically consistent (see one below). The problem is how to test them to know which model corresponds to how things were.
Our Mirror Universe: Where Time Moves Backwards

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

You are confused. The Big Bang singularity is not needed for the Big Bang theory at all. All that is needed is that the universe expand from a hot and dense state. Singularity is simply a hypothetical approximation used to treat the early period of the universe using GR when it's assumptions fail. All current methods of cosmology remove this hypothetical singularity. The problem isn't that there aren't enough models that are mathematically consistent (see one below). The problem is how to test them to know which model corresponds to how things were.
Our Mirror Universe: Where Time Moves Backwards

If the universe is expanding, that expansion can be traced back from something. And the BB theory doesn't really say it's from a singularity, but that the universe can be traced back to the Planck Epoch (the first planck time) which is extrapolated (or as you say, a hypothetical approximation) from an unknown irrational dimensionless infinite point, ten to the minus 43 seconds before. We not only don't know what preceded it, we don't know what it is--only that the universe started expanding at that extrapolated time zero.

 

[sayak83]

If the universe is expanding, that expansion can be traced back from something. And the BB theory doesn't really say it's from a singularity, but that the universe can be traced back to the Planck Epoch (the first planck time) which is extrapolated (or as you say, a hypothetical approximation) from an unknown irrational dimensionless infinite point, ten to the minus 43 seconds before. We not only don't know what preceded it, we don't know what it is--only that the universe started expanding at that extrapolated time zero.

No. The universe could have had a maximum density which while high, was much less than infinity or Planck density. The expansion could have began from this maximum density state that was either a metastable state in a pre-existing universe or caused by a collapse of previous contracting universe. I can provide consistent theories for either.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

No. The universe could have had a maximum density which while high, was much less than infinity or Planck density. The expansion could have began from this maximum density state that was either a metastable state in a pre-existing universe or caused by a collapse of previous contracting universe. I can provide consistent theories for either.

The density after the Planck Epoch was finite, but that was the first segment of Planck time which is the smallest division of time possible in this universe. Without the dimension of time, it would have stopped "expanding" a one cubic Planck length radius. (Now there's a thought.) A single point or dimensionless singularity was the initial start where the density had to have been infinite or nonexistant, compacted as it was into zero, one or two dimensions. Density can have no meaning without 3 dimensions, and it can't expand without time.

If the 3 dimensions came before the dimension of time, and they were of infinitely short or zero length, the density would have been infinite as well. Add time and voila, Big Bang.

We have nothing to base any theory of what was pre-existant to the universe on. Any speculation is pure speculation, which is the same situation when speculating about God. The Big Bang appears to be the ultimate firewall in this universe which is in fact a cosmic quantum computer.

 

[sayak83]

The density after the Planck Epoch was finite, but that was the first segment of Planck time which is the smallest division of time possible in this universe. Without the dimension of time, it would have stopped "expanding" a one cubic Planck length radius. (Now there's a thought.) A single point or dimensionless singularity was the initial start where the density had to have been infinite or nonexistant, compacted as it was into zero, one or two dimensions. Density can have no meaning without 3 dimensions, and it can't expand without time.

If the 3 dimensions came before the dimension of time, and they were of infinitely short or zero length, the density would have been infinite as well. Add time and voila, Big Bang.

We have nothing to base any theory of what was pre-existant to the universe on. Any speculation is pure speculation, which is the same situation when speculating about God. The Big Bang appears to be the ultimate firewall in this universe which is in fact a cosmic quantum computer.

I have no Idea what you are talking about. Please provide links. A mathematical theory is hardly speculation. It's rigorously derived and logically consistent model of reality. Of course such models are not unique so one needs evidence to determine which of these logically consistent rigorous structures actually reflect the pre Big Bang reality.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I have no Idea what you are talking about. Please provide links. A mathematical theory is hardly speculation. It's rigorously derived and logically consistent model of reality. Of course such models are not unique so one needs evidence to determine which of these logically consistent rigorous structures actually reflect the pre Big Bang reality.

That's the point. With a complete absence of evidence from "outside", "before" or indicating a cause for the universe, then any "theory" concerning those things is complete speculation. I don't think it's a coincidence that the same principle applies to the existence of God. Without any evidence, we can only dabble in speculation, mathmatical or otherwise. I could say 1+1=3 before the Big Bang, and all anyone can say is that's 100% speculation.

 

[sayak83]

That's the point. With a complete absence of evidence from "outside", "before" or indicating a cause for the universe, then any "theory" concerning those things is complete speculation. I don't think it's a coincidence that the same principle applies to the existence of God. Without any evidence, we can only dabble in speculation, mathmatical or otherwise. I could say 1+1=3 before the Big Bang, and all anyone can say is that's 100% speculation.

Mathematics is very very very far from speculation. I would be impressed if you can create a mathematical theory of God.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Mathematics is very very very far from speculation. I would be impressed if you can create a mathematical theory of God.

If a mathematical theory isn't speculation, then there would never be an erroneous conclusion based on math. The apparent case that the universe sprang from an infinitely small point with an infinite mass is the barrier that stops all mathematical statements at the Big Bang and restricts all information we have to only be applicable within our universe. And it isn't just the Big Bang singularity, but the Planck spacetime minimums in the fabric of the universe that contains information within it as well.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Maybe you two should define your terms. I think that you are using the word "speculation" differently. As I use the word, 2+2=4 isn't a speculation, but any claim about its application to reality that has not been ruled in or out would qualify.

https://www.religiousforums.com/members/thepainefultruth.41619/

 

[sayak83]

If a mathematical theory isn't speculation, then there would never be an erroneous conclusion based on math. The apparent case that the universe sprang from an infinitely small point with an infinite mass is the barrier that stops all mathematical statements at the Big Bang and restricts all information we have to only be applicable within our universe. And it isn't just the Big Bang singularity, but the Planck spacetime minimums in the fabric of the universe that contains information within it as well.

A mathematical theory is a rigorous logical theory. But whether it applies to a specific description of reality or not depends on evidence.
There is no evidence that universe sprang from an infinitely small point. None. The rest of what you said does not make much sense.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Maybe you two should define your terms. I think that you are using the word "speculation" differently. As I use the word, 2+2=4 isn't a speculation, but any claim about its application to reality that has not been ruled in or out would qualify.

But that is exactly the problem. No, 2+2=4 isn't speculation in this universe, but it's pure "outside" or "before", especially because we don't even know if there is an outside or before or what it might be like if there is. We can't assume anything that we know about the universe applies to the outside or before, including mathematically theories or equations reasonably arrived about the inside. That's what happened to Hawking who had to come back down very hard.

A mathematical theory is a rigorous logical theory.

That we can only assume applies to this universe?

But whether it applies to a specific description of reality or not depends on evidence.

The only reality(ies) we yet have any information to deal with.
None.

The rest of what you said does not make much sense.

The first bit of knowledge we have is that the universe existed at one Planck space/time unit, called the Planck Epoch. Those space/time units are not further divisible, so at the front end of that epoch, either the universe was infinitely massive in an infinitely small space, or the universe's mass was zero. In either case, our math doesn't apply because zero and infinite values render any equation irrational. That's the firewall we can't get past.

And I don't know how to respond to you saying something makes no sense, if you don't say what the something is.

 

[sayak83]

But that is exactly the problem. No, 2+2=4 isn't speculation in this universe, but it's pure "outside" or "before", especially because we don't even know if there is an outside or before or what it might be like if there is. We can't assume anything that we know about the universe applies to the outside or before, including mathematically theories or equations reasonably arrived about the inside. That's what happened to Hawking who had to come back down very hard.



That we can only assume applies to this universe?



The only reality(ies) we yet have any information to deal with.
None.



The first bit of knowledge we have is that the universe existed at one Planck space/time unit, called the Planck Epoch. Those space/time units are not further divisible, so at the front end of that epoch, either the universe was infinitely massive in an infinitely small space, or the universe's mass was zero. In either case, our math doesn't apply because zero and infinite values render any equation irrational. That's the firewall we can't get past.

And I don't know how to respond to you saying something makes no sense, if you don't say what the something is.

Space time units are infinitely divisible. Planck epoch is also entirely theoretical. Nobody knows if the universe was at that state (or even beyond it) when expansion started. It's the scale where cosmologists believe quantum gravity becomes important. There is absolutely no reason to believe that energy scales cannot go beyond Planck scales. It will simply require a quantum gravity theory to predict behavior beyond the Planck scales for energy density. Our current quantum field theories are approximations as we deliberately neglect higher order terms as they contribute nothing at our low energy density state. Think of y = x + x^4. If x = 0.1, one can neglect the 4th power term. But not if x = 10. It's not a case of there being no physics beyond Planck densities, we simply have been unable to properly model and solve it.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Overall, I thought it was fairly good. What I have found in this short life, thus far, is that people tend to not think too deeply about the nature or veracity of the things they believe. Why explore things that are self-evident, unless they aren't as solid as we prefer to pretend. That said, the truth will indeed set you free, but that doesn't mean that it comes without a cost. Muahahahaha.

I was lucky. Growing up in southern Appalachia was an first hand experience with abject poverty, according to American standards, anyway. No one I know starved but I was always hungry. Anyway failing material things one thing my father did give me was how to develop an intense curiosity of the natural world. He taught me to think, and how to use applied science and mathematics to solve problems. So yes the truth will set you free, but the most difficult thing about applying that saying is to define 'truth'. I have come to the conclusion using my definition of truth, it can not be obtained by mortal men. What is my definition of truth? Without writing a book I will say that truth according to MrMr is to know everything about everything in the universe. Lol is it truth or is it BS, you be the judge....Really I feel 'truth' does not exist unless every variable, every element, and as I said ever thing is known about the 'problem'. Defining 'reality' is just a slippery and difficult task as is defining 'truth'. I think we are on the verge of discovering what I call 'God'. I hope so because I have been lonely for that type of relationship, that urge for a supernatural connection for what seems like five thousand years. Of course I realize that is mankind's time scale not one mortal man....

God bless this forum....

; {>

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Space time units are infinitely divisible. Planck epoch is also entirely theoretical. Nobody knows if the universe was at that state (or even beyond it) when expansion started. It's the scale where cosmologists believe quantum gravity becomes important. There is absolutely no reason to believe that energy scales cannot go beyond Planck scales. It will simply require a quantum gravity theory to predict behavior beyond the Planck scales for energy density. Our current quantum field theories are approximations as we deliberately neglect higher order terms as they contribute nothing at our low energy density state. Think of y = x + x^4. If x = 0.1, one can neglect the 4th power term. But not if x = 10. It's not a case of there being no physics beyond Planck densities, we simply have been unable to properly model and solve it.

It's more than theoretical. If, say, time and space were infinitely divisible, then light would be unable even to cross a Planck length because it would take an infinite amount of time to cross that infinitely divisible length of space.

Think of it as continually going half-way. If there is no smallest unit of length, it could never get there, and in fact it couldn't even get half way, and so on. It would never even get started if units of space were infinitely divisible, it would be stuck at the start, going zero miles for and infinite amount of time. This is true even if the value of a Planck length were different than the currently accepted 10 to the -38 meters.

My theory is that quantum transactions take place when signals between two quantum entities pass through the Planck foam fabric of the universe into the "external" ether which is timeless and non-local. When one photon, say, is absorbed, the other reacts instantly because there is no time or locality involved for the communication between them, each being within 10 to the -38 meters of access to the ether wherever it is.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

All we do know is that the universe had a start. The Big Bang rang a bell that's still ringing, i.e. the CMBR (cosmic microwave background radiation). But we know absolutely nothing about what caused or preceded it. A leading proponent of multiverses, Stephen Hawking, pretty much went over the edge starting around 20 years ago. He's even had to back down (kicking and screaming) from his claim to have shown that there is no God, based on evidence from before the Big Bang which was bogus. I know his situation is sad, but he's turned bitter and it's clouded all his thinking.

You are confused. The Big Bang singularity is not needed for the Big Bang theory at all. All that is needed is that the universe expand from a hot and dense state. Singularity is simply a hypothetical approximation used to treat the early period of the universe using GR when it's assumptions fail. All current methods of cosmology remove this hypothetical singularity. The problem isn't that there aren't enough models that are mathematically consistent (see one below). The problem is how to test them to know which model corresponds to how things were.
Our Mirror Universe: Where Time Moves Backwards

The BB go to theory, called the standard hot model still does employ a singularity like point from which our universe expanded. The reason that the standard hot model of the big bang theory is being challenged with multiverses or Hawking's darling theory that eliminates the bang 'singularity' with a near plagiarized lack luster theory of the old rebounding cyclic universe is to eliminate God or an intelligent designer from any theory of universe creation. Hawking has been working on his new and awful theory when the standard BB began to show it was theistic friendly. Its not only Hawking, many atheist cosmologists have been searching for a new theory to replace or modify the standard BB model with a theory that eliminates a starting point, read as creation point and God. They (most atheist cosmologists) are working for a new theory for how the universe beginning to exist IMO for the express reason to eliminate the theistic revelations of the standard BB model.

; {>

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

If what they say is true you should be able to program people to believe anything is truth. That surely does seem to be the case other than God what other ridiculous claims exist.

You need to get out more. Actually, not even that;Have you looked around these boards lately at the wide range of mutually exclusive beliefs people have?

And this isn't even close to one of the crazier places on the web vis a vis crazy beliefs. The comeback flat Earth is making boggles the mind.

Name anything, and someone believes it.