Lionizing Lyin Eyes.

[John D. Brey]

This has always struck me as a bizarre idea. As Christopher Hitchens like to say, according to Christians, "we are created sick and commanded to be well." Daft, if you ask me.

I can appreciate your feeling the idea is bizarre. But the context for that idea, so far as this thread is concerned, relates to the discussion concerning the difference between the natural brain functions (to include, as you note, the entire biology of the body, since the brain is merely a profound part of that whole), versus some immaterial soul, you, we, or I, such as the entity both Richard Dawkins, and Theodore Schwartz, can't help but referencing, since without it their metaphysical materialism is absurd.

One simply can't say the brain is trying to trick us into thinking we're real, that we have freewill, when if that were true, our saying it would be no more real than the free-willed soul the statement is designed to deny.

Where the idea of original sin, i.e., that we're born sinners, comes into the picture, is the idea that only someone created as a whole, righteous, soul, would be likely to notice a distinction between right, versus the way the world actually is, broken.

The agnostic materialist become a quasi-idealist, Karl Popper, to his great credit came to realize just this truism such that he said the modern scientific-method, far from arising from natural, normal, observations and questions about the world, in fact came about only when certain kinds of persons, religious persons, put forward the impossible idea that the world, and the carnal body, are lying to us; that carnality itself is profane, and that the world is a great lie foisted on us to make us slaves to principles, principalities, and powers, that would lord themselves over us without the righteous souls who see through the ruse.

To perform this miraculous mental feat of seeing the body and the world for what they clearly are, requires a soul detached, to some degree, from the world and the body that house it. Otherwise, there's no possible reason a person could doubt their body, or the nature of their perceptions of the world. That would be impossible. It's the complete antithesis of what Theodore Schwartz is selling in his book, Gray Matters.

In total contradistinction to the religious mind Popper says is the source for scientific thinking, Schwartz claims that all of our thinking is based, totally, on the bells and whistle of our brain and its natural mechanisms. Were that true, it would be impossible to posit that the body is lying to us since there's no us for it to lie to. Which is why Schwartz, and his ilk, are desperate to do away with a soul, mind, or whatever you call it, that's able to ably question what otherwise cannot be questioned.

To say we're born-sinners merely means we're born into a body of sin, meaning a body that's created in ways designed to make us believe things that simply aren't true, things that would be impossible to question if we didn't transcend the sinful body "we" temporarily inhabit.



John

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm also no expert, but your understanding matches mine. The current measurements hint at a flat universe, but that goes against my intuition. I think the universe must be positively curved - or something like negative gravity must exist.

Actually the theoretical considerations of the nature of our universe, such as a flat universe, are descriptive of properties we estimate and we do not know what our universe looks like.

 

[1213]

Pick any place in the universe and it would appear the same. It's like the surface of a balloon that is being inflated.

But balloon has a center. And we can see space in all directions, which means space can't be like surface of a balloon.

 

[Heyo]

But balloon has a center. And we can see space in all directions, which means space can't be like surface of a balloon.

It's an analogy, a 3D model of our 4D universe. There are three spacial dimension squished into 2, the surface of the balloon. Time is perpendicular to all space dimensions, i.e. the centre of the balloon is the zero point of time, the outside of the balloon is the future.
Remember that I said that the centre of the universe is in the past?
I find this to be one of the most intuitive models, even for people who can't imagine 4 dimensions. If you can imagine the surface of the balloon to be "bumpy", you can also explain time dilation near massive objects (they are nearer to the centre) and why the invisible part of the universe must be at least 7 times the size of the visible.
The problem with this model is that it requires a closed universe (positive curvature), which, according to latest measurements, may not comport to reality.

 

[Alien826]

It's an analogy, a 3D model of our 4D universe. There are three spacial dimension squished into 2, the surface of the balloon. Time is perpendicular to all space dimensions, i.e. the centre of the balloon is the zero point of time, the outside of the balloon is the future.
Remember that I said that the centre of the universe is in the past?
I find this to be one of the most intuitive models, even for people who can't imagine 4 dimensions. If you can imagine the surface of the balloon to be "bumpy", you can also explain time dilation near massive objects (they are nearer to the centre) and why the invisible part of the universe must be at least 7 times the size of the visible.
The problem with this model is that it requires a closed universe (positive curvature), which, according to latest measurements, may not comport to reality.

Thanks for saving me a response. My only question relates to the curvature of space. If the surface of the balloon is two dimensional, the fact that we know that the balloon is curved doesn't apply as it would require a third dimension to be curved "into". As the curvature of the universe, when considering it as three dimensional, requires a fourth dimension were you using the third dimension of the (real) balloon to be an analogy of that? In any case how is a positively curved universe implied?

 

[Heyo]

Thanks for saving me a response. My only question relates to the curvature of space. If the surface of the balloon is two dimensional, the fact that we know that the balloon is curved doesn't apply as it would require a third dimension to be curved "into". As the curvature of the universe, when considering it as three dimensional, requires a fourth dimension were you using the third dimension of the (real) balloon to be an analogy of that? In any case how is a positively curved universe implied?

I'm not sure whether I understand your question. "the fact that we know that the balloon is curved doesn't apply" - apply to what?
The universe is (at least) 4 dimensional. The 4th dimension is time, and space is curved in the direction of time. I.e., in the analogy, the inflating balloon represents space expanding - and getting farther away from the centre.
The balloon analogy works only because the balloon is positively curved - as Einstein believed the universe to be when he came up with GR.
That is all only in my understanding, and the analogy may fall apart at some point. I'd like to discuss this with someone knowledgeable, but @Meow Mix is MIA and I haven't seen @Polymath257 in some time.

 

[1213]

It's an analogy, a 3D model of our 4D universe.

And that is why it is very poor analogy. Doesn't work, if you acknowledge also the third dimension.

 

[Heyo]

And that is why it is very poor analogy. Doesn't work, if you acknowledge also the third dimension.

It works just as fine, but most humans have problems with imagining 4 dimensions, it is just out of our normal perception.
Your argument is as if you said pictures and videos are bad analogies because they are 2-dimensional.

 

[Alien826]

I'm not sure whether I understand your question. "the fact that we know that the balloon is curved doesn't apply" - apply to what?
The universe is (at least) 4 dimensional. The 4th dimension is time, and space is curved in the direction of time. I.e., in the analogy, the inflating balloon represents space expanding - and getting farther away from the centre.
The balloon analogy works only because the balloon is positively curved - as Einstein believed the universe to be when he came up with GR.
That is all only in my understanding, and the analogy may fall apart at some point. I'd like to discuss this with someone knowledgeable, but @Meow Mix is MIA and I haven't seen @Polymath257 in some time.

You say it only works because the balloon is curved. I thought you said it only works as an analogy of positively curved space/time. Of course the balloon is curved, but the analogy only considers the surface of the balloon as 2-dimensional, so the curvature of the balloon's surface doesn't apply to the analogy. It's just handy to think about a balloon, as people can picture the surface expanding in all directions fairly easily. We could draw a series of dots on the un-inflated balloon then observe them getting further apart and bigger as the balloon expands. Easy to observe. If we wanted to include the third dimension of space to represent the 4th (5th?) dimension then the balloon would indeed represent a positively curved space/time, but that wouldn't exclude a negatively curved balloon or flat elastic sheet from serving as an analogy, the problem being that it would be more difficult to represent in reality. Hmmm, would the inside of the balloon be negatively curved?

All this could be total rubbish as I'm operating at the limit of my understanding, and yes those two members would be greatly welcome. I've seen @Polymath257 as logged on fairly recently. Maybe these references will tempt him.

 

[1213]

It works just as fine, but most humans have problems with imagining 4 dimensions, it is just out of our normal perception.
Your argument is as if you said pictures and videos are bad analogies because they are 2-dimensional.

The biggest problem is, reality is in contradiction with the theory. If you open your eyes, things are 3D. That means, things can be seen in 3 directions. And that means things don't go like on a balloons surface, and that there is a center of all material in space. And if one is not on the center, things don't move equally from one to all directions.

 

[Heyo]

The biggest problem is, reality is in contradiction with the theory.

Your perception of reality is in contradiction with the theory.

"Reality is not what we perceive it to be, it is what scientific instruments tell us." (Someone has this as a signature, but I can't find the exact quote and don't remember the author (Neil deGrasse Tyson?).)

You also perceive the Earth as flat, as you can't see the curvature from your vantage point. We have evolved on the surface of a small planet and our senses are useful here, but we can't "see" the big picture.

 

[Polymath257]

The biggest problem is, reality is in contradiction with the theory. If you open your eyes, things are 3D. That means, things can be seen in 3 directions. And that means things don't go like on a balloons surface, and that there is a center of all material in space. And if one is not on the center, things don't move equally from one to all directions.

That does not follow. The surface of the balloon is 2D. There are analogous 3D manifolds with very similar properties. And it is these 3D manifolds that show up in the math for the BB theory. For example, a 3D version of the surface of a ball is the 3D 'surface' of a 4D 'ball'. For this 'surface', there is no 'center'. And, just like we can model an expanding 2D sphere in 3D, we can model an expanding 3D sphere in 4D.

The analogy is actually quite good.

 

[Polymath257]

You say it only works because the balloon is curved. I thought you said it only works as an analogy of positively curved space/time. Of course the balloon is curved, but the analogy only considers the surface of the balloon as 2-dimensional, so the curvature of the balloon's surface doesn't apply to the analogy. It's just handy to think about a balloon, as people can picture the surface expanding in all directions fairly easily. We could draw a series of dots on the un-inflated balloon then observe them getting further apart and bigger as the balloon expands. Easy to observe. If we wanted to include the third dimension of space to represent the 4th (5th?) dimension then the balloon would indeed represent a positively curved space/time, but that wouldn't exclude a negatively curved balloon or flat elastic sheet from serving as an analogy, the problem being that it would be more difficult to represent in reality. Hmmm, would the inside of the balloon be negatively curved?

All this could be total rubbish as I'm operating at the limit of my understanding, and yes those two members would be greatly welcome. I've seen @Polymath257 as logged on fairly recently. Maybe these references will tempt him.

Exactly.

Although, one difference with the balloon analogy, where the surface is positively curved, but the 3D space is flat, it is possible to have a curved 4D ambient space in which the 3D 'spatial' part is also curved.

 

[Polymath257]

Thanks for saving me a response. My only question relates to the curvature of space. If the surface of the balloon is two dimensional, the fact that we know that the balloon is curved doesn't apply as it would require a third dimension to be curved "into". As the curvature of the universe, when considering it as three dimensional, requires a fourth dimension were you using the third dimension of the (real) balloon to be an analogy of that? In any case how is a positively curved universe implied?

This is a misconception. We can determine curvature both externally and internally. There need not be an ambient space into which a curved 3D 'curves'.

A positively curved 3D manifold is demonstrated by looking at triangles: the angles will add up to more than 180 degrees. For a negatively curved manifold, the angles will add up to less than 180 degrees.

Again, the analogy with the surface of a sphere holds good: if you look at a triangle on a sphere whose sides are 'great circles' (the shortest distance curves), the the angles will always add to more than 180 degrees. In fact, the amount over 180 degrees will be proportional to the area of the triangle.

 

[Polymath257]

But balloon has a center. And we can see space in all directions, which means space can't be like surface of a balloon.

If you work in 4D and look at a 'sphere' (the figure of all points equidistant from a 'center'), you get a 3D manifold. That manifold is *one* of the possibilities for space in general relativity.

 

[Heyo]

If you work in 4D and look at a 'sphere' (the figure of all points equidistant from a 'center'), you get a 3D manifold. That manifold is *one* of the possibilities for space in general relativity.

Good to see you participating in the discussions of us mere mortals. I have a few questions about spacetime geometry, you might be able to answer.
#1 If we assume that spacetime was positively curved at the Big Bang, is there a way, in finite time, to transform the curved spacetime into a (globally) flat one or negatively curved one?
#2 We see (locally) only positively curved spacetime. (Positive gravity) Shouldn't those local positive curvatures not add up into a universal positive curvature? In other words, to get to a flat universe, wouldn't we need areas of space with negative gravity? (Which could be the Dark Energy.)
#3 Assuming that all points on the surface of a hyperball are basically (ignoring local bumps due to gravity) equally the same distance from the centre (measure the same age of the universe), we could calculate the volume of the universe. To get to a negatively curved spacetime (which has more volume than calculated), wouldn't we need a fifth dimension?

These questions rest on my contemplations of the balloon model (or the bedsheet analogy for #2). They may be nonsensical, but then, doesn't the balloon analogy fall apart? Where and why?

Thanks in advance if you are taking these questions.

 

[Alien826]

This is a misconception. We can determine curvature both externally and internally. There need not be an ambient space into which a curved 3D 'curves'.

A positively curved 3D manifold is demonstrated by looking at triangles: the angles will add up to more than 180 degrees. For a negatively curved manifold, the angles will add up to less than 180 degrees.

Again, the analogy with the surface of a sphere holds good: if you look at a triangle on a sphere whose sides are 'great circles' (the shortest distance curves), the the angles will always add to more than 180 degrees. In fact, the amount over 180 degrees will be proportional to the area of the triangle.

Thanks for the responses. Good to know you are still around also. To add to the confusion ...

Something that has always concerned me when I read about two-dimensional spaces. An example is the idea of "flatland", where a three dimensional sphere passes through their two dimensions. They supposedly "see" first a dot, then a circle that expands to a maximum size, then shrinks to a dot again and disappears. That seems wrong if we are talking about the two-dimensional inhabitants of flatland, who see ... what? They would need a third dimension to see the object as a circle, which they don't have. Putting aside the thought that a two-dimensional thing can't actually exist as we do, as it would be of infinite thinness, how do they tell what shape it is? they would be aware of something in their world when they approach the edge of the circle and would be unable to pass through it. So they try to map the shape of this object, but how? they can't draw a map because it would be a similarly incomprehensible object to them, viewed only from the side. No way to look "down" on it.

I'm wondering if that relates to your determining curvature internally?

Second thoughts. They could perhaps measure distance between two points by the time taken to travel between them. How do they record the position of a point though?

 

[1213]

If you work in 4D and look at a 'sphere' (the figure of all points equidistant from a 'center'), you get a 3D manifold. That manifold is *one* of the possibilities for space in general relativity.

4 th dimension is the time? Are all things in the universe equally old?

In any case, the reality is 3D and it shows the idea of no center wrong.

 

[Polymath257]

Good to see you participating in the discussions of us mere mortals. I have a few questions about spacetime geometry, you might be able to answer.
#1 If we assume that spacetime was positively curved at the Big Bang, is there a way, in finite time, to transform the curved spacetime into a (globally) flat one or negatively curved one?
#2 We see (locally) only positively curved spacetime. (Positive gravity) Shouldn't those local positive curvatures not add up into a universal positive curvature? In other words, to get to a flat universe, wouldn't we need areas of space with negative gravity? (Which could be the Dark Energy.)
#3 Assuming that all points on the surface of a hyperball are basically (ignoring local bumps due to gravity) equally the same distance from the centre (measure the same age of the universe), we could calculate the volume of the universe. To get to a negatively curved spacetime (which has more volume than calculated), wouldn't we need a fifth dimension?

These questions rest on my contemplations of the balloon model (or the bedsheet analogy for #2). They may be nonsensical, but then, doesn't the balloon analogy fall apart? Where and why?

Thanks in advance if you are taking these questions.

First, when discussing positive or negative curvature, we are usually talking about the *spatial* cross sections, not spacetime in general.

So, imagine a trumpet shape and time corresponding to the axis of the trumpet. The spatial cross sections are circles that expand as you go outward along the trumpet (i.e, later in time). In this model, space is positively curved (the circles) but spacetime is negatively curved (the trumpet itself).

If, instead, you have a cylinder instead of a trumpet shape, the 'space' cross sections would be positively curved and the spacetime itself would technically be flat (imagine unrolling the cylinder--it becomes a flat piece). So, no, you do not need corresponding negative curvature anywhere to get flatness.

 

[Polymath257]

4 th dimension is the time? Are all things in the universe equally old?

In any case, the reality is 3D and it shows the idea of no center wrong.

Time is one variable that can be used as a fourth dimension. Remember that dimension just means the number of variables needed to locate a point.

No, things are not equally old, just like points on the Earth don't have the same latitude.

So, the surface of a sphere is *two* dimensional because we only need two numbers (latitude and longitude) to locate points on the sphere. Ordinary space is three dimensional because we need three numbers (up/down, left-right/ front-back distances). Spacetime is four dimensional because we need an extra time variable to locate an event in spacetime.

This can all be determined *internally*.

So, the surface of a sphere is 2D. There is no center of the surface of the sphere that is *on the sphere*.

So space is 3D, I agree. But if it is the 3D surface of a 4D ball, then it has no center *in space*.