Scientific Proof For The Existence of God/ Heaven

[Chesterton]

I can only cite reported observations, IIRC they include alertness, memory, attention, sense of location, body ownership, bounds, viewpoint, emotional response, sense of self, various aspects of personality & personhood, moral values, religious belief, etc., but if you'd can suggest some aspects that you feel are unlikely to be included, it might be interesting to see if there are any reports of such changes.

Again, many of those things can be accomplished to a degree by consuming alcoholic beverages. It wouldn't bear on whether anything's being "received".

And I said they're not disagreeing on the science, but on the meaning and usage of the term 'free will'.

And I asked how that could be, since the science is supposed to be so definitive on the topic.

No; your question was whether America is a Christian culture, so by that reasoning, the UK is a broadly secular culture.

You've developed some immunity to your culture that I haven't to mine?

It's generally used as an acceptably coherent definition of the 'free' in free will.

Again, it's not a definition because it sidesteps the issue, for the reasons I stated.

If you can provide a coherent definition of what you mean by 'free' in 'actual free will', i.e. without invoking inexplicables like 'the supernatural', we could discuss that.

I've already addressed that. My answer is mysterious, but coherent. I've yet to hear a coherent definition from you. You appeal to your own vague, inexplicable mystery, which is a combination of what you call "complexity" and "emergence". But your mystery, being naturalistic, is incoherent.

Yes; but the point is whether they would voluntarily make that choice in the absence of coercion. For example, if a mugger threatens to stab you unless you give him your wallet, and you then give him your wallet, you have been coerced if you gave him your wallet because he threatened you. If you had decided, in a moment of improbable generosity or madness, to give him your wallet before he even approached you, then you would not have been coerced. In the former case it would not be considered a free choice, in the latter it would.

A choice made under duress is still a choice. You want to keep your money but you also want to keep your life. You want a bacon burger but you also want to eat healthy. We choose between competing "wants" all the time. It's a matter of degree; a decision involving death is just an extreme example.

If you recall from the podcast, Dennett was talking of freedom in terms of degrees of freedom as used in control theory; for example, in terms of movement, a hinge joint like the elbow or knee has a one degree of freedom, but a ball & socket joint like the hip or shoulder has many degrees of freedom. Similarly, creatures with complex brains have more cognitive degrees of freedom than creatures with simple brains. Dennett is saying that our freedom in this context is related to the number of different ways we can arrive at, and express, our will, and our competence to control this complexity.

As I understand it this is part of his pragmatic argument that, in practice, we need to take a high-level, i.e. behavioural, societal, view of free will rather than a low-level deterministic view; the former is emergent from the latter, and follows rules that are not applicable or meaningful at the lower level, so our analysis should be at the emergent level, not the substrate level.

The inevitablility of his ducking (the deterministic view) is distinguished from the evitability of being hit by the brick (the behavioural view). Under 'raw' determinism everything is inevitable, so trying to discuss human behaviour becomes pointless - at that level there is no meaning, it's 'just the deterministic interactions of fundamental particles'. However, in practice, at human scales and levels of interaction, we do experience making choices, we can avoid the brick, we do describe human behaviour in terms of meaning, motivations, goals, etc., so Dennett says that we should take these concepts seriously at their level of applicability.

He measures our freedom of will in terms of degrees of freedom, especially of cognition (as previously explained), implying a continuum of freedom, e.g. from the lack of freedom of the simplest organisms that can neither sense nor respond to approaching bricks, through the limited freedom of creatures with hard-wired avoidance responses to sudden movement (perhaps one degree of freedom), to the greater freedom of more complex creatures that can track a moving object and navigate to avoid it, up to the extensive freedom of the most cognitively complex creatures (us) that can (in principle) recognise the object as a brick, visualise multiple strategies involving not being hit, and select the perceived most appropriate strategy. In this sense, the freedom is in the almost infinite variety of responses we could make, and the cognitive means we have to control the processing and selection of these responses.

To make a crude analogy with the emergent concepts of temperature and pressure, he's saying yes, it may ultimately be all to do with the vibrations and velocities of atoms and molecules, but if you want to analyse why you're sweating and your ears are popping, think about adjusting the temperature and pressure, not about the vibrations and velocities of atoms and molecules.

If he says we have degrees of freedom, then he's saying we have freedom. But it's nonsense because hinges and joints do not have any freedom whatsoever in the sense that human will should be discussed, so this is another flawed analogy. The mind either acts freely apart from physics or it doesn't. You and other compatibilists can define "not free" as "free" all you want, but it's intellectually unfair to expect me to play along with the self-serving contradictory semantics. We're talking past each other, and it's tedious, so I think I'm done here.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... which would make that activity no different from the quest for the Holy Grail.
Yet another religion is spawned .. (courtesy of the foundations of Realism .. ie: beliefs).

Like I said, I'm not a fan of the simulation hypothesis, but I find it an interesting idea. YMMV.

Well then why not just call it the search for God?

Because, by genre, it's science fiction, not fantasy.

Directed searches for what 'might be possible' amounts to the search for the Holy Grail because: 'Its possible its out there somewhere ... therefore it must also be possible to find it'. (Directed searches seek specifically the 'it' .. again, merely by definition).

Exploration of what we are capable of perceiving however, (from say, an alien landscape), is an entirely different approach which sustains the distinctions of our own honest skepticism in that we really don't know with any accuracy what we're looking for in the first place .. (other than, for eg: a duplicate of Earth-life, including its already known functions such as evolution functionality).

Hmm... Meno's paradox comes to mind... But in science directed searches are how we support or falsify hypotheses. The explorations, by which we observe the phenomena, for which we make hypotheses, are funded (directed) by various interests, commercial, political, emotional, etc.

Exploration of what we can perceive is human nature and has a looonngg evidenced history, whereas historically 'gold-hunts' are short term because motivation diminishes in the face of 'no evidence'.

I think motivation tends to increase the more reason we have to think the search target exists; e.g. the more supporting evidence we have.

I think there's room for both directed and 'blue-sky' exploration.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Again, many of those things can be accomplished to a degree by consuming alcoholic beverages. It wouldn't bear on whether anything's being "received".

The point is that if you can show that what is suggested to be a broadcast is generated locally, the broadcast hypothesis becomes redundant. YMMV.

And I asked how that could be, since the science is supposed to be so definitive on the topic.

They agree on the relevant science but differ on the social & cultural utility of defining 'free will' as Dennett does.

You've developed some immunity to your culture that I haven't to mine?

Like what, for example? in what way?

Again, it's not a definition because it sidesteps the issue, for the reasons I stated.

When someone specifies what they mean by a word, it's a definition - by definition There may be other definitions, and people may disagree about them; that's why people are encouraged to explicitly define their terms in discussion and debate.

Some compatibilists, like Dennett, think their concept of free will is also compatible with moral responsibility, some don't.

I've already addressed that. My answer is mysterious, but coherent.

I suggest it's not coherent as a definition, as it's neither definitive nor descriptive enough to distinguish its referent. There are few things that can be defined by what they are not.

I've yet to hear a coherent definition from you.

What do you find incoherent about 'the subjective experience of making choices' as I described it?

You appeal to your own vague, inexplicable mystery, which is a combination of what you call "complexity" and "emergence". But your mystery, being naturalistic, is incoherent.

What do you find mysterious or incoherent about "complexity" and "emergence"? If you're saying that anything naturalistic is necessarily incoherent, I'll shrug and move on.

A choice made under duress is still a choice. You want to keep your money but you also want to keep your life. You want a bacon burger but you also want to eat healthy. We choose between competing "wants" all the time. It's a matter of degree; a decision involving death is just an extreme example.

Yep, no argument there.

If he says we have degrees of freedom, then he's saying we have freedom. But it's nonsense because hinges and joints do not have any freedom whatsoever in the sense that human will should be discussed, so this is another flawed analogy. The mind either acts freely apart from physics or it doesn't. You and other compatibilists can define "not free" as "free" all you want, but it's intellectually unfair to expect me to play along with the self-serving contradictory semantics. We're talking past each other, and it's tedious, so I think I'm done here.

OK.

 

[SelfSim]

Like I said, I'm not a fan of the simulation hypothesis, but I find it an interesting idea. YMMV.

I've often thought that string theory's 'Holographic Principle' might be a more sophisticated version of the simulation concept. We can say all we like about string theory's lack of practicality, but at least the Holographic Principle has become a useful means for string theorists to advance the boundaries of their theoretical thinking in that 'world' of thought.

Because, by genre, it's science fiction, not fantasy.

Hmm .. science fiction is fantasy .. its based on fiction y'know(?)
There's no practical application in the scientific process which comes from blurring those particular distinctions.

Hmm... Meno's paradox comes to mind... But in science directed searches are how we support or falsify hypotheses. The explorations, by which we observe the phenomena, for which we make hypotheses, are funded (directed) by various interests, commercial, political, emotional, etc.
...
I think there's room for both directed and 'blue-sky' exploration.

The exploration concept ultimately results in more generalised instrumention design. For example, the lessons learned from the Mars Viking probe's biological experimentation package demonstrated the futility of diving into the details before having a solid understanding of the broader martian landscape.
Someday, the same package may again become useful but the context, (which was missing in the 1976 expedition), is what will ultimately provide the meaning of any data produced by the application of some similar scientific payload.

I think motivation tends to increase the more reason we have to think the search target exists; e.g. the more supporting evidence we have.

Wishful thinking (or wishful reasoning) is still the basis of religion/philosophy/politics .. and not science.
Repeatable, independently verifiable, objective observational results, (produced by following the documented process), is the criteria for admission to science's objective reality.
The two conceptual processes of: logical reasoning and scientific enquiry are fundamentally distinct .. (with the key distinction being that no intrinisic truth is preassumed to exist prior to undertaking science).
There is no utility value in blurring that distinction.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I've often thought that string theory's 'Holographic Principle' might be a more sophisticated version of the simulation concept. We can say all we like about string theory's lack of practicality, but at least the Holographic Principle has become a useful means for string theorists to advance the boundaries of their theoretical thinking in that 'world' of thought.

It's a fascinating principle, but I don't see a connection to the simulation hypothesis - the HP is a mathematical equivalence; that the information in a given volume can be encoded on its surface doesn't imply it is so encoded - AFAIK black holes aren't simulations in any interesting sense...

Hmm .. science fiction is fantasy .. its based on fiction y'know(?)

That's why I used 'genre' to distinguish them, but let's say hard science fiction vs fantasy. The former (pace Clarke's 3rd Law) involves a scientific conceit, i.e. scientific extrapolations based on physical law (with the odd McGuffin such as FTL travel); the latter involves magic. I find it a useful distinction, YMMV.

Wishful thinking (or wishful reasoning) is still the basis of religion/philosophy/politics .. and not science.
Repeatable, independently verifiable, objective observational results, (produced by following the documented process), is the criteria for admission to science's objective reality.

Of course; that's why abductive criteria are important.

The two conceptual processes of: logical reasoning and scientific enquiry are fundamentally distinct .. (with the key distinction being that no intrinisic truth is preassumed to exist prior to undertaking science).
There is no utility value in blurring that distinction.

Logical reasoning is a tool of scientific enquiry (among other uses).

 

[SelfSim]

It's a fascinating principle, but I don't see a connection to the simulation hypothesis - the HP is a mathematical equivalence; that the information in a given volume can be encoded on its surface doesn't imply it is so encoded - AFAIK black holes aren't simulations in any interesting sense...

What I said is highly speculative (not quite a belief .. its theoretical physics) and I can personally see not a lot of point in defending it .. but I offer the following for consideration:

It has been proven (in theory) that the maximum number of bits of info that can ever fit into a region of space, is equal to the number of Planckian pixels that can be packed onto the area of the boundary. Implicitly, this means that there is a 'boundary description' of everything that can take place inside the region of space (its a quantum mechanical description). This description can be said as 'existing' at the farthest boundaries of the universe. (This is a highly counterintuitive concept).
Now, empirically speaking: in every direction we look, galaxies are passing the point at which they recede at a velocity > c. A sphere can be modelled at this point and can be described as being the Cosmic Horizon. Beyond this horizon, no signals can reach us, but a boundary description can still be formed. It describes everything that can take place inside the enclosed region of space. But what happens to the information as these objects disappear/recede (at > c)? Turns out the properties of Cosmic Horizons (CHs) appear as being similar to black holes (BHs) .. except the CH radiates not outwards, (as per a BH/'Hawking' black body radiation), but the other way (ie: back towards us). What happens 'out there' is legitimately (theoretically) conveyed back, and yet is also intrinsically related to us (by way of the above mentioned boundary description). The effects of this on us, thus appears as being very similar to the 'simulation' that we're talking about (IMO).

(Not much is known about CHs . The meaning of the objects beyond the horizon .. whether they can be thought of as being 'theoretically real', and what role they play in our description of the universe, is still a deep mystery in theoretical cosmology).

That's why I used 'genre' to distinguish them, but let's say hard science fiction vs fantasy. The former (pace Clarke's 3rd Law) involves a scientific conceit, i.e. scientific extrapolations based on physical law (with the odd McGuffin such as FTL travel); the latter involves magic. I find it a useful distinction, YMMV.

Its interesting that the description I gave above, doesn't invoke fantasy, nor does it make fictional claims based on innate 'truths'. Its mainly evolved from exploration of deep scientific thinking and noticing co-incidences and things which stand out .. (just like exploration of an unexplored planet's landscape). 'Assumptions' are always held as being testable (and not believed) .. Your sci-fi fantasy material however, doesn't appear as being held to those kinds of standards .. its purpose is fantasy/ entertainment so it overlooks those 'inconveniences'.

Of course; that's why abductive criteria are important.

.. (but still not science).

Logical reasoning is a tool of scientific enquiry (among other uses).

Scientific thinking grabs anything it 'sees' as being potentially useful ... and treats things which don't rise to that standard with 'neutrality'.

Logic is still logic .. math is still math .. and science is still science. The distinctions are important in order optimise utility.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What I said is highly speculative (not quite a belief .. its theoretical physics) and I can personally see not a lot of point in defending it .. but I offer the following for consideration:

It has been proven (in theory) that the maximum number of bits of info that can ever fit into a region of space, is equal to the number of Planckian pixels that can be packed onto the area of the boundary. Implicitly, this means that there is a 'boundary description' of everything that can take place inside the region of space (its a quantum mechanical description). This description can be said as 'existing' at the farthest boundaries of the universe. (This is a highly counterintuitive concept).
Now, empirically speaking: in every direction we look, galaxies are passing the point at which they recede at a velocity > c. A sphere can be modelled at this point and can be described as being the Cosmic Horizon. Beyond this horizon, no signals can reach us, but a boundary description can still be formed. It describes everything that can take place inside the enclosed region of space. But what happens to the information as these objects disappear/recede (at > c)? Turns out the properties of Cosmic Horizons (CHs) appear as being similar to black holes (BHs) .. except the CH radiates not outwards, (as per a BH/'Hawking' black body radiation), but the other way (ie: back towards us). What happens 'out there' is legitimately (theoretically) conveyed back, and yet is also intrinsically related to us (by way of the above mentioned boundary description). The effects of this on us, thus appears as being very similar to the 'simulation' that we're talking about (IMO).

(Not much is known about CHs . The meaning of the objects beyond the horizon .. whether they can be thought of as being 'theoretically real', and what role they play in our description of the universe, is still a deep mystery in theoretical cosmology).

I'm familiar with the CH and the Holographic Principle - but the CH is a subjective or 'virtual' horizon - by the standard cosmological model, every observer has one, and the Holographic Principle can apply to any arbitrary volume (of any number of dimensions), so while the informational contents of the observable universe is mathematically equivalent to a holographic encoding on the CH, I find it implausible that it's any more than such an equivalence (if that's the claim). The informational contents of a sphere enclosing the solar system, or the Earth, are also mathematically equivalent to a holographic encoding on the surface of that volume, and the same applies to any arbitrary volume you care to consider.

I still don't see why it might be considered a simulation - a simulation of what original and by whom?

Its interesting that the description I gave above, doesn't invoke fantasy, nor does it make fictional claims based on innate 'truths'. Its mainly evolved from exploration of deep scientific thinking and noticing co-incidences and things which stand out .. (just like exploration of an unexplored planet's landscape). 'Assumptions' are always held as being testable (and not believed) .. Your sci-fi fantasy material however, doesn't appear as being held to those kinds of standards .. its purpose is fantasy/ entertainment so it overlooks those 'inconveniences'.

Not sure where you got that - I simply said that the computational simulation hypothesis, i.e. the idea that we're part of a Matrix-style simulation, has a science-based conceit rather than a magical one, so better fits the science fiction genre than the fantasy genre.

 

[SelfSim]

... I still don't see why it might be considered a simulation - a simulation of what original and by whom?

See .. because there hasn't been any tests cited which can establish the veracity one way or the other, of the notion that some reality exists independently from the minds conceiving it, there's no case to be answered as to whether or not something has to simulate a believed-in 'original'. Its like asking me to confirm that I have reproduced the dream you had last night without any descriptions of it.

My not much-more-than-fantasy (at this stage), of the HP/CH being akin to the universe-is-a-simulation fantasy, is based on the information we receive from the black body radiation emissions of a given CH .. theoretical mainly .. (or maybe empirical). There is evidence from QM's quantum eraser experiments that our measurements of deep space EM emissions are themselves, determined at the instant of measurement (waveform collapse). Yet from the HP/CH model, the information we derive from the measurements is already related to our familiar, everyday perceived 'reality'. Isn't this the essence of what we mean when we use the term 'simulation' (ie: that the information is highly similar)? The only difference here is that our everyday perceived 'reality' baseline is accepted as being a mind dependent one ... and objectively, demonstrably so .. (unlike the alternative Realist mind independent reality, which is only held as being a belief, due to its lack of an objective distinguishing test).

I'm happy in declaring my above fantasy as being not much more than one also.
I certainly don't believe it!

Not sure where you got that - I simply said that the computational simulation hypothesis, i.e. the idea that we're part of a Matrix-style simulation, has a science-based conceit rather than a magical one, so better fits the science fiction genre than the fantasy genre.

I can find no particular distinctions useful for the purposes of doing science in that link. In fact it even opens with:

Why is it important to know whether your book is science fiction or fantasy? One of the most important reasons is for marketing purposes.

The HP/CH notion however, aids theoretical physical modelling and theoretical research. Ie: at the very least, it has some chance of being realised as being a useful framework from which objective testing may someday emerge (because of its largely QM basis). Maldacena's Ads/CFT correspondence principle is a legitimate contender I think.
Neither your 'science based conceit' (or more accurately: after-the-science-fact Computer Engineering), nor 'sci-fi fantasy' (fictional marketing) comes anywhere close to pushing any boundaries in theoretical Physics. There's no comparison I can see there with the HP/CP Ads/CFT topic.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... from the HP/CH model, the information we derive from the measurements is already related to our familiar, everyday perceived 'reality'. Isn't this the essence of what we mean when we use the term 'simulation' (ie: that the information is highly similar)?

That's not a meaning of 'simulation' I recognise - as we'd been discussing the Simulation Hypothesis, I thought you meant it the same way, i.e. an imitation of a situation or process...

I can find no particular distinctions useful for the purposes of doing science in that link.

Of course not, it was to indicate what I meant by the difference between the two genres of fiction.

Neither your 'science based conceit' (or more accurately: after-the-science-fact Computer Engineering), nor 'sci-fi fantasy' (fictional marketing) comes anywhere close to pushing any boundaries in theoretical Physics. There's no comparison I can see there with the HP/CP Ads/CFT topic.

Obviously there's a difference between science fiction and science fact. I was talking about science fiction. When you mentioned the HP/CH involving a simulation I assumed you were talking of some speculative fiction involving the HP/CH - there is a common trope that suggests the HP implies the universe is a hologram and that further implies it is artificial.

 

[SelfSim]

I'm quite content to go back into hibernation/incubation on my HP/CH fantasy .. (as I mentioned from the outset). The main point is that because there is no evidence of 'existing things' independent from human minds, a simulation of 'the real thing' makes no sense because 'the real thing' is, itself, unsupportable objectively. The whole 'universe is a simulation' idea amounts to a sc-fi fantasy for me and is quite useless.

I'm aware of the trope you mention. I think it stems from interpreting too literally, the equivalence of a three dimensional universe with gravity model with a distant two dimensional quantum surface description of it. The main difference arises from the uncertain nature of the quantum description from the more familiar hologram 'plate'.
Oh .. and its all provisionally 'artificial' (ie: holograms and holographic principles) .. because there's no evidence to the contrary.

 

[lesliedellow]

The idea that we could predict with any accuracy what would happen with a universe with different constants is absurd.

If we can’t predict how far a cannon ball will fly, on the basis that the fundamental constants have a particular set of values, I guess that just about puts an end to all physics.

 

[variant]

If we can’t predict how far a cannon ball will fly, on the basis that the fundamental constants have a particular set of values, I guess that just about puts an end to all physics.

It's not the easy stuff that becomes a problem, it's what we don't know that bothers models.

It's not about predicting the flights of cannonballs. That WOULD be relatively simple, with the current constants, we did that ages ago. Especially since you don't need to know much about the universe to do it and you have direct access to this universe to test it.

What effect does changing the constants of the universe have on the parts of the universe we don't understand? That's the problem we don't understand fully THIS universe, or the the why's for the constants involved.

You have to predict everything to create a new model of a universe and say what that would look like if you were going to modify the constants. So, what does changing gravity do to "dark matter"?

So, first you would have to understand the constants effect on this universe, and know what would change if they were changed. There are constants we know virtually nothing about. When we tried to predict the universal constant "should" be we were off by orders of magnitude.

I could say a cannon ball would fall sooner if we increased gravitation, but not easily predict all the unknown effects of such a move.

So, the question becomes can I modify gravity, or the strong force and get a stable universe? Some physicists say yes. But, we're talking about a very theoretical idea here, not something we obviously have a firm grasp of.

 

[lesliedellow]

At the moment of the Big Bang, there is no universe, and the universe which exists a fraction of a nano second later is not much more complicated.

In any case, your argument is with the astrophysicists who do those calculations; not with me.

 

[variant]

At the moment of the Big Bang, there is no universe, and the universe which exists a fraction of a nano second later is not much more complicated.

In any case, your argument is with the astrophysicists who do those calculations; not with me.

No, the beginnings of the big bang is the theoretical thing about this universe that we understand the least. We don't even have the math to work on it.

See, we don't actually know what goes on at a big bang event (so you are already outside your area as much as we all are). Physics actually breaks down there supposedly. Do the constants of the universe result from the circumstances of the event or do they cause it? Who knows.

We simply don't know why the various constants are what they are, or how they got that way. What we have are mathematical extrapolations on what we do know. Not, simple exactly so much as oversimplified.

The vaguest question would be difficult to grapple with and the slightest error the entire thing is wrong minded.

So my argument isn't with them, I don't think they know either.

Not enough to have a definitive answer to the real questions.

Certainly not enough to have real answers enough to make complex inferences into philosophical topics.

What we get generally along these lines are misappropriations and misunderstandings of the breath of such knowledge and claims that simply shouldn't be taken with credulity.

Which brings us back to your original point, trying to make hay about a point of fact we don't currently understand in order to fit in your pet philosophical idea.

 

[lesliedellow]

Physics actually breaks down there supposedly. Do the constants of the universe result from the circumstances of the event or do they cause it? Who knows.

Physics breaks down there in the same sense that it breaks down if you put r=0 in Newton’s equation for the strength of the gravitational force. That is the mathematical meaning of a singularity. When physicists borrow the term they can make it sound like something physical. It does not mean that the mathematics does not work for any value of r, even infinitesimally greater than zero, and it makes no difference that the Big Bang theory utilises General Relativity rather than Newton’s theory.

The mathematics can be done for an extremely early history of the universe, that is the point.

 

[variant]

Physics breaks down there in the same sense that it breaks down if you put r=0 in Newton’s equation for the strength of the gravitational force. That is the mathematical meaning of a singularity. When physicists borrow the term they can make it sound like something physical. It does not mean that the mathematics does not work for any value of r, even infinitesimally greater than zero, and it makes no difference that the Big Bang theory utilises General Relativity rather than Newton’s theory.

The mathematics can be done for an extremely early history of the universe, that is the point.

No they can't. When you ball up the entire universe and reduce things like time and energy to a point singularity they don't mean anything. So, neither do physical models.

Exactly what is going on is important and we don't even have a conceptualization or model of them. Whether or models are nonsense sometime well after this point is also a question.

That is why we don't know why the fundamental forces are what they are. The idea that they are highly malleable is mathematical speculation. So, short answer, we don't know much about why the fundamental forces are what they are.

If you want to take it as gospel that the people studying such a theory can tell you much with certainty, I think you've already crossed over into a philosophical and religious discussion before you've ever begun.

 

[lesliedellow]

Exactly what is going on is important and we don't even have a conceptualization or model of them. Whether or models are nonsense sometime well after this point is also a question.

Are you trying to tell astrophysicists they might just as well shut up shop and go home? Exactly how long would you like before current physical laws become applicable? A thousand years? Ten thousand years? A million years? A billion years?

The four fundamental forces are thought to have been in place by 10^-11 seconds. The calculation regarding the fine tuning of G applies to a 1 second old universe.

It is wondrous, the way you are prepared to throw physics under a bus, when you find it convenient. It is usually creationists who do that. So what are you going to tell them, the next time they tell you that the Big Bang theory is **?#-!?

 

[variant]

Are you trying to tell astrophysicists they might just as well shut up shop and go home? Exactly how long would you like before current physical laws become applicable? A thousand years? Ten thousand years? A million years? A billion years?

The four fundamental forces are thought to have been in place by 10^-11 seconds. The calculation regarding the fine tuning of G applies to a 1 second old universe.

It is wondrous, the way you are prepared to throw physics under a bus, when you find it convenient. It is usually creationists who do that. So what are you going to tell them, the next time they tell you that the Big Bang theory is **?#-!?

I find it more wondrous that people can be so certain of their philosophical extrapolations when I know the physicists in question aren't anywhere near as certain of their inferences.

I'm not throwing anyone under anything, I just don't like to extrapolate complex philosophy from some of the least understood aspects of the universe.

When they can answer the basic questions about where the fundamental forces come from and why, and how they interrelate, we can begin extrapolate from there.

They are working on it:
To Understand the Universe, Physicists Are Building Their Own

Otherwise the theistic and the atheistic arguments look exactly the same.

(Something we don't understand) caused the universe to exist as it does.

 

[SelfSim]

... When they can answer the basic questions about where the fundamental forces come from and why, and how they interrelate, we can begin extrapolate from there.

Science doesn't really attempt to answer 'why' and 'cause/effect' type questions. Those are usually philosophical ponderings. Physics attempts to provide the 'how' in its explanatory theories.

Otherwise the theistic and the atheistic arguments look exactly the same.

.. two sides of the same fundamental coin. Should that come as a surprise, I wonder?

(Something we don't understand) caused the universe to exist as it does.

Cause and effect is a slippery slope .. even in philosophy.

The concept that a cause is fundamentally different from an effect, pretty much doesn't appear in Physics. It's not in any equation .. it's not used in any formal sense.

I don't think anyone has ever successfully described what connects an effect to a cause. The concept may seem intuitive .. but when it comes to describing the idea, that's an entirely different matter.

 

[variant]

Science doesn't really attempt to answer 'why' and 'cause/effect' type questions. Those are usually philosophical ponderings. Physics attempts to provide the 'how' in its explanatory theories.

I mean explaining the mechanism for universal formation by describing the moving parts and how they interrelate.

We work in observations and theory here based upon what we can and do observe about the universe.

My complaint here is that we're talking about the finer points of an event that happened billions of years ago, in a smaller timescale than we can at this point contemplate, inside a singularity that makes the super-massive black hole at the center of our galaxy look like a party popper.

The idea of the theologian then is to take that event and extrapolate from our most abstract theoretical physics to draw conclusions of the divine?

Pardon my skepticism on THAT process.