An Empirical Theory Of God

[sandwiches]

Like your gravity example earlier (which I liked), I could use dynamite or some other explosive to "create expansion of matter" from a singular point. You may not believe it will explode, but it will in fact explode regardless of your beliefs, and it will create an expansion of matter.

How did you intend to demonstrate a pattern of expanding matter from "inflation"? Where do I get "inflation"?

Please do show scientifically how it was dynamite that created the observable homogeneity in the universe.

 

[Michael]

So, are you saying that red shift, CMB, etc are all made up?

No, I'm saying there is no demonstrated "cause/effect' relationship between *any* observation and "inflation". Period. The same goes from "dark energy" too. At least 70% of standard theory is something I simply have to accept on "pure faith".

 

[Michael]

Please do show scientifically how it was dynamite that created the observable homogeneity in the universe.

I can't do that, nor am I trying to suggest such a thing. I simply note that any *REAL* explosive can generate a pattern of expansion of matter. You've never shown any empirical link between inflation and expansion.

 

[Michael]

I don't know why you answer points I never made. I didn't ask or comment on the anything defining or containing anything else.

It's a simple, yes-or-no question. Is the Earth a living organism?

It's not that simple. It's like asking: Is that molecule of water inside a human cell a living organism? It's "part of" a living organism yes, but in of of itself, it's not necessarily a 'living organism".

 

[sandwiches]

I can't do that, nor am I trying to suggest such a thing. I simply note that any *REAL* explosive can generate a pattern of expansion of matter. You've never shown any empirical link between inflation and expansion.

I don't think you understand what inflation is, then. I guess I should've started with that. What do you think inflation is?

 

[Spacewyrm]

They evidently go out of their way to eat a balanced diet. That's pretty sophisticated behavior.

Yes. But sophisticated behavior does not necessarily indicate awareness, or else my hypothetical robot is also aware. I can easily imagine chemical mechanisms developing to ensure that a cell seeks out proper nutrients.

I personally think you overestimate your robotic capabilities. Your robot would not be "alive" or "aware", but it would be "intelligently designed".

Well, someone probably could do it, if not me. Anyway, why wouldn't my robot be aware? What is life, but a complicated chemical/electrical machine? The whole Universe is very much not alive by the standards of biology, yet you hypothesize that it is aware. If the Universe can be alive, why not my robot? (Heck, this alive/aware electric Universe God sound like it has more in common with a robot than with any biological lifeforms).

It shows that the basic building blocks were abundant long before the Earth formed. For all we know at least "primitive" life is abundant in the universe.

I agree. I think it is highly likely that life is abundant in the Universe, though at this point we don't really have enough data to do anything aside from making wild guesses. I hope that one day we find some elsewhere in the Solar System or the Galaxy some time before I die; that would be very exciting.

I still don't think that this really goes one way or the other for your God hypothesis though.

Well, if raw compounds from many different places all seem to become "aware over time', what does that suggest to us about the nature of the universe and of "awareness"? Why would the universe keep creating different forms of aware beings?

Raw compounds from many different places all seem to become 'aware over time'??? What do mean by that? So far, we only know of life here on Earth, for sure, and even here, despite what you say about ameboeas, I don't think anything is aware outside the kingdom of animals.

But, even if every cell in the Universe is aware, how is that evidence for your God hypothesis? Why wouldn't a dumb, non-living Universe keep creating different forms of aware beings, if the laws of physics/chemistry were such as to generate such beings?

It's more how it speaks to the ancientness of life and awareness within the universe.

Not really. Awareness is only about as old as the earliest nervous systems (and even then they probably have to get rather complex before we can say for certain that they give rise to awareness). Whether any of those evolved elsewhere in the Universe is anybody's guess.

Oh, you might be surprised. EU/PC theory has been gaining momentum now for quite awhile. It's only a matter of time.

Yes, well, I don't know much about plasma cosmology. I supose I should look into it (I am fascinated by the history of science, after all). But, so far, it's defenders on this forum have been doing a less than stellar job of convincing me to accept it as valid science. Meanwhile, big bang/inflation cosmology makes perfect sense to me, and every explaination of it and how it came to be has been completely reasonable. So, I'm not gonna hold my breath.


A few last questions. Earlier in the thread you seemed to not really care for my potential test: trying to see the effect of blocking God's EM signals. Why? It seems like this would be the most effective preliminary test of your hypothesis. As far as I know, we have materials and technology that can block all sorts of EM fields and radiation. On the other hand, trying to decipher the language of God from detecting electromagnetic effects in those having religious experiences sounds extremely difficult to pull off, if not impossible.

Finally, let's assume for the moment that you are correct, and that the Universe is not only alive, but also aware and communicating to people though electromagnitism. Why should I call it God?

 

[sandwiches]

It's not that simple. It's like asking: Is that molecule of water inside a human cell a living organism? It's "part of" a living organism yes, but in of of itself, it's not necessarily a 'living organism".

It is a simple question by the fact that you had no trouble asserting a water molecule isn't a living organism. So, again, is the earth living?

Don't tell me what it's part of or what it does or doesn't define or whatever. Is the Earth alive?

 

[Michael]

I don't think you understand what inflation is, then. I guess I should've started with that. What do you think inflation is?

I think that inflation is a mythical/imaginary entity that Alan Guth made up in his head.

 

[sandwiches]

I think that inflation is a mythical/imaginary entity that Alan Guth made up in his head.

Sure. But explain to me what this loony idea says.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

It is a valid scientific question with a valid scientific answer. I have no idea why you think the question was "not about science".

Because you, like, asked for a definition?

And definitions are all about when people do, or would, call things by certain names. Like for instance, awareness. That was what you asked about, at least that was what I understood.

I'm not trying to 'redefine' life, awareness, or anything else. I'm simply asking you to offer an explanation/definition for awareness that explains the behaviors of agreed upon forms of life.

And it is a preposterous request. Flat out rejected.

A colony of ants is certainly alive and aware. The hill itself is not.

Humans are certainly alive and aware. The universe itself is not.

Do you see how easy that is?? Do you now see what I were trying to tell you?

"If I simply reject your terminology ("God"/"Awareness") you are dead in the water." (Quoted from a few posts back.)

I guess the real question is, were you expecting a serious conversation?

Woah. You don't personally get to define God as "supernatural", and then start excluding theories about God on such a basis. Get over it. God is whatever God is.

No, it does not work like that. People in general - but nobody in particular - are who get to decide when and when not something is called by a certain name. Take the "unicorn," for instance. In order to be properly called a unicorn, it has got to have a horn (a very pointed, thin horn), has to look similar to a horse etc. In other words, a thing out there has to roughly, at least, match our ideas and concepts before we get to call it certain names. (And if there is no thing out there that sufficiently matches a certain idea, then we say that that thing does not exist.)

If I were now to point to a horse and said "There, a unicorn" then I would be flat out wrong. That what I am pointing to does not match our idea of "unicorn."

If you point to the universe and say "There, that is God" then I am going to tell you "No it is not. Get over it!"

Assuming that God is "real", there has to be a physical explanation of his existence which should exist within the laws of nature. God isn't necessarily "supernatural".

I don't think that is a very widespread idea. It might be a little bit more widespread than the idea that unicorns do not necessarily have a horn on their head, but still, it is marginal enough .

You're the only one *ASSUMING* it's a "unicorn".

No, not at all. The contrary. I am very adamant about that it is not a unicorn, but a horse.

I started a theory about horses, and you're insistent that I talk about unicorns instead.

You are talking about horses, all right. And not about unicorns, indeed. (Translation: You are talking about the universe, all right. And not about God, indeed.)

What's up with that? You're simply avoiding the conversation by not discussing a perfectly good theory about horses.

I never "redefined" anything. I simply offered you a valid empirical definition of God that requires nothing "supernatural".

You might as well offer a scientific theory about unicorns that does not require that the beasts have horns on their heads. And I would reject it - as a theory about unicorns!

Here is again what I responded in post #173 to your inquiries in post #172:

It is a semantic issue. I reject it in the same fashion that I reject the idea that the universe is a cat. Surely, you could call the universe "a cat," but that does not mean that the universe all of a sudden would turn into what is *normally* understood as a cat. Likewise with what you are doing here in the cases of "God" and "univese," and "awareness" and that electrical stuff (I have forgotten what it was exactly, already).

Normally God is not understood to be anything ... 'physical.' Yuck!​

You're the only one insisting that God 'must be" a "supernatural unicorn". This thread was always related to emprical horses and never had anything whatsoever to do with "supernatural unicorns'.

Not quite, but close.

(And empirical theory about God? You can't see God, don't cha know? )

 

[Michael]

Sure. But explain to me what this loony idea says.

It says that empirical physics is irrelevant, and all that matters is a wild imagination and a little math. It's a "supernatural" construct from start to finish. Since it's dead and gone, it's about as relevant to real physics as any dead deistic religion.

 

[Michael]

Yes. But sophisticated behavior does not necessarily indicate awareness, or else my hypothetical robot is also aware.

Your hypothetical robot would simply be a shining example of "intelligent design'. It could never occur on accident. This sort of behavior does in fact exhibit signs of "awareness" as the organism is aware enough of the environment to pick and choose from a mixture of options. There's definitely some sort of rudimentary awareness and life present in the organism.

I can easily imagine chemical mechanisms developing to ensure that a cell seeks out proper nutrients.

Well, someone probably could do it, if not me. Anyway, why wouldn't my robot be aware?

You seem to have faith in something that no one has ever done to date. I guess you can't blame me for having a little faith in an empirical theory.

What is life, but a complicated chemical/electrical machine?

Even if we go with that premise, the universe is full of chemical reactions and complicated electrical interactions between objects.

The whole Universe is very much not alive by the standards of biology, yet you hypothesize that it is aware.

What exactly are the "biological standards" for life and awareness?

If the Universe can be alive, why not my robot? (Heck, this alive/aware electric Universe God sound like it has more in common with a robot than with any biological lifeforms).

Assuming that awareness is actually intrinsic to the universe and able to manifest in a variety of "forms' it's conceivable you could come up with an "intelligent design" that might "hold awareness" in some way, but what exactly would that demonstrate in your opinion?

I agree. I think it is highly likely that life is abundant in the Universe, though at this point we don't really have enough data to do anything aside from making wild guesses. I hope that one day we find some elsewhere in the Solar System or the Galaxy some time before I die; that would be very exciting.

Well, at least we agree on some things.

I still don't think that this really goes one way or the other for your God hypothesis though.

I guess I'm going to have to ask the "skeptics" what they would accept as valid empirical evidence sooner or later, because everything can be 'interpreted' rather subjectively. How do we come up with some objective standards?

Raw compounds from many different places all seem to become 'aware over time'??? What do mean by that?

I mean that awareness is a persistent little bugger, and it is able to manifest in a variety of 'physical forms'. What exactly is "awareness" at the most fundamental level?

Even if you ultimately choose a "mechanical' definition, the physical universe fits many of those same physical definitions.

So far, we only know of life here on Earth, for sure, and even here, despite what you say about ameboeas, I don't think anything is aware outside the kingdom of animals.

Well, I'm not personally convinced it's limited strictly to the animal kingdom, but it's certainly prevalent throughout the entire animal kingdom.

But, even if every cell in the Universe is aware, how is that evidence for your God hypothesis? Why wouldn't a dumb, non-living Universe keep creating different forms of aware beings, if the laws of physics/chemistry were such as to generate such beings?

Would a "dumb" person be able to create the robot you described? I don't think so. It would in fact requires an 'intelligent design' at some very fundamental levels.

Not really. Awareness is only about as old as the earliest nervous systems (and even then they probably have to get rather complex before we can say for certain that they give rise to awareness). Whether any of those evolved elsewhere in the Universe is anybody's guess.

I would be inclined to agree, but frankly it's hard to believe that life is limited to Earth. It seems as though once it gains a foothold, it figures out a way to thrive in even some of the worlds harshest physical environments.

Yes, well, I don't know much about plasma cosmology. I supose I should look into it (I am fascinated by the history of science, after all). But, so far, it's defenders on this forum have been doing a less than stellar job of convincing me to accept it as valid science.

IMO that would be a great idea. You're probably better off starting with Birkeland, Bruce and Alfven. Birkeland and Alfven are pretty much "heroes" of the mainstream too by they way. They simply recognize tiny pieces of both of their work. Bruce was your typical electrical engineer, but he used some interesting arguments to make his points and he was also right on the money with many aspects of discharge theory.

Message board forums can be a difficult place to get useful information.

Meanwhile, big bang/inflation cosmology makes perfect sense to me, and every explaination of it and how it came to be has been completely reasonable. So, I'm not gonna hold my breath.

We have a fundamental difference of opinion on that topic I'm afraid. Lambda-CDM theory IMO is simply another "creation mythology' no better physically supported that YEC in the final analysis. In fact only those two specific theory require supernatural "faster than light expansion'. Pure coincidence?

A few last questions. Earlier in the thread you seemed to not really care for my potential test: trying to see the effect of blocking God's EM signals. Why?

It seems to me that God's had a long time to figure out creative ways to get signals through from point A to point B. QM would suggest that it's nearly impossible to remove all energy from any chamber we might ever produce. In fact we can't even create a perfect "vacuum" here on Earth and never will be able to do so.

I just think it might be more productive to start by looking for physical interactions between physical forms and the energy patterns outside of these physical forms. I suspect that would be easier to measure.

It seems like this would be the most effective preliminary test of your hypothesis. As far as I know, we have materials and technology that can block all sorts of EM fields and radiation. On the other hand, trying to decipher the language of God from detecting electromagnetic effects in those having religious experiences sounds extremely difficult to pull off, if not impossible.

Well, I"m not adverse to the test, I'm simply skeptical of what any particular result might tell us. At a fundamental level of physics however, it does make sense to me and like I said I'm not adverse to giving it a whirl.

Finally, let's assume for the moment that you are correct, and that the Universe is not only alive, but also aware and communicating to people though electromagnitism. Why should I call it God?

What else would you choose to call it, and why?

 

[sandwiches]

It says that empirical physics is irrelevant, and all that matters is a wild imagination and a little math. It's a "supernatural" construct from start to finish. Since it's dead and gone, it's about as relevant to real physics as any dead deistic religion.

I'll try one last time. Tell me what inflation says and why you opposite in scientific manner and without the irrelevant commentary and nonsense. Until you demonstrate and articulate, without simply quote-mining, that you understand inflation and why you oppose it, I'll ignore all comments about it from this point on.

 

[Michael]

"If I simply reject your terminology ("God"/"Awareness") you are dead in the water." (Quoted from a few posts back.)

This is a pointless statement IMO. Likewise if you reject terminology consistent with MHD theory, or GR theory, the conversation is likewise "dead in the water". So what? All that demonstrates is you're being obstinate and you're disinterested in discussing the topic intelligently. Big deal.

No, it does not work like that. People in general - but nobody in particular - are who get to decide when and when not something is called by a certain name.

At no time did I call God "supernatural" in this thread. Stop trying to hijack my thread if you're not interested in discussing empirical concepts, because I'm disinterested in your "supernatural" definitions of God, the "supernatural" descriptions of inflation and 'supernatural" stuff in general.

Ether get with the program or stop trying to make me define God by your personal definitions.

My theory is related to empirical physics and is completely unrelated to anything "supernatural". Get it?

 

[Michael]

I'll try one last time. Tell me what inflation says and why you opposite in scientific manner and without the irrelevant commentary and nonsense. Until you demonstrate and articulate, without simply quote-mining, that you understand inflation and why you oppose it, I'll ignore all comments about it from this point on.

You're shifting the burden of proof. You refuse to accept my statements as "fact", but now I'm suppose to recite "inflation dogma" for you when I ask you for evidence that inflation isn't a figment of your imagination? Do I smell a double standard?

IMO inflation is something that Alan Guth literally "made up" in his head. I have no empirical evidence that "inflation did it" anymore than I have evidence that "God did it" by blatantly pilfering his math and relabeling terms. Godflation with the same math isn't any more empirically real than "inflation". Neither exists in nature or has any empirical effect on nature. If you can demonstrate otherwise, be my guest.

 

[sandwiches]

You're shifting the burden of proof. You refuse to accept my statements as "fact", but now I'm suppose to recite "inflation dogma" for you when I ask you for evidence that inflation isn't a figment of your imagination? Do I smell a double standard?

IMO inflation is something that Alan Guth literally "made up" in his head. I have no empirical evidence that "inflation did it" anymore than I have evidence that "God did it" by blatantly pilfering his math and relabeling terms. Godflation with the same math isn't any more empirically real than "inflation". Neither exists in nature or has any empirical effect on nature. If you can demonstrate otherwise, be my guest.

I am shifting the burden of proof. Science provided an explanation (inflation) for the observed phenomena. I even listed some evidence for it. Now, you're saying they're wrong. That's perfectly fine. That's what science it's all about. However, it's now your turn to cough up some evidence to back up your claims. If you can't or wont, then your claims regarding inflation will be summarily dismissed from this point on.

By the way, just repeating that inflation is made up or that it's taken by faith over and over, it's not evidence.

 

[Michael]

I am shifting the burden of proof. Science provided an explanation (inflation) for the observed phenomena.

It did not! Guth made up inflation in his head and it doesn't "explain' anything that "Godflation" with the same trumped up math formulas doesn't explain just as well!

I even listed some evidence for it.

You neglected to provide and demonstrate a physical link between "inflation/Godlation" and the movement of physical objects. I can demonstrate to you with $25.00 plasma ball at Walmart that EM fields can create "circuits" in plasma and accelerate plasma. Demonstrate to me that inflation does anything to anything.

Now, you're saying they're wrong.

I'm saying inflation is purely ad ad hoc construct created by Alan Guth. It's a supernatural religion, not "empirical physics".

That's perfectly fine. That's what science it's all about. However, it's now your turn to cough up some evidence to back up your claims.

Who before Guth wrote about "inflation"? Did Guth make up the term, yes or no?

If you can't or wont, then your claims regarding inflation will be summarily dismissed from this point on.

Notice how you just did a full U turn here? Now I'm supposed to "disprove" your theory, whereas I'm obliged to 'prove' my own theory. Care to explain why that's not a double standard from the standpoint of empirical physics?

By the way, just repeating that inflation is made up or that it's taken by faith over and over, it's not evidence.

You've got no evidence that inflation does anything to anything in a controlled empirical test. At least I can demonstrate that an EM field will cause cause plasma to accelerate in a controlled experiment. That's light years ahead of anything that can or ever will be done with "inflation".

 

[sandwiches]

It did not! Guth made up inflation in his head and it doesn't "explain' anything that "Godflation" with the same trumped up math formulas doesn't explain just as well!

You neglected to provide and demonstrate a physical link between "inflation/Godlation" and the movement of physical objects. I can demonstrate to you with $25.00 plasma ball at Walmart that EM fields can create "circuits" in plasma and accelerate plasma. Demonstrate to me that inflation does anything to anything.

I'm saying inflation is purely ad ad hoc construct created by Alan Guth. It's a supernatural religion, not "empirical physics".

Who before Guth wrote about "inflation"? Did Guth make up the term, yes or no?

Notice how you just did a full U turn here? Now I'm supposed to "disprove" your theory, whereas I'm obliged to 'prove' my own theory. Care to explain why that's not a double standard from the standpoint of empirical physics?

You've got no evidence that inflation does anything to anything in a controlled empirical test. At least I can demonstrate that an EM field will cause cause plasma to accelerate in a controlled experiment. That's light years ahead of anything that can or ever will be done with "inflation".

Alright. Since you didn't show that your understand inflation, we can move on, then.

This whole point of you bringing up inflation was basically to say: "If they can't do it, why can't I?" You were trying to convince me that if we accept such evidence for inflation, why can't we accept anecdotes as evidence.

So, again, where is your empirical evidence that God is the universe?

 

[Michael]

Alright. Since you didn't show that your understand inflation, we can move on, then.

I "understand' perfectly well that Guth made it up and it's a figment his imagination. You can't empirically demonstrate any physical link between his mythical inflation and any sort of movement of matter, so I guess you want to "move on" now, is that it?

FYI, this all goes back to that "prediction" thing you said was not important. That's how most astronomers "sell" inflation.

This whole point of you bringing up inflation was basically to say: "If they can't do it, why can't I?"

Actually no. I would agree with you that it is important to show an empirical connection between between ideas. IMO it's perfectly logical for you to expect me to empirically demonstrate my case, but then why do you give a free pass to 'supernatural" and made up claims and call such things "science"? You seem to be playing a huge double standard here. Guth can't even produce a single iota of "inflation" for us to play with in lab, whereas others participating in this thread have already come up with valid ideas on how we might empirically put this theory to a test. IMO that makes this particular theory "interesting", specifically because its a pure form of empirical physics, unlike Guth's mythological inflation.

You were trying to convince me that if we accept such evidence for inflation, why can't we accept anecdotes as evidence.

You can't have it both ways. If you can point at the sky and claim "inflation did it", then you can certainly point at the same observations and say "awareness did it with electricity".

So, again, where is your empirical evidence that God is the universe?

At the level of cosmology, what exactly "counts" as "empirical evidence"? This theory "predicts' that the structures of spacetime are full of current flows and indeed we observe such structures. Is that evidence to support this theory, and if not, why not particularly in light of inflation arguments where no direct cause/effect relationships were *EVER* established.

 

[Michael]

Let's go back to your gravity analogy for a moment. Like you said, I can deny gravity all day, but I can't jump off the planet, so it's effect on me is obvious. Likewise if I have any doubt that EM field can cause movements of plasma, I can check it out in a lab. Inflation is *never* going to show up in a lab because it is not a force of nature, it is a ad hoc creation from the imagination of a single human individual. It's closer to religion than it is to empirical physics.