An Empirical Theory Of God

[Michael]

Well "dark energy" is nothing more than a place-holder for "we've observed some weird behavior in the motion of objects that violates our theory of gravity, and we don't really know what is going on".

Otherwise known as "gap filler" in an otherwise falsified theory.

"Inflationary cosmology" is just a place-holder for "we've observed that the universe is really really huge, but strangely enough everywhere we look everything is roughly the same looking (on average), and we have no idea how this could have happened".

You just have to translate from science-speak to layperson-speak.

The problem is that inflation was created in one person's head (Alan Guth) and it's now supposedly dead and gone and can never be empirically put to the test. We have to accept the whole concept on "faith" in a "supernatural entity". No other known vector or scalar field in nature retains constant density over exponential increases in volume. It's the ultimate "supernatural entity" and it defies empirical testing processes because it presumably no longer even exists in nature. Talk about belief systems that are built on pure faith.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Otherwise known as "gap filler" in an otherwise falsified theory.

No. It isn't a gap filler.

The fact is the existing theory is wrong as far as this goes, and no one knows how to fix things.

This is how science works. Scientist go around looking for places where the existing theories fail and try to make new theories that work.

If anything the word "dark energy" is more an expression of scientists' excitement at finding this, than it is of anything resembling an actual theory or patch.

The take of the scientist is simple:

1. the current model works here == boring
2. the current model fails here == exciting

The problem is that inflation was created in one person's head (Alan Guth) and it's now supposedly dead and gone and can never be empirically put to the test. We have to accept the whole concept on "faith" in a "supernatural entity". No other known vector or scalar field in nature retains constant density over exponential increases in volume. It's the ultimate "supernatural entity" and it defies empirical testing processes because it presumably no longer even exists in nature. Talk about belief systems that are built on pure faith.

It's just a model to give a possible explanation for an observation. There are other models out there (I don't know what they are, but I'm sure they exist). This one just has the advantage that a lot of people happen to like it.

Why is it people like you are always trying to set up some sort of strawman version of science wherein science tries to make absolutist claims like dogmatic religious types like to do?

Scientists aren't dogmatic theologians, so stop trying to make them sound like them.

Every scientific theory is tentative, and scientists are trying to find where they fail whereas, every religious dogma is absolute, and theologians are never to question them.

Science is the ongoing process, rather than the particular models at a given time.

 

[sandwiches]

The problem is that inflation was created in one person's head (Alan Guth) and it's now supposedly dead and gone and can never be empirically put to the test. We have to accept the whole concept on "faith" in a "supernatural entity". No other known vector or scalar field in nature retains constant density over exponential increases in volume. It's the ultimate "supernatural entity" and it defies empirical testing processes because it presumably no longer even exists in nature. Talk about belief systems that are built on pure faith.

Seeing as how you essentially used the exact same wording in another forum (Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not? - JREF Forum) , I will copy/paste the answer given to the original author:

"That it's curious is something that could have been said of any phenomenon that was ever discovered, and that observations imply some effect that can be modeled as a Λ cannot be dismissed on some vaguely aesthetic grounds. But look on the bright side--it doesn't even break conservation of energy and fits snugly into the best theory of gravitation we have."

It's actually very interesting all the refutations you received there and yet you continue using the same defeated arguments here.

 

[Michael]

Seeing as how you essentially used the exact same wording in another forum (Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not? - JREF Forum) , I will copy/paste the answer given to the original author:

"That it's curious is something that could have been said of any phenomenon that was ever discovered, and that observations imply some effect that can be modeled as a Λ cannot be dismissed on some vaguely aesthetic grounds. But look on the bright side--it doesn't even break conservation of energy and fits snugly into the best theory of gravitation we have."

It's actually very interesting all the refutations you received there and yet you continue using the same defeated arguments here.

Define exactly what you mean by a "refutation" in terms of empirical physics. When was say "inflation" ever supported by an empirical test of concept in a controlled test on Earth like say an EM field?

I find it fascinating that you "put faith" in at least three forms of "metaphysics", yet lack belief in a "creator". Why?

 

[Michael]

No. It isn't a gap filler.

Of course it is. They didn't expect the universe to be accelerating. When that concept became more accepted, they needed something to explain it. Viola, they "invented" something called "dark energy" to plug the gaps. What useful product runs on dark energy?

The fact is the existing theory is wrong as far as this goes, and no one knows how to fix things.

This is how science works. Scientist go around looking for places where the existing theories fail and try to make new theories that work.

Well, we seem to have a philosophical difference about what "works" as an explanation of acceleration in terms of empirical physics.

If anything the word "dark energy" is more an expression of scientists' excitement at finding this, than it is of anything resembling an actual theory or patch.

Well, excited and "afraid" too. They didn't predict acceleration, actually just the opposite. The entertained the idea of a "big crunch" at one point. Now that they thought the universe was accelerating they needed something to explain that acceleration, lest their "big bang" theory die an outright death.

Why is it people like you are always trying to set up some sort of strawman version of science wherein science tries to make absolutist claims like dogmatic religious types like to do?

If you'd spent the last 5 years or so talking to astronomers as I have done, you'd realize they can be just as dogmatic and act every bit like lynch mob too. They have all the earmarks of a "religion" in terms of their faith in metaphysical entities. In fact I would argue one has to have "more pure faith" to believe in Lambda-CDM theory than to believe in the theory I have put forth in this thread. This theory is based on purely empirical forms of energy and matter.

Scientists aren't dogmatic theologians, so stop trying to make them sound like them.

Try publishing a theory that goes against the mainstream. IMO you're young and naive, not necessarily in most branches of science mind you, but certainly in astronomy.

Science is the ongoing process, rather than the particular models at a given time.

Ya, but when will I ever see inflation show up in a real consumer product?

 

[sandwiches]

Define exactly what you mean by a "refutation" in terms of empirical physics. When was say "inflation" ever supported by an empirical test of concept in a controlled test on Earth like say an EM field?

I find it fascinating that you "put faith" in at least three forms of "metaphysics", yet lack belief in a "creator". Why?

Please list the three forms of metaphysics that I am required to believe in to believe that the universe is expanding according to the best evidence we have available.

 

[Michael]

Please list the three forms of metaphysics that I am required to believe in to believe that the universe is expanding according to the best evidence we have available.

Besides inflation, dark energy and dark matter? Please physically and empirically demonstrate that any of those three items exist or have any physical effect on me or anything else in a controlled experiment.

 

[sandwiches]

Besides inflation, dark energy and dark matter? Please physically and empirically demonstrate that any of those three items exist or have any physical effect on me or anything else in a controlled experiment.

If you're asking me to show you with a ruler how the universe is expanding it's as unrealistic a demand as expecting me to show you how big the Earth is by measuring with said ruler. We have different ways of observing and measuring without the need to be physically present.

But here's how we know the universe is expanding:
How do we know that the Universe is expanding?

 

[Michael]

If you're asking me to show you with a ruler how the universe is expanding it's as unrealistic a demand as expecting me to show you how big the Earth is by measuring with said ruler.

No, I have no problem with a basic kind of expansion, where objects in motion stay in motion. I'd simply like to see you demonstrate that any sort of "acceleration" is due to "dark energy". I can certainly empirically demonstrate that EM fields accelerate plasma with an ordinary $30 plasma ball from Walmart.

We have different ways of observing and measuring without the need to be physically present.

Isn't that that sort of like a theist telling an atheist if they only had more "faith", they'd experience God? Please demonstrate that "dark energy" or any of the metaphysical buddies of astronomy have any effect on anything in a controlled test of concept. I'm not even concerned about the cost, although keep in mind an ordinary plasma ball would due if you were chalking up the acceleration to EM fields. I'm not picky, but I want to see you demonstrate such claims in an empirical and controlled manner.

But here's how we know the universe is expanding:
How do we know that the Universe is expanding?

FYI, I don't have any problem with the concept of basic "expansion". Astronomers mythical magical dark energy however is supposedly capable of accelerating an entire physical universe, so lets see you make it accelerate an atom or two for us here on Earth using "dark energy". Where might I even get this stuff?

 

[sandwiches]

No, I have no problem with a basic kind of expansion, where objects in motion stay in motion. I'd simply like to see you demonstrate that any sort of "acceleration" is due to "dark energy". I can certainly empirically demonstrate that EM fields accelerate plasma with an ordinary $30 plasma ball from Walmart.

Isn't that that sort of like a theist telling an atheist if they only had more "faith", they'd experience God? Please demonstrate that "dark energy" or any of the metaphysical buddies of astronomy have any effect on anything in a controlled test of concept. I'm not even concerned about the cost, although keep in mind an ordinary plasma ball would due if you were chalking up the acceleration to EM fields. I'm not picky, but I want to see you demonstrate such claims in an empirical and controlled manner.

FYI, I don't have any problem with the concept of basic "expansion". Astronomers mythical magical dark energy however is supposedly capable of accelerating an entire physical universe, so lets see you make it accelerate an atom or two for us here on Earth using "dark energy". Where might I even get this stuff?

I think I understand your position a bit better. So, you don't agree with the evidence that seems to show the universe's expansion is accelerating?

 

[Michael]

I think I understand your position a bit better. So, you don't agree with the evidence that seems to show the universe's expansion is accelerating?

Well, it's not that actually. Even if we assume that the evidence is correct and the universe is accelerating, there is no empirical evidence that acceleration is caused by "dark energy". Imagine how you'd feel if I claimed that same acceleration was caused by "God energy" and never empirically demonstrated the existence of "God" or "God energy". That's pretty much how I feel about "dark energy" and it's relationship to the acceleration of the universe.

 

[sandwiches]

Well, it's not that actually. Even if we assume that the evidence is correct and the universe is accelerating, there is no empirical evidence that acceleration is caused by "dark energy". Imagine how you'd feel if I claimed that same acceleration was caused by "God energy" and never empirically demonstrated the existence of "God" or "God energy". That's pretty much how I feel about "dark energy" and it's relationship to the acceleration of the universe.

You believe the universe is expanding.
You accept the possibility that the universe may be accelerating.
If the universe is indeed accelerating, SOMETHING must be causing said acceleration.

What would you call what is causing the acceleration?

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Well, it's not that actually. Even if we assume that the evidence is correct and the universe is accelerating, there is no empirical evidence that acceleration is caused by "dark energy". Imagine how you'd feel if I claimed that same acceleration was caused by "God energy" and never empirically demonstrated the existence of "God" or "God energy". That's pretty much how I feel about "dark energy" and it's relationship to the acceleration of the universe.

Well, when you boil things down, everything in scientific theory is ultimately caused by something that isn't explained at all.

In general, we overlook that because we can make predictions with the theory.

And you are right, at present "dark energy" doesn't really make any predictions.

The scientific community, however, is always happy to hear about testable predictions deriving from a theistic theory of nature.

Do you have any?

 

[Michael]

You believe the universe is expanding.
You accept the possibility that the universe may be accelerating.
If the universe is indeed accelerating, SOMETHING must be causing said acceleration.

What would you call what is causing the acceleration?

Assuming everything on that list is true (I'm personally open to all options, including that one), then why not just call it "acceleration" and stop trying to claim 70+ of the universe is made of "dark energy"?

If a mostly plasma universe is accelerating, the most likely "cause" would be an expanding or persistent/pervasive EM field, not "dark energy".

The astronomers have such a strong need to plug the gaps in their otherwise falsified theory, they simply "made up" a new force of nature in their head and started a "dark energy religion".

 

[Michael]

Well, when you boil things down, everything in scientific theory is ultimately caused by something that isn't explained at all.

Well, that's probably true, but most of them aren't so useless when it comes to testing their ideas in real labs on Earth, or in useful consumer products.

Only astronomers claim the universe is composed of 96%
metaphysics and only 4% empirical physics. Unlike something like electrical engineering, "dark energy theory" never produces useful consumer products. When was the last time you saw something useful at the store that used "dark matter" or inflation in their design?

In general, we overlook that because we can make predictions with the theory.

None of their metaphysical friends come from real empirical 'predictions" from something new that they learned in a real controlled experiment. All of them were "postdicted' in ad hoc manner to "explain" something they already had observed. Dark energy was stuffed in there most recently to supposedly "explain" an observation of acceleration that falsified their "slowing down big bang" theories. They needed a quick gap filler lest their BB theory die a natural death.

And you are right, at present "dark energy" doesn't really make any predictions.

And it never will. It doesn't exist. It was created in an ad hoc manner, in human imagination. It has never shown up in a real science experiment.

The scientific community, however, is always happy to hear about testable predictions deriving from a theistic theory of nature.

Do you have any?

Well, I could rattle of a list of postdictions/predictions, like the "prediction" that human beings as a whole will always remains overwhelmingly theist due to the nature of the universe itself. That's easily documented in human history to date however, so is that really a "prediction" or a simple observation?

I would say a living universe "predicts" that theists and atheists alike will experience the presence of something they call "God" during NDEs too, but that has also been documented.

I do actually "predict" that when we can fully trace the EM processes going on inside of a room while someone is "praying" or "meditating", that we will be able to observe the interaction between the human and the universe. Will that actually demonstrate that the universe is aware? Hmmm.

It's kind of an interesting idea as it relates to making true "predictions", and your question warrants further thought.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

And it never will. It doesn't exist. It was created in an ad hoc manner, in human imagination. It has never shown up in a real science experiment.

Actually, I'd compare it to gravity. Gravity is basically an ad hoc creation designed to explain certain observed facts.

However, its theories have done quite well.

Well, I could rattle of a list of postdictions/predictions, like the "prediction" that human beings as a whole will always remains overwhelmingly theist due to the nature of the universe itself. That's easily documented in human history to date however, so is that really a "prediction" or a simple observation?

I would say a living universe "predicts" that theists and atheists alike will experience the presence of something they call "God" during NDEs too, but that has also been documented.

I do actually "predict" that when we can fully trace the EM processes going on inside of a room while someone is "praying" or "meditating", that we will be able to observe the interaction between the human and the universe. Will that actually demonstrate that the universe is aware? Hmmm.

It's kind of an interesting idea as it relates to making true "predictions", and your question warrants further thought.

You couldn't be more specific?

Maybe a performable controlled experiment?

 

[Michael]

Actually, I'd compare it to gravity. Gravity is basically an ad hoc creation designed to explain certain observed facts.

I believe your analogy is rather limited because gravity has always shown up in a lab. We may not fully understand it, and perhaps every mathematical model we use will change over time, but without any doubt gravity has an effect on me. I can claim it doesn't exist, but I can't jump off the planet.

On the other hand "dark energy" has never had any effect on anyone or anything in a controlled experiment on Earth. In that sense your analogy seems to fall apart.

However, its theories have done quite well.

Of course. They've all been "postdicted" from "observation". How could it fail? It's like me observing things after the fact, whipping up some trumped up math and attributing it to "God energy".

You couldn't be more specific?

Maybe a performable controlled experiment?

What did you have in mind?

Wired 14.02: Buddha on the Brain

 

[ArnautDaniel]

I believe your analogy is rather limited because gravity has always shown up in a lab. We may not fully understand it, and perhaps every mathematical model we use will change over time, but without any doubt gravity has an effect on me. I can claim it doesn't exist, but I can't jump off the planet.

Well plenty of things haven't "always shown up in a lab".

Some things have required the advance of technology so as to be able to make sufficiently fine measurements.

There is no reason to suppose that, with the advance of technology, that whatever is responsible for "dark energy" will not be measurable in a lab.

On the other hand "dark energy" has never had any effect on anyone or anything in a controlled experiment on Earth. In that sense your analogy seems to fall apart.

That is hard to say, it may turn out that "dark energy" is vital for any number of things we take for granted to work out right.

Take quantum mechanics. It wasn't discovered until the 20th century, but it is vital to explaining chemistry. So it had an effect on all those previous chemistry experiments even though no one knew about it.

Of course. They've all been "postdicted" from "observation". How could it fail? It's like me observing things after the fact, whipping up some trumped up math and attributing it to "God energy".

What did you have in mind?

Wired 14.02: Buddha on the Brain

I dunno, it is up to the person advancing the theory to come up with experiments to support it.

 

[Michael]

Well plenty of things haven't "always shown up in a lab".

Well, sure, but gravity isn't one of them and I was simply pointing out the flaw in the analogy.

Some things have required the advance of technology so as to be able to make sufficiently fine measurements.

Some things were simply dismissed based on new information too. What makes you think anyone is going to find "dark energy" in any current or future experiment on Earth?

There is no reason to suppose that, with the advance of technology, that whatever is responsible for "dark energy" will not be measurable in a lab.

Nothing is responsible for "dark energy". Something might be responsible for "acceleration", but that isn't "God energy" or "dark energy" or "magic energy" because none of these items have been empirically demonstrated to exist in nature. Whatever causes a mostly plasma universe to accelerate, it's certainly not "dark energy".

That is hard to say, it may turn out that "dark energy" is vital for any number of things we take for granted to work out right.

The same thing could be said for "God energy", no?

I dunno, it is up to the person advancing the theory to come up with experiments to support it.

Well, I can certainly demonstrate (and have demonstrated) a cause/effect relationship between external EM processes and human brain activity and human thoughts. That's light years ahead of any theory based on "dark energy" that has *NEVER* been shown to have any effect on anything in a controlled experiment. Which "theory" then has more scientific merit from the standpoint of empirical physics?

 

[sandwiches]

Assuming everything on that list is true (I'm personally open to all options, including that one), then why not just call it "acceleration" and stop trying to claim 70+ of the universe is made of "dark energy"?

If a mostly plasma universe is accelerating, the most likely "cause" would be an expanding or persistent/pervasive EM field, not "dark energy".

The astronomers have such a strong need to plug the gaps in their otherwise falsified theory, they simply "made up" a new force of nature in their head and started a "dark energy religion".

Now, you if you agree the universe is expanding and this expansion is accelerating, then you agree that something must be causing it. You don't think that this 'something' should have a name or have, at least, a moniker until we find what this 'something' is?