An Empirical Theory Of God

[BranwenUerchLlyr]

It's not just enough to predict something. I can predict things all day. You also need to develop a potential test wherein we could either falsify or fail to falsify your predictions. In other words, you need to tell us how we would test your theory against the actual world.

Otherwise, you haven't given us anyway to disambiguate your theory from the standing theory that the universe is inanimate.

That's it right there.

Might I add.. the tests for the empirical theory of God need to account for the full scope of what is implied by it.

 

[Michael]

It's not just enough to predict something. I can predict things all day. You also need to develop a potential test wherein we could either falsify or fail to falsify your predictions. In other words, you need to tell us how we would test your theory against the actual world.

Otherwise, you haven't given us anyway to disambiguate your theory from the standing theory that the universe is inanimate.

Well, an inanimate object wouldn't explain why humans report having a relationship with God. It wouldn't explain much about human theology or human experiences in a general sense. An inanimate object wouldn't explain why atheists and theists alike report meeting God during NDE's. A living universe would in fact "explain" and 'predict' all these things and more.

I am however open to suggestions if you have some better ideas.

 

[sandwiches]

Besides "Location, location, location"?

Evidently he has a funny sense of humor as I am reminded every time I look in the mirror.

Unconditional love and your attention.

Unconditionally.

Sure.

According to Jesus, inside you. All around you. Everywhere you look.

I've never felt judged by God.

I would say say he inspired Jesus, the "Living Word Of God", yes. Books are books.

Can you explain how you got all those answers from the idea of an electrical universe?

 

[Bushido216]

Well, an inanimate object wouldn't explain why humans report having a relationship with God. It wouldn't explain much about human theology or human experiences in a general sense. An inanimate object wouldn't explain why atheists and theists alike report meeting God during NDE's. A living universe would in fact "explain" and 'predict' all these things and more.

I am however open to suggestions if you have some better ideas.

This is a fallacy of false choice. "Either the Electric Universe is an aware being and that's why people experience God or it's inanimate and we don't. We do experience God, therefore the universe is aware."

Anyway, that aside, I'd suggest that yes, an inanimate universe would NOT explain the above listed phenomena. Further, you have yet to give me any reason why I should believe that the universe is in fact animate. So, we can either conclude that no one experiences God, OR, that something else is the reason.

I'd suggest that you take a brief overview of sensation and perception and report back. Failing that, I'll simply say that what we experience in our awareness does not bear a 1:1 relationship with reality. Rather, what we experience is filtered sensations. Our "perceptions" are reconstructions of what we sense provided to us by the machinery in our brains.

If that goes nuts for whatever reason, you experience God. That's the scientific answer.

The theological answer is to state that trying to bottle God up into a set of electrical impulses completely misses the point of God in the first place. Stop trying to understand Him as a physical entity and start trying to understand Him as as Why.

 

[Michael]

So, it should be pointed out that electrical activity is necessary, but not sufficient. The electrical signals you're talking about effect changes on other things, namely cells in our brain. Our consciousness isn't just electricity zapping around, but electricity acting on our biological cells to produce an effect.

Well, in plasma that typically equates to cellular separation by "double layers' that tend to insulate and separate various parts of the circuit arrangements. Technically this energy exchange could include the transfer of energy of other types (not only EM fields) between the various objects of spacetime.

If you're going to appeal to human consciousness to explain your theory, then you're going to need to go all the way. What is the EM field acting upon to produce consciousness?

It's technically a quantum energy exchange that is acting upon all "solid" objects in space that makeup approximately 4% of the physical universe according to current theories. Just like the human brain is more than the activity of one single circuit in the brain, no single circuit or quantum energy exchange in space can be described as "God", just the sum total of all those energy exchanges between physical (solid) objects in spacetime. Human awareness is more of a "quantum" process, even in the brain. During "thinking' there are many areas of the brain that are accessed and that process information. At some point the "observer" of that thought process makes a "decision" and actions ensue.

Since human awareness requires biological elements, what such elements are extant in the universe?

Everything that is present, every single element in the human body exists in spacetime in massive quantities. Most of it is in the form of superheated plasma. Solids provide a consistent physical structure, but most of the universe is in the form of fast moving "energy", like cosmic rays and high energy wavelengths.

Note that while human consciousness may in fact be limited to the transfer of energy via the EM field, that is not necessarily the case in spacetime as a whole. Other types of energy exchanges between structures may also lead to "awareness".

 

[Michael]

Can you explain how you got all those answers from the idea of an electrical universe?

Actually, I got all those answers from the life experiences of 50 revolutions around the sun, and lot of help from Jesus.

 

[Michael]

This is a fallacy of false choice. "Either the Electric Universe is an aware being and that's why people experience God or it's inanimate and we don't. We do experience God, therefore the universe is aware."

Actually I'm simply noting that a "conscious" universe would go a long way to explaining the human condition on Earth. A "non positive" scenario doesn't explain any of it.

Anyway, that aside, I'd suggest that yes, an inanimate universe would NOT explain the above listed phenomena. Further, you have yet to give me any reason why I should believe that the universe is in fact animate. So, we can either conclude that no one experiences God, OR, that something else is the reason.

What "something else" did you have in mind exactly?

FYI, we already know that the entire physical universe cannot be "inanimate" since life already exist in it. It probably exists elsewhere too. There's also that small problem with how single cell animals are "aware' enough to hunt food without the luxury of a sophisticated set of neutrons in something called a "brain".

I'd suggest that you take a brief overview of sensation and perception and report back. Failing that, I'll simply say that what we experience in our awareness does not bear a 1:1 relationship with reality. Rather, what we experience is filtered sensations. Our "perceptions" are reconstructions of what we sense provided to us by the machinery in our brains.

Unless you're suggesting that the machinery in the brain is completely incapable of being influenced by outside machinery, I fail to see what difference that makes? The machinery is bound to be "subjective" to the individual, and we all have different opinions on every topic under the sun, so why should the topic of God be any different?

If that goes nuts for whatever reason, you experience God. That's the scientific answer.

That's not an "answer", that a "wild *ss guess". The folks that claim to experience God don't all have to be "nuts" do they? You realize that only about 4 percent of humans consider themselves to be 'atheists'?

The theological answer is to state that trying to bottle God up into a set of electrical impulses completely misses the point of God in the first place.

Huh? I'm not interested in a "theological answer". I'm looking for an empirical scientific answer, one that embraces all the tenets of empirical physics and has nothing to do with "religion" or "theology", but is more of a straight forward empirical look at the topic.

In that "clinical view", it might in fact be useful to "bottle God up" into real physical components. Do you have some moral objection to my attempt to look at it as an empirical scientific theory?

Stop trying to understand Him as a physical entity and start trying to understand Him as as Why.

I respectfully suggest you're missing the point of the thread. I'm interested in discussing the empirical physics, not the theology of God. I'll discuss theology if you like, but that really isn't the point of this thread. I was more interested in looking at God from a purely physical and rather "clinical" way, something you might actually be able to teach in a classroom as a valid empirical scientific theory. If you stuff too much theology in there, I guarantee you that you'll 'muck up the process' in a big way.

 

[Michael]

That's it right there.

Might I add.. the tests for the empirical theory of God need to account for the full scope of what is implied by it.

I actually agree with you, but keep in mind that the whole point of any theory is to figure out ways to "test" it, and I'm open to suggestions.

 

[Bushido216]

Well, in plasma that typically equates to cellular separation by "double layers' that tend to insulate and separate various parts of the circuit arrangements. Technically this energy exchange could include the transfer of energy of other types (not only EM fields) between the various objects of spacetime.

It's technically a quantum energy exchange that is acting upon all "solid" objects in space that makeup approximately 4% of the physical universe according to current theories. Just like the human brain is more than the activity of one single circuit in the brain, no single circuit or quantum energy exchange in space can be described as "God", just the sum total of all those energy exchanges between physical (solid) objects in spacetime. Human awareness is more of a "quantum" process, even in the brain. During "thinking' there are many areas of the brain that are accessed and that process information. At some point the "observer" of that thought process makes a "decision" and actions ensue.

Everything that is present, every single element in the human body exists in spacetime in massive quantities. Most of it is in the form of superheated plasma. Solids provide a consistent physical structure, but most of the universe is in the form of fast moving "energy", like cosmic rays and high energy wavelengths.

Note that while human consciousness may in fact be limited to the transfer of energy via the EM field, that is not necessarily the case in spacetime as a whole. Other types of energy exchanges between structures may also lead to "awareness".

So, it seems like you're going more into physics. I don't have the wherewithal to go into a physics discussion so I'll leave that to people that do. Regardless, there are still some lacunae in your discussion. They are as follows.

1. You're suggesting that the Universe is aware. How would you test this? What observable impacts does the Universe have that we can say "ah, there's the Universe at work!"

2. You're stating that various objects (the sun, etc.) are part of this network. What are the mechanisms involved? How do they work? Again, how do you test same? What can we see in the activity of the Sun that is a result of consciousness.

When a human undergoes an experience, their physical makeup is changed. The experience produces an effect with re-organizes the make up of the neurons in their brain. The difference may be slight, but it's there. That's the difference between a sentient creature and a non-sentient creature. A plant doesn't re-arrange its own neurons and change its behaviour. A human or a marmot or whatever would.

That has implications for your model. Go into detail about how these implications effect your model, how you account for them, how you tested for them, their impacts, etc.

 

[Bushido216]

I actually agree with you, but keep in mind that the whole point of any theory is to figure out ways to "test" it, and I'm open to suggestions.

It's YOUR theory. It's not our job to come up with the tests.

 

[Bushido216]

Actually I'm simply noting that a "conscious" universe would go a long way to explaining the human condition on Earth. A "non positive" scenario doesn't explain any of it.

Right, and so would the Flying Spaghetti Monster shooting thoughts into our heads. That being said, you're excluding that other factors could explain a God experience. If you're limiting it to "a non-conscious universe doesn't explain God, so it must be conscious" you're not performing science. You're limiting yourself unnecessarily to those two choices, and for no good reason.

What "something else" did you have in mind exactly?

FYI, we already know that the entire physical universe cannot be "inanimate" since life already exist in it. It probably exists elsewhere too. There's also that small problem with how single cell animals are "aware' enough to hunt food without the luxury of a sophisticated set of neutrons in something called a "brain".

No one's suggested that single-celled organisms are aware, but that's a wierd sort of claim to make. "Animate creatures that aren't aware can do things, so therefore the Universe must be conscious". That's a fallacy known as affirming the consequent. If p then q, q, therefore p is that fallacy, and you're committing it. You're essentially trying to argue that because your theory could potentially explain some phenomena, it must be correct. Again, your theory doesn't offer us anything meaningfully different than the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory.

The FSM shoots "hunt, kill" messages into unicellular organisms. An FSM universe explains this behaviour. A non FSM universe doesn't, therefore, the FSM is real.

How is what I just said different than what you're saying? The answer is that it isn't.

Unless you're suggesting that the machinery in the brain is completely incapable of being influenced by outside machinery, I fail to see what difference that makes? The machinery is bound to be "subjective" to the individual, and we all have different opinions on every topic under the sun, so why should the topic of God be any different?

I am exactly suggesting that the machinery in our brains is incapable of being effected by other machinery.

That's not an "answer", that a "wild *ss guess". The folks that claim to experience God don't all have to be "nuts" do they? You realize that only about 4 percent of humans consider themselves to be 'atheists'?

Don't play this game. This is a straw man argument. I didn't suggest that only insane people experience God. I suggested that non-realistic perceptions can be an experience of God.

Huh? I'm not interested in a "theological answer". I'm looking for an empirical scientific answer, one that embraces all the tenets of empirical physics and has nothing to do with "religion" or "theology", but is more of a straight forward empirical look at the topic.

In that "clinical view", it might in fact be useful to "bottle God up" into real physical components. Do you have some moral objection to my attempt to look at it as an empirical scientific theory?

The problem is that when you label a conscious universe as being God, you have to bring up the theology. If you want to keep this conversation as "is the universe aware", then that's fine so long as we avoid the label. I'm willing to agree to consider this without the label of God if you are.

I respectfully suggest you're missing the point of the thread. I'm interested in discussing the empirical physics, not the theology of God. I'll discuss theology if you like, but that really isn't the point of this thread. I was more interested in looking at God from a purely physical and rather "clinical" way, something you might actually be able to teach in a classroom as a valid empirical scientific theory. If you stuff too much theology in there, I guarantee you that you'll 'muck up the process' in a big way.

See above statement.

 

[Bushido216]

As an aside, I'm going to bed for the night. I'll catch up on this tomorrow.

 

[Michael]

So, it seems like you're going more into physics. I don't have the wherewithal to go into a physics discussion so I'll leave that to people that do.

Ok.

Regardless, there are still some lacunae in your discussion. They are as follows.

1. You're suggesting that the Universe is aware. How would you test this?

We can try a bunch of null hypothesis scenarios, but you seem to have rejected those out of hand. We could look for "thinking patterns" (relative to human brainwaves) in energy outputs of the sun.

3-day GOES X-ray Flux Monitor

We might also make sure the universe is in fact "electric". Those are few ways to test the hypothesis that I can think of off the top of my head.

What observable impacts does the Universe have that we can say "ah, there's the Universe at work!"

You mean like "life", "awareness", stuff like that?

2. You're stating that various objects (the sun, etc.) are part of this network. What are the mechanisms involved?

Well, the most obvious mechanism of energy exchanges is the EM field and "current flows" like we see in cosmic rays and such.

How do they work? Again, how do you test same? What can we see in the activity of the Sun that is a result of consciousness.

It's easier to test the electrical/EM aspects than it is to test for "consciousness" per se. We don't for instance have much "control" over the physical universe to test for "awareness".

When a human undergoes an experience, their physical makeup is changed. The experience produces an effect with re-organizes the make up of the neurons in their brain. The difference may be slight, but it's there. That's the difference between a sentient creature and a non-sentient creature. A plant doesn't re-arrange its own neurons and change its behaviour. A human or a marmot or whatever would.

Well, the sun certainly "changes over time" and displays a clear 11 year pattern of higher energy cycles. We just started a new one in fact after a historical low. It should peak within about 3 years. We see lots of x-ray changes in the sun, particularly during active phases. The universe experiences "supernova" and the circuitry seems to change over time.

That has implications for your model. Go into detail about how these implications effect your model, how you account for them, how you tested for them, their impacts, etc.

Thanks for the suggestions. I appreciate it.

 

[Michael]

As an aside, I'm going to bed for the night. I'll catch up on this tomorrow.

Thanks for the enjoyable conversation. Sweet dreams.

 

[Michael]

Right, and so would the Flying Spaghetti Monster shooting thoughts into our heads. That being said, you're excluding that other factors could explain a God experience.

Wired 7.11: This Is Your Brain on God

You may have missed the first couple of pages of the thread where I introduced an external 'mechanism' whereby an external EM field has been shown to induce a "spiritual" type experience. Got any link between that Spaghetti monster and the human brain to offer us?

If you're limiting it to "a non-conscious universe doesn't explain God, so it must be conscious" you're not performing science. You're limiting yourself unnecessarily to those two choices, and for no good reason.

Well, it's basically conscious or not. What other other choices are there? There is a null hypothesis, but only one I know of.

No one's suggested that single-celled organisms are aware, but that's a wierd sort of claim to make. "Animate creatures that aren't aware can do things, so therefore the Universe must be conscious". That's a fallacy known as affirming the consequent.

You should see astronomers justify "dark energy" or inflation sometime.

If p then q, q, therefore p is that fallacy, and you're committing it. You're essentially trying to argue that because your theory could potentially explain some phenomena, it must be correct.

No, I'm not saying it "must be" correct. I'm saying it "could be" correct. There's an important distinction there.

Again, your theory doesn't offer us anything meaningfully different than the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory.

That's not true. I offered a viable tangible, physical way for an EM oriented intelligence to directly alter the EM fields of the human brain. I don't see any empirical physical link offered to connect your Flying Monster theory to human brainwaves and experiences. From the perspective of 'pure physics' you haven't provided a similar mechanisms for direct influence in human activity.

The FSM shoots "hunt, kill" messages into unicellular organisms. An FSM universe explains this behaviour. A non FSM universe doesn't, therefore, the FSM is real.

I 'sort of' see where you're coming from, but IMO you're intentionally sidestepping the core question. Is "awareness" intrinsic to "reality" as we percieve it? It doesn't seem to require a particularly sophisticated set of circuitry to produce living organisms that are "self aware". Why is that?

I am exactly suggesting that the machinery in our brains is incapable of being effected by other machinery.

I think you must have missed the article I posted earlier.

Don't play this game. This is a straw man argument. I didn't suggest that only insane people experience God. I suggested that non-realistic perceptions can be an experience of God.

But you can't exclude the possibility of "realistic perceptions" can also be an experience of God.

The problem is that when you label a conscious universe as being God, you have to bring up the theology.

Inevitably, yes. I even did so in my second sentence in fact. I don't think however that the conversation needs to strictly be limited to theology, rather it can stay very much focused on pure physics. That's one of the "draws' of the theory from my perspective. You can' sidestep a lot of the theological aspects entirely.

If you want to keep this conversation as "is the universe aware", then that's fine so long as we avoid the label. I'm willing to agree to consider this without the label of God if you are.

Fine. Either way of describing the universe is good for me.

 

[Doveaman]

The problem is that when you label a conscious universe as being God, you have to bring up the theology. If you want to keep this conversation as "is the universe aware", then that's fine so long as we avoid the label. I'm willing to agree to consider this without the label of God if you are.

Without getting into the theology of God:

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. - Rom 1:20.

This verse seems to be telling us that God’s “eternal power and divine nature” can be empirically observed. The OP offers a way in which this empirical observation can be made.

 

[Jnwaco]

That's sort of how I see it Doveman.

 

[Cabal]

Having to believe in something before you can see it, and something that you can't test =/= empiricism.

 

[Michael]

Having to believe in something before you can see it, and something that you can't test =/= empiricism.

What do you mean by "you can't test" the idea? The whole point of sticking with an empirical theory is that it can in fact be tested in a standard scientific manner. "Faith" or "belief" in something that has yet to be demonstrated to date is almost always necessary to even construct a valid scientific experiment.

 

[Cabal]

What do you mean by "you can't test" the idea? The whole point of sticking with an empirical theory is that it can in fact be tested in a standard scientific manner.

Yes, hence "=/= empiricism".

"Faith" or "belief" in something that has yet to be demonstrated to date is almost always necessary to even construct a valid scientific experiment.

Well, I don't particularly call having an idea "faith" or "belief", but whatever works.