An Empirical Theory Of God

[Michael]

Almost all scientific theories are NOT judged based on how well they "predict" specific scientifically verified processes.
Most are judged on how well they explain or demonstrate their subject.

Please explain the difference.

That they may be used to make predictions is secondary to their nature.

So what exactly does something like "inflation theory" do for us?

Any judgment as to the accuracy of a prediction using a theory must also take into account the formulation of that prediction, a construct separate from the theory itself.

Again, compare that to say inflation theory.

 

[Washington]

Almost all scientific theories are NOT judged based on how well they "predict" specific scientifically verified processes.
Most are judged on how well they explain or demonstrate their subject.

Please explain the difference.

Most theories are judged by how well they explain empirical observations. If found to explain these observations better than any other theory, with few, if any, difficulties it will be judged to be a good theory. One that that has a difficulty or two may be judged as only tentatively good, or whatever. And all of this without considering its predictive power. Now, some theories are also predictive in nature, such as inflationary theory, generativity theory, and various economic theories. And this is why I used terms such as, "almost all" and "most."

So what exactly does something like "inflation theory" do for us?

It explains why the temperatures and curvatures of different regions of the universe are so nearly equal. It also predicts that the total curvature of a space-slice at constant global time is zero,* but the prediction here is a secondary effect of its power and would not affect its validity if it failed in this prediction.

Again, compare that to say inflation theory.

If the construction of determining factors in arriving at the predictive power of the theory, or any theory, was faulty in any way the resulting answers would reflect that failing.

 

[Doveaman]

Even if the electric universe idea is correct, all we would know is that there may be electric currents throughout the universe.

Considering the fact that our interaction with the universe and everything in it is an electrical interaction through our sensory system, this makes our experience of the universe an electrical experience, and therefore our awareness of the universe an electrical awareness.

There maybe more going on in the mind to assist with this awareness, but the electrical element is essential to that awareness, which tells us that awareness is very much electrical in nature. Perhaps the electric universe itself has a similar type of awareness at the cosmological level.

 

[Michael]

Most theories are judged by how well they explain empirical observations.

I "empirically observe" that most humans are theists. This theory "predicts" and "explains" such an observation, whereas a "null hypothesis' does not. I'd say I'm off to a good start. This theory "predicts" (at the level of empirical physics) an electromagnetic transfer of energy between objects in space. We're "empirically observing" such phenomenon in space. Two for two. This theory "predicts" that there could even be a physical communication mechanism between humans and what humans refer to as God. I "empirically observe" that many humans throughout human history have claimed that "God has spoken to them", or "illuminated them" in some way. Furthermore physical studies with EM fields show humans can have a "God experience" based on EM transfers of energy. Three for three. How's the null hypothesis doing?

If found to explain these observations better than any other theory, with few, if any, difficulties it will be judged to be a good theory.

I don't really see any major difficulties so far that a little sweat equity over time wouldn't resolve.

One that that has a difficulty or two may be judged as only tentatively good, or whatever.

It looks "tentatively good" thus far wouldn't you say?

And all of this without considering its predictive power. Now, some theories are also predictive in nature, such as inflationary theory,

It's a 'dead entity" in terms of it's effect on humans here and now however. What kind of theory is that?

generativity theory,

With or without "dark energy"?

and various economic theories. And this is why I used terms such as, "almost all" and "most."

Alright.

It explains why the temperatures and curvatures of different regions of the universe are so nearly equal.

Er, how so? When did "inflation" ever physically move a single atom on Earth? How do I verify the "ad hoc" properties that Guth assigned to that particular bad boy?

It also predicts that the total curvature of a space-slice at constant global time is zero,* but the prediction here is a secondary effect of its power and would not affect its validity if it failed in this prediction.

Same question as above. Guth seemed to sit down and simply "invent" those "properties" all his math formulas are based on. He "postdicted" them to fit an already known observation. He literally "invented" a "supernatural" form of energy in nature that defies the physical laws of nature as we understand them. Where do I go to get some "inflation"' to empirically verify any of Guth's claims about his invisible inflation friend?

If the construction of determining factors in arriving at the predictive power of the theory, or any theory, was faulty in any way the resulting answers would reflect that failing.

Ya, but if the whole thing is "postdicted" from start to finish, how's it possibly going to "fail"? When the theory is 'tweaked" over time in a purely ad hoc manner, how can it not 'explain" whatever it's supposed to explain?

Where do I get 'inflation' to empirically verify these claims about what inflation can and cannot do to material objects?

 

[RealityCheck]

When the theory is 'tweaked" over time in a purely ad hoc manner, how can it not 'explain" whatever it's supposed to explain?

Exactly. Now you're starting to understand what the purpose of science and scientific theories are. Scientific theories are models, and as such they often require fine-tuning in order to be better models.

Visualize this: You are constructing a model of the known solar system, and let's suppose that you have some truly advanced technology to construct a true-to-life model of the solar system. Using this model, you can hopefully predict where planets will be at certain times, when the best time to observe a planet or a moon feature is, etc.

You start with a very basic model - one in which the earth is immobile at the center, and the sun, moon, and other planets circle the earth. A good model to start with because it matches your observations - surely you can see that all these things go around the earth!

Then a couple guys come along and tell you that they've observed something that doesn't mesh with your model. The planet Jupiter, it turns out, has its own moons. No problem, you figure, and you start adding moons around Jupiter so that they'll also go around the earth. But there's another problem - turns out the planet Venus undergoes phases, somewhat like our own moon, but the phases conflict with your model. Your model doesn't predict the correct phases of Venus. Turns out the only way to make things work is to put the sun in the center, and put the earth in orbit around the sun. Major tweaking to your model... but when you're done with the change, you find that now your model predicts the phases of Venus just fine. You can look at your model and see what phase Venus will be in on January 21, and sure enough, January 21 comes around and it's...

Oh, almost right. Not quite right, it's off by a bit.

You discover, through some trial and error, based on what you observe of the planets' positions in the sky over a long time, that the shape of your orbits is wrong. The planets don't orbit the sun in perfect circles, as you had thought earlier. They orbit in ellipses. When you apply this new formula to the model, you find that not only does your model better predict the correct phases of Venus at the right times, all the other planets seem to fall into line as well. You've again tweaked your model to account for what has been observed, and now it is a better model.

Some time later, you discover that one planet in particular is not behaving as your model suggests it should. It does something odd - it seems to periodically speed up and then slow down. Overall the model is right except for these strange periodical accelerations and decelerations. What could cause that? One suggestion is that there's a missing planet - maybe one further out from the sun, one that hasn't yet been observed. You work this into your model and find that, indeed, if there were a planet at a certain distance from the sun, and was roughly the same mass as the known planet, it would have the observed effect. Now your model has predicted something else entirely, and later observation confirms what your model predicted - there is, in fact, such a planet out there. When it and the first planet approach each other, the first planet gets held back by the second - the braking. Then as the second passes, it sort of pulls the first one along a bit.

What if you had NOT found such a planet, though? Would you have insisted that your model was correct, and the planet had to be there even though observation said otherwise? You might try to improve technology to make better observational equipment, but after some time, evidence will show that the "extra planet" idea is wrong. You cannot then cling to the notion that the model is right. It has to be tweaked again. Either there is an alternate explanation, for which evidence could be found, or there is evidence that will suggest the alternate explanation. Either way, eventually the model will be tweaked again.

And that's how science really works. It has worked that way for over 300 years. This method has consistently produced better models, better theories, and more and more correct results. This method has allowed us to build on prior knowledge to extend our knowledge even further. It works - deal with it.

 

[sandwiches]

Considering the fact that our interaction with the universe and everything in it is an electrical interaction through our sensory system, this makes our experience of the universe an electrical experience, and therefore our awareness of the universe an electrical awareness.

There maybe more going on in the mind to assist with this awareness, but the electrical element is essential to that awareness, which tells us that awareness is very much electrical in nature. Perhaps the electric universe itself has a similar type of awareness at the cosmological level.

I agree that it's definitely possible. However, this is not empirical proof that it is, indeed, happening.

 

[Michael]

It works - deal with it.

When constructing an "empirical" theory, it's highly important that we stick with known laws of physics. If I wanted to create a "metaphysical" theory of God, I'd pilfer the math related to inflation, dark energy, and dark matter, relabel them "Godflation", "God energy" and "God matter", and viola, I'd be all set. I'm not interested in mythological forces of nature and energy. I'm interested in what shows up in a lab in empirical tests. I'm interested in finding a "real", "tangible" and "physical" definition of God, not the dime a dozen metaphysical brands.

FYI, "inflation", "dark energy" and "dark matter" don't "work". Nothing at Walmart runs on anything remotely related to those three mythical entities.

 

[Michael]

I agree that it's definitely possible. However, this is not empirical proof that it is, indeed, happening.

You're right. The point here is that it *could be* demonstrated in actual controlled experimentation, not that it "has been" demonstrated. It wouldn't be a "theory" in that case, it would be "scientific fact".

 

[sandwiches]

You're right. The point here is that it *could be* demonstrated in actual controlled experimentation, not that it "has been" demonstrated. It wouldn't be a "theory" in that case, it would be "scientific fact".

*facepalm*

Look up what a scientific theory is.

 

[RealityCheck]

*facepalm*

Look up what a scientific theory is.

Seconded. Michael, if you don't understand the concept of a scientific theory, you can't possibly hope to discuss science intelligently.

 

[RealityCheck]

When constructing an "empirical" theory, it's highly important that we stick with known laws of physics.

Well, how did the "known" laws of physics become known? At some point they had to be unknown. How do we learn of new things in science if all we can do is stick with the old?

If I wanted to create a "metaphysical" theory of God, I'd pilfer the math related to inflation, dark energy, and dark matter, relabel them "Godflation", "God energy" and "God matter", and viola, I'd be all set.

Yet that's more or less what you're doing.

I'm interested in what shows up in a lab in empirical tests. I'm interested in finding a "real", "tangible" and "physical" definition of God, not the dime a dozen metaphysical brands.

First: Define God, and define what the properties of God are that we can detect that are real, tangible, and physical, and distinct.

If your idea is "the universe is God" then you fail from the start, because by definition, you cannot detect a real, tangible, and physical god that is distinct from anything else in the universe. If you cannot distinguish between "God" and "something that is not God" then your concept is useless.

You cannot search for something without having some idea of what you're looking for. You seem to have the idea that we can look for God's physical properties without knowing what we're looking for. That isn't how this works. If we find evidence X, and that evidence is real and physical, there is no reason to label X as "evidence of God" if we don't already have a reason to do so.

Think of black holes. Black holes were theoretical objects long before they were ever detected. They were detected largely because the theory made predictions about what would be evidence of one. Once we had an idea of what to look for, according to the theory, we then found such evidence, and that was the first step in corroborating the theory. What we found was strong evidence of black holes, but not conclusive (and still not, technically) because as long as there were alternate means of explaining the evidence, there was "it might be a black hole" and "it might be other phenomenon XYZ."

So what can we predict about the physical, real, tangible properties of God?

 

[Bushido216]

Even though I was gone for a few days, I'll still go through this thread, 'cause I'm bored and at home. Cheers everyone.

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.

I'm not sure you get what a null hypothesis is. It's not something that exists in a vacuum. It's a tool used in a pure experiment research environment. Basically, if you set up your research such that you've isolated all the variables and can make a causal determination as a result of your research it would still be a deductive fallacy to state that your experimental condition caused the results.

In other words:
p->q
q
---
You can't state p from this.

So, in order that your experiment has some value, you disprove a null hypothesis.

Let's restate.

p: I manipulate x in y way
q: I will get a result (sufficiently different from base line)

The null hypothesis

p: I manipulate x in y way
q: I get no result (sufficiently different from baseline)

When you run a true experiment, you're disproving the null hypothesis.
p->q
~q
---
~p

That's the only deductively valid conclusion to draw.

That being said, it's inappropriate to simply say 'the null hypothesis states that consciousness wouldn't exist, it does, therefore EM god" or whatever. It's something that is only appropriate in a true experimental research condition. You can't use it independently, or with a correlation or case study or anything like that.

If you want to use a null hypothesis, come up with a direct experimental condition.

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.

I'll leave these to be evaluated by someone who knows better.

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

The problem is that those phenomena are already explained by other processes. It isn't enough to say that "the EM god expects these phenomena, they exist, therefore". You have demonstrate a link with positive evidence and work towards disproving those other paradigms.

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

Physics.

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".

The problem is that even if you demonstrate that these fields are extant or whatever, how would you go about determining that they are signs of consciousness?

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.

Again, the changes are both 1. cyclical (meaning not relevant to what I meant by biological change) and 2. well explained by other phenomena. You can't just point to some phenomena and say "there is proof of my theory". Why should we neglect other explanations for those phenomena in favour of yours?

 

[Bushido216]

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

Lots of things could be correct. Doesn't mean they are.

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.

I must have missed this presentation. That being said, "EM oriented intelligence". Fine, so we assume that an intelligence could impact other intelligences. We still have to get to the point where the universe is intelligent.

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?

Not sure where you're going there. It's a wierd question. It's phrased "is awareness contingent upon reality?" The answer to that question is "yes". You have to have reality before you can be aware of it. As to why simple circuitry can produce self-awareness, I'm not certain that claim is correct.

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

But I have yet to be given a reason to believe that they are, either.

 

[Bushido216]

Well, it's actually impossible to miss the electromagnetic processes of the universe, from those million degree coronal loop "circuits" in the solar atmosphere, to those million mile per hour particles whizzing by Earth, to the magnetic fields we measure everywhere in space.

[0908.0813] Generation of large scale electric fields in coronal flare circuits
Successful Predictions of the Electrical Discharge Theory of Cosmic Atmospheric Phenomena and Universal Evolution

It's still your job to demonstrate how those are somehow indicative of consciousness. "You could disprove my theory by showing that the universe isn't electric, but it is electric, so there".

You still need to offer some positive evidence that the universe is aware.

 

[Bushido216]

That seems to depend on how one subjectively interprets the evidence. You seem to ignore the fact this theory "predicts" electrical current flows in space. All theories make predictions which either falsify or support that theory. If you refuse to even acknowledge a verified "prediction" when it's put before you, what exactly will you accept as "evidence" of any scientific theory?

That's not how predictions work. A theory makes a prediction. That prediction is either falsified, or it's not. That being said, predictions aren't the only thing that matters, they're one of several things that matter.

I could say that the Flying Spaghetti Monster predicts an electric universe. I see an electric universe, so the FSM is real. Again, that's affirming the consequent, and a logical fallacy. The predictive power of theories lies in that they're not falsified. In other words, the predictive power of a theory is only so good as said theory resists being falsified.

Of course, you have to make predictions about the whole thing. It'd be neat if you'd make some specific prediction about how the EM fields interacts with our consciousnesses or what have you. One prediction which happens to be the case (maybe) is neat, but it's not enough. You need to have specifics, explanatory power, all those things that you don't have.

 

[Bushido216]

I "empirically observe" that most humans are theists. This theory "predicts" and "explains" such an observation, whereas a "null hypothesis' does not.

It doesn't explain it. "An EM universe is aware and talks to people through electromagnetism" isn't an explanation. You need to make specific statements with specific data. Your statements are so general that frankly they're not useful. How does an EM field interact with people? Have you any specific data? Can you state any results that aren't better explained by other theories?

Alright, so people experience God. Why should I refuse to accept other, better theories that explain these experiences? You haven't given me any reason to.

This theory "predicts" (at the level of empirical physics) an electromagnetic transfer of energy between objects in space. We're "empirically observing" such phenomenon in space.

And? Awesome, good for you. The problem though, is that you're explanation of those phenomena is a conscious universe. You have yet to demonstrate any reason why we should believe you. So either I can go with a well-developed paradigm, or one that has very close to zero support.

This theory "predicts" that there could even be a physical communication mechanism between humans and what humans refer to as God. I "empirically observe" that many humans throughout human history have claimed that "God has spoken to them", or "illuminated them" in some way. Furthermore physical studies with EM fields show humans can have a "God experience" based on EM transfers of energy.

The problem is that your predictions don't include little details like "how". How do these things happen? How do we manipulate the processes? If you show me someone thinking a mighty thought, how can I say "ah, that's the EM field" vs. "ah, that's their brains ticking away"?

How's the null hypothesis doing?

Again, not how the null is used.

 

[corvus_corax]

All of these pieces of empirical evidence point us toward the possibility that everything around us is a part of a living being called God.

On a side note, I find it interesting that more than one Christian is in agreement with this pantheistic hypothesis (including, obviously, the author of the OP)...or is this possibly a panentheistic POV?

 

[Doveaman]

On a side note, I find it interesting that more than one Christian is in agreement with this pantheistic hypothesis (including, obviously, the author of the OP)...or is this possibly a panentheistic POV?

What's your definition of "pantheistic"?

Is this a pantheistic definition:

What may be known about God is plain to them [us], because God has made it plain to them [us]. 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 [we] are without excuse. - Rom 1:19-20

 

[RealityCheck]

Pantheism is the belief that the universe and God are identical - exactly what Michael originally was saying. There are no Christian denominations that hold this belief - Christianity posits that God is outside the universe, necessarily, because the belief is that God created the universe - the universe and God are thus distinct and separate things in Christian theology. Most religions, actually.

 

[Michael]

*facepalm*

Look up what a scientific theory is.

That's the only sentence you responded to?

A "theory" does *NOT* have to be 'proven' to be called a "theory". In fact almost no theory has "unexplained/unverified" parts.

This theory is however a completely 'empirical' theory, meaning it can be demonstrated in a real lab. Compared to something like inflation theory that has to be accepted on pure faith, that's light years ahead of a lot of theories, and much more straightforward to verify or falsify.