Heat Death

[bhsmte]

Here's one more point to consider. As Resha noted, religious trends are *temporary* and *bi-directional*:

Christianity in China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



So where has the trend in China gone over the past 1200 years?

Michael,

You seem to chalk it up to people being unhappy with churches and or religion, the decline we see.

It is my opinion, the decline started in Europe as scientific knowledge started to accelerate and the United States has followed suit. As people are educated in regards to the world we live in and learn things they did not previously know, it can have an impact on faith beliefs that have been in place and may not reconcile as well with what they have learned.

Religion has been around forever and has been firmly entrenched in society, from an early age. Scientific knowledge, is relatively young in comparison and IMO, is one of the main drivers in people deciding one day; I think I was wrong about this. Add in those who deeply examine the bible and that adds fuel to the fire.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Well, can you humor me for a moment? My interpretation of what he said is that all current attempts to describe the idea of inflation have been found untenable.

I think that overstates the case against inflation. I saw in a bit that you quoted that Michael discussed BICEP2. The results did not disprove inflation. The results were initially touted as crucial experimental evidence in favor of inflation, but later analysis showed that the data was inconclusive (but by no means a disproof of inflation).

So physics would claim knowledge of the existence of something immaterial?

As noted, it's unclear whether spacetime is a thing. Is a center of gravity a thing? Physics can calculate its position. If you touch your toes, you can move (interact with) your center of gravity. If you do a flip on a trampoline, your body will rotate around your center of gravity. Is the center of gravity a thing, or is it just a way of describing certain aspects of what we see in the universe. Is it a means of calculation, or a real thing? Is space-time any different?

Yes, I meant continuous in the mathematical sense. A good point about black holes. I had forgotten the whole singularity thing. But, aside from that, is space-time continuous? IOW, between singularities it's continuous? Or is it a quantum thing?

The quantum nature of space-time really isn't understood at all. I'm amenable to the idea that it's all a quantum foam of interactions, but we have so little understanding of what that would mean it's hard to say anything.

Stepping back from that brink, I think space-time, if you remove any singularities, would be some kind of smooth manifold that could be described as 'continuous'.

 

[Michael]

Michael, all studies have weaknesses, but the trend it points out is clear, just as it is in the many many other studies that look at the same.

In this case the omission of China and India in term of the numbers precludes you from making any blanket statements about the rise or fall of theism in general, or about Christianity or atheism in general. The most that you might comment on from that particular study are the percentages of various countries that *are* listed, which of course change all the time, sometimes up and sometimes down.

Anyone who does an objective examination of studies done on this topic and doesn't see a clear indication of the following, working real hard to deny the data.

-Christianity has been in steady decline for multiple decades in the US and longer in Europe

Ok, but why? Is Russia part of Europe, or are you excluding it for some reason?

-Belief in a God has also declined world wide for several decades

That may be true, but you can't make that claim based on the link you just provided. It left out at *least* half the planet in terms of the totals. (No totals for China, India, Muslim states ect).

-Christianity is mostly growing in third world countries and former and current communist countries

So?

-Islam is the religion that has consistent growth over the last couple of decades

While that may in fact be true, it's yet another example of a statement that isn't supported by the study that you just cited. Islam isn't even cited in that study as far as I remember, in fact they intentionally *did not* include numbers from countries *without* a Christian or atheist majority.

Since your study leaves out the countries with the largest growth in Christianity over the past few decades, it can't speak to *world totals*, nor can it really be used to cite any worldwide trends.

About all you can do is note that 'Christianity' in the US has declined somewhat, but compared to the rest of the world it's still quite high in terms of "strong" support compared to other countries.

 

[Michael]

Michael,

You seem to chalk it up to people being unhappy with churches and or religion, the decline we see.

With the exception of state sponsored oppression, that's usually the 'cause'.

It is my opinion, the decline started in Europe as scientific knowledge started to accelerate and the United States has followed suit.

Yet as scientific knowledge has increased in Russia and China over the past few decades, there was a noticeable *increase* in "Christians' in those countries. That doesn't exactly bode well for your argument.

As I noted, I wouldn't be surprised if there is a link between the decline of some Protestant religions in the US and education, but I don't think that's necessarily true for *all* branches of Christianity, or all religions.

I do see why a conflict between religion and science, might not bode well for a particular religion.

As people are educated in regards to the world we live in and learn things they did not previously know, it can have an impact on faith beliefs that have been in place and may not reconcile as well with what they have learned.

I'd even go so far as to say that may play a role at time with frustrated YEC proponents. I still don't see any worldwide trends.

Religion has been around forever and has been firmly entrenched in society, from an early age. Scientific knowledge, is relatively young in comparison and IMO, is one of the main drivers in people deciding one day; I think I was wrong about this. Add in those who deeply examine the bible and that adds fuel to the fire.

Protestants and those who hold faith in 'Biblical infallibility' might come into conflict with scientific belief, but that's not the case for Catholics or other branches of Christianity. I think you're over generalizing based on a *very* limited set of data and a very small window of time.

Science has been around for *thousands* of years too, and it's come up with as many *wrong* ideas as right ones. The fact that science isn't 'perfect' or always right isn't a valid reason to abandon the scientific method altogether.

 

[lesliedellow]

What about people who were Christians for many years and decided their beliefs were wrong after years of being exposed to life's experiences and or education? Did these people just lose their instincts to believe in a God?

Like I said, they will start looking around for something else to fill the God shaped hole, whether it be science, lauded to the point where it effectively becomes a god, or Marxism, or something else.

What about people who didn't believe in a God and later in life became a believer? Did they all of a sudden get the instinct to believe in a God?

I belong in that category, and I can remember looking round for a substitute god, although I obviously didn't articulate it to myself in those terms back then.

I agree with your premise that people have a drive for understanding, but from that point, many variables come into play, that are unique to each person.

I am not talking about understanding in terms of what makes the Sun shine. I mean understanding along the lines of, "What's this life all about?"

Some want to understand based more on intuition and emotion and others want to understand based on analytical thinking and being able to reconcile the claims with evidence of the real world that is heavily supported to be reality.

That is a false dichotomy. Is a maths degree analytical enough for you?

 

[bhsmte]

Like I said, they will start looking around for something else to fill the God shaped hole, whether it be science, lauded to the point where it effectively becomes a god, or Marxism, or something else.




I belong in that category, and I can remember looking round for a substitute god, although I obviously didn't articulate it to myself in those terms back then.




I am not talking about understanding in terms of what makes the Sun shine. I mean understanding along the lines of, "What's this life all about?"




That is a false dichotomy. Is a maths degree analytical enough for you?

I didn't say it was the total answer, I said it was a piece of the puzzle. Psychology recognizes, a person is more likely to be a believer, if they are an intuitive thinker, but that does not mean, all intuitive thinkers are believers or all analytical thinkers are non believers.

Many factors come into play; personal psychology, how you are wired to think, life's experiences etc..

And in regard to "what this life is all about" I was on the same wave length as you. Some just don't have the need to place something very subjective into that slot.

 

[Michael]

I think that overstates the case against inflation. I saw in a bit that you quoted that Michael discussed BICEP2. The results did not disprove inflation.

FYI I don't think essentialsaltes read the link or the paper that I actually posted:

Cosmic inflation is dead, long live cosmic inflation! - physics-math - 25 September 2014 - New Scientist

Counter to what the BICEP2 collaboration said initially, Parkinson's analysis suggests the BICEP2 results actually rule out any reasonable form of inflationary theory.

Ruled out – possibly

Most inflationary models require that as you look at larger and larger scales of the universe, you should see stronger and stronger gravitational waves. Cosmologists call that a "gravitational wave spectrum".
"What inflation predicted was actually the reverse of what we found," says Parkinson. How many inflationary models does it rule out? "Most of them, to be honest."

The results were initially touted as crucial experimental evidence in favor of inflation, but later analysis showed that the data was inconclusive (but by no means a disproof of inflation).

Apparently he thinks that I'm still complaining about the 'dust' problem that they had with the original Bicep2 claims, not the later study that I'm actually referring to which effectively rules out "most" model of inflation theory.

As noted, it's unclear whether spacetime is a thing.

Not really, at least not in GR or even QM concepts of gravity. In GR, the geometry of spacetime is directly related to the mass/energy layout of "physical things".

Is a center of gravity a thing?

"Things" have a center of gravity. I think you're confusing math with physics. You're "calculating' a "center of mass" for a 'thing" made of mass/energy.

The quantum nature of space-time really isn't understood at all. I'm amenable to the idea that it's all a quantum foam of interactions, but we have so little understanding of what that would mean it's hard to say anything.

Well, even in QM concepts of gravity, "things" create gravity using a carrier particle called "gravitons', which are of course presumed to be "physical things" as well.

 

[Michael]

FYI, this is a slightly better article about the problems with Bicep2 data and 'tilt' that would be related to inflation.

The Universe, in Theory: September 2014

What they find is striking. In the “optimistic” and dust-free models, they find tensor modes, just as BICEP2 did, but they also find a tilt that is utterly incompatible with standard models of inflation. Basically, if BICEP2 and Planck’s previous measurements are correct, and the dust is at a manageable level, BICEP2 not only doesn’t prove inflation – it just about rules it out!

 

[Resha Caner]

I think that overstates the case against inflation.

Maybe so. But it also seems it has some difficult hurdles to overcome.

As noted, it's unclear whether spacetime is a thing. Is a center of gravity a thing?

Well, COG is a first temporal moment ... a mathematical approximation of a body as a rigid point. As one adds the second moment, third, and so on, the approximation draws closer to describing the body. Statistical moments can do the same thing, but in a different way.

Space is different, in that it defines a relationship between bodies rather than a description of a single body. Likewise with time.

But, I'll not argue with you, as I said it seems to be space-time is just an emergent property of things, not a thing in itself. IMO, for it to be a thing in itself, it must have a "here and not there" quality. For example, I can say I am here in my room, but not there in your room. So I am a thing. I can't do that with space or time. I can't say space (or time) is here, but not there. When things are completely absent, time is absent. In an opposite sort of way, space is always and infinitely present. An absence of things doesn't make space absent.

The quantum nature of space-time really isn't understood at all. I'm amenable to the idea that it's all a quantum foam of interactions, but we have so little understanding of what that would mean it's hard to say anything.

It seems, then, you've not ruled out seeing it my way.

Stepping back from that brink, I think space-time, if you remove any singularities, would be some kind of smooth manifold that could be described as 'continuous'.

And that indicates to me even more that space-time is not a thing. Things reach a point where, if you divide them, it is no longer the same thing. But space or time divided is forever space or time no matter how much you divide them, even if you theoretically divide them beyond physical ability to measure them, they remain space and time.

If so, then when one says space-time is infinite, what is it that you are really saying is infinite? That question may be where we have to jump to the philosophy forum.

 

[essentialsaltes]

If so, then when one says space-time is infinite, what is it that you are really saying is infinite?

The spatial extent of the universe? The timelike extent of the multiverse? The lack of boundaries in the universal manifold?

 

[Resha Caner]

The spatial extent of the universe? The timelike extent of the multiverse? The lack of boundaries in the universal manifold?

One could postulate the quantum foam has an infinite extent, but would never be able to validate it with a measurement. Alternatively, if one defines space as a perfect vacuum - a perfect nothingness, it becomes a bit nonsensical to say it is infinite. How does one measure nothing? In order to measure, you must specify at least two points to measure between, and then you have something - not nothing.

That may be an interesting intellectual puzzle, but I don't see it as a problem ... except insofar as material is necessary for time. Time is the bigger problem.

As I said earlier, space and time are relationships between bodies. So, suppose that within the entire universe, only one body exists. How would it ever be known if that body were eternal? How would it be known if one second had passed or one millenia? In order to define time, motion is necessary, which requires a reference and a measure of distance with respect to the reference - so at least two bodies.

Time and space, then, are transcendent - infinite things require something to be transcendent. That terminology (as well as a word like "emergent") is probably a bit too philosophical for science, so in scientific terms one could say time and space are only properties of systems - infinite properties can only be found in systems.

There is an additional problem that measures of time and space require consistency. Yet there is no consistent measure according to current cosmology (at least as I understand it). The current definition of a second depends upon cesium, which didn't exist at the time of the Big Bang. IMO that makes extrapolations back before the existence of something stable such as cesium highly questionable. But that's just another digression.

Rather, once there is agreement that material systems have the potential for infinite properties, and that in fact an infinite property of time is necessary to explain heat death, the next issue is continuity.

 

[essentialsaltes]

One could postulate the quantum foam has an infinite extent, but would never be able to validate it with a measurement. Alternatively, if one defines space as a perfect vacuum - a perfect nothingness, it becomes a bit nonsensical to say it is infinite. How does one measure nothing?

Why can't I measure the space in our actual universe with stuff in it?

"According to cosmologists, on this model the observational data best fit with the conclusion that the shape of the universe is infinite and flat"

 

[Resha Caner]

Why can't I measure the space in our actual universe with stuff in it?

"According to cosmologists, on this model the observational data best fit with the conclusion that the shape of the universe is infinite and flat"

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. If you measure a system with "stuff in it", you're not measuring "space", but establishing a relationship between the stuff you're measuring. Do you not see the difference? If you could supposedly measure space, then you wouldn't need stuff. You only need space and a ruler.

Further, I don't understand why you parsed the quote the way you did. In the link you provided, the phrase immediately following your quote is:

"... but the data are also consistent with other possible shapes ..."

I assume them to say they have not found something that requires a finite universe. That is different than saying the universe is infinite. I've no problem with an infinite universe, but I don't see how you would ever measure such a thing. It is almost, by it's very definition, unmeasureable.

And this wasn't the main thrust of my post.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. If you measure a system with "stuff in it", you're not measuring "space", but establishing a relationship between the stuff you're measuring.

You said earlier that "space and time are relationships between bodies". [my perhaps overliteral emphasis] So if I'm measuring the relationship between bodies, am I not measuring space? This gets back to whether space is a thing or not. If it's a relationship between two things, is space itself a new third 'thing'? Off to philosophy.

And this wasn't the main thrust of my post.

No problem.

 

[Resha Caner]

You said earlier that "space and time are relationships between bodies". [my perhaps overliteral emphasis] So if I'm measuring the relationship between bodies, am I not measuring space?

I see. Maybe it's a semantic issue, but I would say no, you're not measuring space.

This gets back to whether space is a thing or not. If it's a relationship between two things, is space itself a new third 'thing'? Off to philosophy.

I suppose so.

 

[Michael]

You said earlier that "space and time are relationships between bodies". [my perhaps overliteral emphasis] So if I'm measuring the relationship between bodies, am I not measuring space?

No. You're measuring the *distance* between *objects* embedded in 'spacetime'!

This gets back to whether space is a thing or not.

So how exactly does 'no thing' do any sort of expansion or contraction? How are you physically differentiating (real physics) between *distance* and what you are calling "space"?