How to prove that GOD exists from a scientific point of view?

[SelfSim]

Wrong. just focus last paragraph.
Science models are not the objective thing. They are abstract.

The closest you get is observations.
And they are through a subjective filter.

The only objective “ reality” is the underlying universe itself.
And we only have a blurred and limited view of it.

The models are an attempt to make sense of patterns in the view.

But the models are just abstract. Not objective, they live on paper and computers not in the world.

In philosophical terms it is a nonsense to believe that because some observations don’t conform to the model ( or materialist view of the world) , the observations are wrong.
The real world is king, but in absence of complete knowledge , observed evidence is king, accepting the limitations of observations. The model is a poor third and is dispensable if it doesn’t fit. Projections of the model are a distant fourth.


read val lommels book on NDE.

It goes a lot deeper into discussing neurologists viewpoints on consciousness.
Many now openly state that the hypothesis that the mind ie consciousness as a process of the brain is no longer supportable. The evidence doesn’t fit.
The mind controls the brain, and indeed can restructure it.

Y'know what, I had a thorough response drafted .. then I realised, similar to @Has Blaster, I just don't what you have to say any more either .. sorry, (FWIW).

@Hans Blaster: Hope its ok by you to quote you here(?):

I don't know why you continue to write long messages at me. I don't care enough about what you have to say to read them anymore.

 

[Hans Blaster]

@Hans Blaster: Hope its ok by you to quote you here(?):

Feel free to join my club. The only theist (apparently) on this page is dlamberth from what I can see.

 

[SelfSim]

But the experience itself can not be described objectively.

The descriptions, ie: words like 'love', 'it hurts bad' etc, are what we have to work with. They are effectively the expressed results of a query (or a test).
We then rely on our own empathy and skepticism in realising their experience, I think(?)
Beyond that, I'm not sure it matters whether its subjective or not, except in conversations beyond just the two immediate people in that scenario(?) Ie: when the issue goes beyond them, the need for objectivity increases, I think, and has to be expressed to others in a way which resonates with thinking of those other uninvolved people. That's where science's concept of objectivity kicks in. IOW 'objectivity' now means something different from it exists independently from both our minds (which is really quite nonsensical) .. and also different from pure 'subjectivity'.
Interesting .. (discussion welcomed).

Correction, we both stop when we see lights that are the colour we have been told is red at the intersection.

For all we know, what you think of as red could be the same as what I think of as blue. And if I could telepathically link with your mind and share your experiences, I'd see you stopping at, what is to me, a blue light.

As I mused above, I'm not sure that matters much(?) What matters, as far as living in an objectively real universe, is that we stop when we see that particular colour, in that situation, (because of the objectively real consequences if we don't ..)

Again, the experience itself can not be described objectively.

I can whack you in the leg with a baseball bat, but that doesn't mean I KNOW what pain you experienced. The closest I can come is to know what pain I experience if I get whacked in the leg with a baseball bat, but there's still no guarantee that the pain I feel is the same as the pain you feel.

You would surely realise the pain I'm feeling .. (and then probably take joy and pleasure from that? .. Nasty! )
The communications I use (verbal, visual, sensory) to convey the outcome of your (sadistic) actions are sufficient in meaning to get you to understand, for eg: 'a that you're a gonna feel my pain, in return' .. objective or not!

Gravity can be objectively described as the amount of curvature in spacetime.

Sure .. (don't forget the equivalence principle observational context of GR there, too).

So, gravity can be objectively modelled anywhere from being an objective fact, all the way to being completely fictitious .. depending on context (or the model).
That's solid evidence of it being realised by us, by means of one model or another .. and none for realising it, in any way, independently from the way we think of it, from within those modelling contexts. In science they're objective models .. but still conceived by us, yet they're not 'subjective'.

In a way, the distinction between 'objective' and 'subjective' is still subjective (and I'd argue, always was), but its not subjective where that term means for eg: pink unicorns dancing in my garden ..

 

[SelfSim]

Feel free to join my club. The only theist (apparently) on this page is dlamberth from what I can see.

Thank you kindly .. an honour for sure!
However, I'm not sure I'm willing to join the 'Atheist' (nor the Theist) clubs there, if that's what you mean? Too clubby soundin' for me ..

 

[Mountainmike]

Y'know what, I had a thorough response drafted .. then I realised, similar to @Has Blaster, I just don't what you have to say any more either .. sorry, (FWIW).

@Hans Blaster: Hope its ok by you to quote you here(?):

I’m simply noting the
Universe.
Observations of it.
The model of observations.( aka scientific model)

Are very different things and that the last is only an abstract of the universe , not an underpinning of it. Eg a God can exist in the first without being in the last.

Have you ever read the books on NDE where doctors note that the mind cannot just be a function of the brain?
The evidence is fascinating to me at least,
But then I have insatiable curiosity. I’m disappointed others don’t.

I have to confess I have no idea what you said means
“ I just don't what you have to say any more“
I suspect there are words left out.

 

[Kylie]

The descriptions, ie: words like 'love', 'it hurts bad' etc, are what we have to work with. They are effectively the expressed results of a query (or a test).

And completely subjective.

We then rely on our own empathy and skepticism in realising their experience, I think(?)

Which is nothing more than the assumption that they feel the way we would if we had the same experience.

Beyond that, I'm not sure it matters whether its subjective or not, except in conversations beyond just the two immediate people in that scenario(?) Ie: when the issue goes beyond them, the need for objectivity increases, I think, and has to be expressed to others in a way which resonates with thinking of those other uninvolved people. That's where science's concept of objectivity kicks in. IOW 'objectivity' now means something different from it exists independently from both our minds (which is really quite nonsensical) .. and also different from pure 'subjectivity'.
Interesting .. (discussion welcomed).

So may I assume that the question you asked in post 2333 has been answered?

Specifically, where you asked:

"Hmm .. why wouldn't the measures of:
i) reports of the experience of love from the experiencer and;
ii) noticeable changes in brain activity when they experience love;
not be objective measures applicable to the experience?"​

As I mused above, I'm not sure that matters much(?) What matters, as far as living in an objectively real universe, is that we stop when we see that particular colour, in that situation, (because of the objectively real consequences if we don't ..)

No, I don't suppose that it does matter much. But then again, you did ask if subjective experiences could be taken as evidence that those subjective experiences were the same between different people.

You would surely realise the pain I'm feeling .. (and then probably take joy and pleasure from that? .. Nasty! )
The communications I use (verbal, visual, sensory) to convey the outcome of your (sadistic) actions are sufficient in meaning to get you to understand, for eg: 'a that you're a gonna feel my pain, in return' .. objective or not!

But again, that is just the ASSUMPTION that what one of us feels when hit in the legs with a baseball bat is objectively the same as what the other feels.

Sure .. (don't forget the equivalence principle observational context of GR there, too).

That's an interesting idea.

Let's say we had a spacetime curvature meter (or SCM). I could land my rocketship on a planet and use this SCM to measure the curvature of spacetime. Let's say the planet's surface gravity is 1G and the SCM reads the curvature of spacetime as 1. Now, presumably if I then travelled 100 AU away from that star, the SCM would read less curvature, yes? (Assuming we were free from the influences of planets, stars, etc.)

Now, if I was to take my rocketship out in the middle of deep space, millions of light years away from and stars, planets, asteroids and accelerate so I felt the same 1G gravity I felt on the planet, would my SCM read a curvature of spacetime? a compression of spacetime I could understand, but a curvature?

So, gravity can be objectively modelled anywhere from being an objective fact, all the way to being completely fictitious .. depending on context (or the model).
That's solid evidence of it being realised by us, by means of one model or another .. and none for realising it, in any way, independently from the way we think of it, from within those modelling contexts. In science they're objective models .. but still conceived by us, yet they're not 'subjective'.

In a way, the distinction between 'objective' and 'subjective' is still subjective (and I'd argue, always was), but its not subjective where that term means for eg: pink unicorns dancing in my garden ..

I'm working on the idea that something objective is the same for all people. If I can measure it and get a particular result, and you measure it and get the same result, and so does everyone else, then it's objectively true, for example. How high is that flagpole, for instance. I can measure it by dropping an object from the top and timing how long it takes to reach the ground. Someone else could measure it by measuring a distance from the base, and from that point measure the angle to the top of the flagpole, and use trigonometry to work out the height. Some else could swing a pendulum that reaches from the top to the base and use the time for each swing. Someone else could take detailed measurements to work out the cross section, determine what material it was made from, then weigh it to determine how high it is. And if all those results agreed, then the height of the flagpole is objectively correct.

But something that is subjective is based on opinion. Chocolate icecream is better than vanilla. Star Trek is better than Star Wars. There is no way to reach a conclusion that you can describe to other people in a way that they'll say, "Yes, of course, you are correct" the way we can with the height of the flagpole.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Thank you kindly .. an honour for sure!
However, I'm not sure I'm willing to join the 'Atheist' (nor the Theist) clubs there, if that's what you mean? Too clubby soundin' for me ..

The "invisible poster club".

 

[Mountainmike]

And completely subjective.



Which is nothing more than the assumption that they feel the way we would if we had the same experience.



So may I assume that the question you asked in post 2333 has been answered?

Specifically, where you asked:

"Hmm .. why wouldn't the measures of:
i) reports of the experience of love from the experiencer and;
ii) noticeable changes in brain activity when they experience love;
not be objective measures applicable to the experience?"​

No, I don't suppose that it does matter much. But then again, you did ask if subjective experiences could be taken as evidence that those subjective experiences were the same between different people.



But again, that is just the ASSUMPTION that what one of us feels when hit in the legs with a baseball bat is objectively the same as what the other feels.



That's an interesting idea.

Let's say we had a spacetime curvature meter (or SCM). I could land my rocketship on a planet and use this SCM to measure the curvature of spacetime. Let's say the planet's surface gravity is 1G and the SCM reads the curvature of spacetime as 1. Now, presumably if I then travelled 100 AU away from that star, the SCM would read less curvature, yes? (Assuming we were free from the influences of planets, stars, etc.)

Now, if I was to take my rocketship out in the middle of deep space, millions of light years away from and stars, planets, asteroids and accelerate so I felt the same 1G gravity I felt on the planet, would my SCM read a curvature of spacetime? a compression of spacetime I could understand, but a curvature?



I'm working on the idea that something objective is the same for all people. If I can measure it and get a particular result, and you measure it and get the same result, and so does everyone else, then it's objectively true, for example. How high is that flagpole, for instance. I can measure it by dropping an object from the top and timing how long it takes to reach the ground. Someone else could measure it by measuring a distance from the base, and from that point measure the angle to the top of the flagpole, and use trigonometry to work out the height. Some else could swing a pendulum that reaches from the top to the base and use the time for each swing. Someone else could take detailed measurements to work out the cross section, determine what material it was made from, then weigh it to determine how high it is. And if all those results agreed, then the height of the flagpole is objectively correct.

But something that is subjective is based on opinion. Chocolate icecream is better than vanilla. Star Trek is better than Star Wars. There is no way to reach a conclusion that you can describe to other people in a way that they'll say, "Yes, of course, you are correct" the way we can with the height of the flagpole.

It’s not as simple as that. Eg
Time is subjective. It depends who measures it.

 

[Kylie]

It’s not as simple as that. Eg
Time is subjective. It depends who measures it.

So what? I can measure my time and say, "By my calculations, X minutes have passed." You can get in a rocket ship and race around close to the speed of light for a bit, then slow down and say, "I experienced Y minutes pass, but I was travelling at 90% the speed of light, and when I take that into account, Kylie must have experienced X minutes."

So yes, time does vary depending on the state of the observer, but it does so in predictable ways, and those effects can be taken into account. The same can not be said of subjective things like love, or other emotions, or which sci fi franchise one prefers.

 

[Hans Blaster]

So what? I can measure my time and say, "By my calculations, X minutes have passed." You can get in a rocket ship and race around close to the speed of light for a bit, then slow down and say, "I experienced Y minutes pass, but I was travelling at 90% the speed of light, and when I take that into account, Kylie must have experienced X minutes."

So yes, time does vary depending on the state of the observer, but it does so in predictable ways, and those effects can be taken into account. The same can not be said of subjective things like love, or other emotions, or which sci fi franchise one prefers.

Measuring local time objectively is easy. Anyone with a cesium atomic clock can do it.

 

[SelfSim]

The "invisible poster club".

More like the High Plains Drifter ..

 

[AV1611VET]

Doesn't matter how long you've been saying it. It's a reach because it's implausible.

Things do not become more plausible just because you've been saying it for a long time.

Do you remember saying "even for me"?

 

[Kylie]

Do you remember saying "even for me"?

By which I meant it's an even more far fetched idea than the other farfetched ideas you've presented, such as embedded age.

 

[SelfSim]

Which is nothing more than the assumption that they feel the way we would if we had the same experience.

C'mon Kylie .. empathy and skepticism are observably intrinsic attributes of my model of @Kylie (and just about every normal person I can think of) .. and are explicably part of the outcomes of the ToE(?)

So may I assume that the question you asked in post 2333 has been answered?

Sure .. with no need to assume that .. I even agreed with your answers in post#2340. We're just rappin' now ...

No, I don't suppose that it does matter much. But then again, you did ask if subjective experiences could be taken as evidence that those subjective experiences were the same between different people.

Hmm .. I don't recall asking if they were the same(?) .. the meanings of the in-common words we use, appear to be distinguished sufficiently for me to somehow know what you mean when you speak of 'love' and 'pain', though.

But again, that is just the ASSUMPTION that what one of us feels when hit in the legs with a baseball bat is objectively the same as what the other feels.

Ya reckon? Wanna try to test out?

That's an interesting idea.
Let's say we had a spacetime curvature meter (or SCM). I could land my rocketship on a planet and use this SCM to measure the curvature of spacetime. Let's say the planet's surface gravity is 1G and the SCM reads the curvature of spacetime as 1. Now, presumably if I then travelled 100 AU away from that star, the SCM would read less curvature, yes? (Assuming we were free from the influences of planets, stars, etc.)

Now, if I was to take my rocketship out in the middle of deep space, millions of light years away from and stars, planets, asteroids and accelerate so I felt the same 1G gravity I felt on the planet, would my SCM read a curvature of spacetime? a compression of spacetime I could understand, but a curvature?

An objective local measurement .. You would use your SCM to read "1". What that means however, is model dependent.

I'm working on the idea that something objective is the same for all people.

Good luck.
I would argue that 'objective' has different meanings when sampling across the entire population of (healthy) thinking people. I would also say, (based on that same sampling), that 'objective' only has an objectively testable meaning amongst the sub-population of scientific thinkers. Philosophical Realism, (a belief), thinkers think its meaning gets discovered. 'Correctness' is only a measure of agreement within a sub-population.

But something that is subjective is based on opinion. Chocolate icecream is better than vanilla. Star Trek is better than Star Wars. There is no way to reach a conclusion that you can describe to other people in a way that they'll say, "Yes, of course, you are correct" the way we can with the height of the flagpole.

Sub populations demonstrate agreement on their shared opinions (aka: belief based) all the time. They think they're correct about that too.

 

[Astrid]

By which I meant it's an even more far fetched idea than the other farfetched ideas you've presented, such as embedded age.

That's nothing compared to xcess water from
the ( alleged ) flood being wafted to, yes, Neptune,
where it shines to this day as a warning beacon
against incoming rogue angels.

A detail troubled me tho. Do they fly like Superman,
or in a majestic upright stance, white robes
streaming in the solar wind,?

 

[Kylie]

C'mon Kylie .. empathy and skepticism are observably intrinsic attributes of my model of @Kylie (and just about every normal person I can think of) .. and are explicably part of the outcomes of the ToE(?)

Still, empathy is based on an assumption. "I see that person going through what appears to be a hard time. I know how I would feel if I were to go through that experience, and I assume they feel the same way."

Hmm .. I don't recall asking if they were the same(?) .. the meanings of the in-common words we use, appear to be distinguished sufficiently for me to somehow know what you mean when you speak of 'love' and 'pain', though.

I know some sadomasochists who would say otherwise.

Ya reckon? Wanna try to test out?

And what test would show that our experiences of being hit in the legs with a baseball bat would show they are OBJECTIVELY the same?

 

[SelfSim]

I know some sadomasochists who would say otherwise.

Are they healthy sadomasochists? (Meaning mentally coherent and stable)?

And what test would show that our experiences of being hit in the legs with a baseball bat would show they are OBJECTIVELY the same?

One in which scientifically minded observers, (following that method), could conclude that any differences were negligible.

 

[Kylie]

Are they healthy sadomasochists? (Meaning mentally coherent and stable)?

Yes, actually, they have a very good relationship.

One in which scientifically minded observers, (following that method), could conclude that any differences were negligible.

I was asking for a specific description of the process, not a vague description of the qualities the test would need.

 

[SelfSim]

Yes, actually, they have a very good relationship.
..
I was asking for a specific description of the process, not a vague description of the qualities the test would need.

I'd like to suspend this intriguing sub-discussion with you, as there appears to be a bigger issue you're wrangling with on your Apple challenge thread(?)

(I'm pretty astounded about the recent trajectory of it ..)

 

[Mountainmike]

So what? I can measure my time and say, "By my calculations, X minutes have passed." You can get in a rocket ship and race around close to the speed of light for a bit, then slow down and say, "I experienced Y minutes pass, but I was travelling at 90% the speed of light, and when I take that into account, Kylie must have experienced X minutes."

So yes, time does vary depending on the state of the observer, but it does so in predictable ways, and those effects can be taken into account. The same can not be said of subjective things like love, or other emotions, or which sci fi franchise one prefers.

You chose two extremes from things which are the closest you can get to objective ( distance) to subjective ( love / hate) . But Quantum effects live in the gap between them. The nature of an objective reality is certainly blurred.

On your main point the mind , consciousness and emotions are strange beasts. Neuroplasticity implies the mind controls the brain not the other way round.

I was noting that objectivity is not quite as cut and dried even in defining as objective those things which your example measure the same.

Even distance isn’t quite objective. It used to be that time and distance were defined , so speed of light was calculated. There was a small but significant variation in speed of light measurements. Now time and speed of light are fixed. Distance floats a little! Why? Who knows?

It’s a fascinating world.