Mind

[Justatruthseeker]

I don't see where I did that. Try again?


I only make fun of your attempts to shoehorn your theology into your straw-man versions of scientific theories.


My own theorists? You are mistaken - I don't have any of those.


Did you not say earlier than the brain was electrochemical? That would rule out this "pure energy being" of yours working anything like we see in a brain.


Why does it matter that it was a priest? Cannot a priest be a scientist?




My own science? Cool. How did that happen. Does it pay well? Where do I collect?


Not according to inflation theory. Energy can be created, in balance with negative energy, without violating the laws of thermodynamics. Are you not familiar with the standard model of cosmology and inflation theory?


Or, based on available evidence, it is just a character in a book.


It was the part where you said that the brain was electrochemical in process. That would rule out a being of pure energy, unless you can present evidence to the contrary.


Philosophers, working within neuroscience, have moved beyond the 17th century.

My understanding is that the updated version would be more like: My brain thinks, and in that process temporarily creates a "transparent self-model".

Being No One with Thomas Metzinger - YouTube

And the brain operates through electric currents and electrochemical signals.

I mean, have you ever hear of an EEG?

Electroencephalography - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or an action potential?

Action potential - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In physiology, an action potential is a short-lasting event in which the electrical membrane potential of a cell rapidly rises and falls, following a consistent trajectory...

Action potentials are generated by special types of voltage-gated ion channels embedded in a cell's plasma membrane.[2] These channels are shut when the membrane potential is near the resting potential of the cell, but they rapidly begin to open if the membrane potential increases to a precisely defined threshold value. When the channels open (by detecting the depolarization in transmembrane voltage[2]), they allow an inward flow of sodium ions, which changes the electrochemical gradient, which in turn produces a further rise in the membrane potential. This then causes more channels to open, producing a greater electric current across the cell membrane, and so on. The process proceeds explosively until all of the available ion channels are open, resulting in a large upswing in the membrane potential. The rapid influx of sodium ions causes the polarity of the plasma membrane to reverse, and the ion channels then rapidly inactivate. As the sodium channels close, sodium ions can no longer enter the neuron, and they are actively transported out of the plasma membrane. Potassium channels are then activated, and there is an outward current of potassium ions, returning the electrochemical gradient to the resting state. After an action potential has occurred, there is a transient negative shift, called the afterhyperpolarization or refractory period, due to additional potassium currents. This is the mechanism that prevents an action potential from traveling back the way it just came."

Which leads to:

Voltage-gated ion channel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Voltage-gated ion channels are a class of transmembrane ion channels that are activated by changes in electrical potential difference near the channel; these types of ion channels are especially critical in neurons, but are common in many types of cells. They have a crucial role in excitable neuronal and muscle tissues, allowing a rapid and co-ordinated depolarization in response to triggering voltage change. Found along the axon and at the synapse, voltage-gated ion channels directionally propagate electrical signals."


There is no laboratory result or theory that does not include electrical operation of the brain.

You apparently do not understand what electrochemical means.

Electrochemistry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Electrochemistry is a branch of chemistry that studies chemical reactions which take place in a solution at the interface of an electron conductor (the electrode: a metal or a semiconductor) and an ionic conductor (the electrolyte). These reactions involve electron transfer between the electrode and the electrolyte or species in solution. If a chemical reaction is driven by an externally applied voltage, as in electrolysis, or if a voltage is created by a chemical reaction as in a battery, it is an electrochemical reaction. In contrast, chemical reactions where electrons are transferred between molecules are called oxidation-reduction (redox) reactions. In general, electrochemistry deals with situations where redox reactions are separated in space or time, connected by an external electric circuit."


Sorry, but your psuedoscientific beliefs are not supported by science, nor your ignoring the electrical force.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Not according to inflation theory. Energy can be created, in balance with negative energy, without violating the laws of thermodynamics. Are you not familiar with the standard model of cosmology and inflation theory?

I am afraid you are wrong again. Yes, I am familiar with Fairie Dust theories.

Energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The law of conservation of energy states that the (total) energy of a system can increase or decrease only by transferring it in or out of the system...

A new form of energy can't be defined arbitrarily. In order to be valid, it must be shown to be transformable to or from a predictable amount of some known form(s) of energy, thus showing how much energy it represents in the same units used for all other forms. It must obey conservation of energy, so it must never decrease or increase except via such a transformation (or transfer). Also, if an alleged new form of energy can be shown not to change the mass of a system in proportion to its energy, then it is not a form of energy."

Energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Energy is subject to the law of conservation of energy. According to this law, energy can neither be created (produced) nor destroyed by itself. It can only be transformed."

So your Fairie Dust theory is in violation of all of known physics.

Nothing new in astronomy today. All it is is Fairie Dust because you ignore 99% of the universe.

 

[Michael]

Not according to inflation theory. Energy can be created, in balance with negative energy, without violating the laws of thermodynamics. Are you not familiar with the standard model of cosmology and inflation theory?

Um, you mean to suggest that you're fine with the violation of the *laws* of physics as we know them without so much as a shred of a empirical demonstration in the lab in controlled experimentation? You're good with that claim without so much as even a single electron popping itself into existence in the lab, but you expect Stathos to demonstrate his 'personal experiences' of God are shared by others and are 'real'? How exactly does that rationalization work? At least God *does* show up and have an effect on humans on Earth according to many different humans, whereas inflation is more impotent on Earth than your average concept of God and there's no possible way to falsify it!

God is a "theory' too. So what if inflation proponents claim energy can be created or destroyed. They certainly can't demonstrate it *physically* in any way. In fact the entire claim is a *pure act of faith* on the part of the "believer" (in inflation).

If you'll buy that kind of nonsense without a shred of empirical support, then you really have no reason to doubt anyone's claims about their own personal inner experiences.

I don't get that double standard nor can I understand how you can rationalize such a claim. Only in your *mind* (certainly not in the lab) can energy be created or destroyed. In *real life*, energy can only change forms.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Um, you mean to suggest that you're fine with the violation of the *laws* of physics as we know them without so much as a shred of a empirical demonstration in the lab in controlled experimentation? You're good with that claim without so much as even a single electron popping itself into existence in the lab, but you expect Stathos to demonstrate his 'personal experiences' of God are shared by others and are 'real'? How exactly does that rationalization work? At least God *does* show up and have an effect on humans on Earth according to many different humans, whereas inflation is more impotent on Earth than your average concept of God and there's no possible way to falsify it!

God is a "theory' too. So what if inflation proponents claim energy can be created or destroyed. They certainly can't demonstrate it *physically* in any way. In fact the entire claim is a *pure act of faith* on the part of the "believer" (in inflation).

If you'll buy that kind of nonsense without a shred of empirical support, then you really have no reason to doubt anyone's claims about their own personal inner experiences.

I don't get that double standard nor can I understand how you can rationalize such a claim. Only in your *mind* (certainly not in the lab) can energy be created or destroyed. In *real life*, energy can only change forms.

Rational thinking is not allowed in evolution or standard cosmology Michael, you should know that. One can dismiss God on claims it can't be detected nor measured, but violate all the known laws of physics claiming something never detected or measured that if true would cause the collapse of science itself, since all of science is based upon conservation of energy.

Basically claiming energy can be created brings down the whole house of physical science. So now we are to disregard all of science and it's main foundations, because someone had a theory about something never once detected in an effort to defend their ignoring what 99% of the universe is. So there goes radiometric dating down the tubes, particle physics down the tubes, nuclear theory down the tubes. Just flush it all so we can keep our Fairie Dust theories alive and well.

 

[Davian]

Perhaps I have nothing better to do. You obviously don't.

On the contrary, I find participation in these forums to be not just entertaining, but educational, as there is lots to learn from the sciencey types here, and is good practice for discussing theology with the wife and her family (which, admittedly, has not been a big issue to date).

Nope, in fact I even gave you a criteria for falsifiability already. You just arbitrarily rejected it.

Criteria that involves dying, time travel, or magic is not valid criteria, lol.

How would one go about proving personal significance to another person, to whom it does not apply?

Provide corroborating evidence, in the form of a testable, falsifiable hypothesis.

Dying is impossible? Gaining more accurate information about the past is impossible?

Dying is easy. If you were to die tonight, and report back to me in a week (the tricky part), then I will reconsider your method. Go for it.

What are you proposing?

Perhaps you should consider informing your opinion of how the brain works using 21st century science.

I don't see what you're getting at here. You're now giving a situation where something would be difficult to explain, where before you seemed to be suggesting it would be easy.

No I did not. I was talking about the mechanics of bicycle steering, to imagine it and tell me what you think happens when you steer to the left, as an exercise in exploring personal experience. If you would like to switch that to walk down the street, let's keep it in the same perspective: how does your personal experience compare to the mechanics of a bipedal you/creature/robot walking down the street?

The bicycle challenge is only easier in that the mechanics are far simpler.

Why? You can't just dismiss my analogy by calling it abstract. Spirituality is abstract too, in a way.

I didn't say that, I said numbers are abstract. Again, you need to develop a positive ontology for the subject in question.

No, but I would not begrudge someone who did.

Me neither, but that was not my point. I asked about you:

Do you check under your Christmas tree on Christmas day, with hope that Santa left you presents? No? Why are you not open to that possibility?

When you see a rainbow, do you take any time to search for the leprechaun with his pot of gold? No? Why are you not open to that possibility?

So the issue of whether god(s) exist or not is relevant to you, if you encountered that situation. Besides, I'm fairly certain that most people who are familiar with the concept have wondered, at least once in their lives, what they would wish for if given a supernatural Aladdin-style wish.

The point would be, did they seriously consider that Leprechaun wishes are a possibility in this would? Tell me why you don't chase after Leprechauns, and I may then be able to tell you why I don't chase after deities.

Because if I was I would claim to understand it perfectly.

I don't see how that follows. You may simply project or allege, even subconsciously, this "complexity" as a form of cognitive dissonance that has arisen from your inability to resolve what you have read with what you observe in the world around us. You see "mystery" or "complexity" where you need to see it, or the magic goes away.

 

[Davian]

And the brain operates through electric currents and electrochemical signals.

I mean, have you ever hear of an EEG?

Electroencephalography - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or an action potential?

Action potential - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In physiology, an action potential is a short-lasting event in which the electrical membrane potential of a cell rapidly rises and falls, following a consistent trajectory...

Action potentials are generated by special types of voltage-gated ion channels embedded in a cell's plasma membrane.[2] These channels are shut when the membrane potential is near the resting potential of the cell, but they rapidly begin to open if the membrane potential increases to a precisely defined threshold value. When the channels open (by detecting the depolarization in transmembrane voltage[2]), they allow an inward flow of sodium ions, which changes the electrochemical gradient, which in turn produces a further rise in the membrane potential. This then causes more channels to open, producing a greater electric current across the cell membrane, and so on. The process proceeds explosively until all of the available ion channels are open, resulting in a large upswing in the membrane potential. The rapid influx of sodium ions causes the polarity of the plasma membrane to reverse, and the ion channels then rapidly inactivate. As the sodium channels close, sodium ions can no longer enter the neuron, and they are actively transported out of the plasma membrane. Potassium channels are then activated, and there is an outward current of potassium ions, returning the electrochemical gradient to the resting state. After an action potential has occurred, there is a transient negative shift, called the afterhyperpolarization or refractory period, due to additional potassium currents. This is the mechanism that prevents an action potential from traveling back the way it just came."

Which leads to:

Voltage-gated ion channel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Voltage-gated ion channels are a class of transmembrane ion channels that are activated by changes in electrical potential difference near the channel; these types of ion channels are especially critical in neurons, but are common in many types of cells. They have a crucial role in excitable neuronal and muscle tissues, allowing a rapid and co-ordinated depolarization in response to triggering voltage change. Found along the axon and at the synapse, voltage-gated ion channels directionally propagate electrical signals."


There is no laboratory result or theory that does not include electrical operation of the brain.

You apparently do not understand what electrochemical means.

Electrochemistry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Electrochemistry is a branch of chemistry that studies chemical reactions which take place in a solution at the interface of an electron conductor (the electrode: a metal or a semiconductor) and an ionic conductor (the electrolyte). These reactions involve electron transfer between the electrode and the electrolyte or species in solution. If a chemical reaction is driven by an externally applied voltage, as in electrolysis, or if a voltage is created by a chemical reaction as in a battery, it is an electrochemical reaction. In contrast, chemical reactions where electrons are transferred between molecules are called oxidation-reduction (redox) reactions. In general, electrochemistry deals with situations where redox reactions are separated in space or time, connected by an external electric circuit."


Sorry, but your psuedoscientific beliefs are not supported by science, nor your ignoring the electrical force.

Other than burying your "pure energy being" claims with more electrochemical evidence to the contrary, what part of my post was this to address?

 

[Davian]

I don't see where I did that. Try again?


I only make fun of your attempts to shoehorn your theology into your straw-man versions of scientific theories.


My own theorists? You are mistaken - I don't have any of those.


Did you not say earlier than the brain was electrochemical? That would rule out this "pure energy being" of yours working anything like we see in a brain.


Why does it matter that it was a priest? Cannot a priest be a scientist?




My own science? Cool. How did that happen. Does it pay well? Where do I collect?


Not according to inflation theory. Energy can be created, in balance with negative energy, without violating the laws of thermodynamics. Are you not familiar with the standard model of cosmology and inflation theory?


Or, based on available evidence, it is just a character in a book.


It was the part where you said that the brain was electrochemical in process. That would rule out a being of pure energy, unless you can present evidence to the contrary.


Philosophers, working within neuroscience, have moved beyond the 17th century.

My understanding is that the updated version would be more like: My brain thinks, and in that process temporarily creates a "transparent self-model".

Being No One with Thomas Metzinger - YouTube

I am afraid you are wrong again. Yes, I am familiar with Fairie Dust theories.

Energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The law of conservation of energy states that the (total) energy of a system can increase or decrease only by transferring it in or out of the system...

A new form of energy can't be defined arbitrarily. In order to be valid, it must be shown to be transformable to or from a predictable amount of some known form(s) of energy, thus showing how much energy it represents in the same units used for all other forms. It must obey conservation of energy, so it must never decrease or increase except via such a transformation (or transfer). Also, if an alleged new form of energy can be shown not to change the mass of a system in proportion to its energy, then it is not a form of energy."

Energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Energy is subject to the law of conservation of energy. According to this law, energy can neither be created (produced) nor destroyed by itself. It can only be transformed."

So your Fairie Dust theory is in violation of all of known physics.

Nothing new in astronomy today. All it is is Fairie Dust because you ignore 99% of the universe.

Your understanding of the standard model of cosmology and inflation theory is not evidenced in your posts.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Your understanding of the standard model of cosmology and inflation theory is not evidenced in your posts.

And your understanding violates all of known science. You are claiming energy can be created when no respectable scientists would ever support that theory.

Please support your theory with science that energy can be created, without violating the law of conservation of energy.

Conservation of energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In physics, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system cannot change—it is said to be conserved over time. Energy can be neither created nor destroyed, but can change form,"

I think you are doomed from the start, and so have avoided the topic with mere claims about my understanding, which are in line with all of actual science.

So lets hear it, support your claims for inflation about energy creation from nothing.

 

[Davian]

Um, you mean to suggest that you're fine with the violation of the *laws* of physics as we know them without so much as a shred of a empirical demonstration in the lab in controlled experimentation? You're good with that claim without so much as even a single electron popping itself into existence in the lab,

Stilling burning your way through straw-men, Michael? Inflation theory does not posit that it can be demonstrated using experiments on Earth.

but you expect Stathos to demonstrate his 'personal experiences' of God are shared by others and are 'real'? How exactly does that rationalization work?

Another straw-man. I did not ask him to demonstrate that his experiences are "real" - I do not doubt that he experiences them. He may be lying, but for the purposes of discussion, I assume he is not. Do not put words in my mouth.

At least God *does* show up and have an effect on humans on Earth according to many different humans,

This "God" is a dud in the lab, is it not? Why does this "effect", under scrutiny, fail to provide evidence of an actual, outside influence that might be described as a "deity"? You are not doing science.

whereas inflation is more impotent on Earth than your average concept of God and there's no possible way to falsify it!

Straw-man again. Inflation theory does not posit that it can be demonstrated using experiments on Earth. And, I have no idea what you mean by "average concept of God." Do you add them all up, and divide by the total?

God is a "theory' too.

Which of your gods are you referring to? the Christian God? No, it is not.

So what if inflation proponents claim energy can be created or destroyed. They certainly can't demonstrate it *physically* in any way.

Straw-man again and again. Inflation theory does not posit that it can be demonstrated using experiments on Earth.

In fact the entire claim is a *pure act of faith* on the part of the "believer" (in inflation).

I don't have faith in it, or "believe" it. I don't really care, other than to be informed about what the theory states, at least in layman terms.

If you'll buy that kind of nonsense without a shred of empirical support,

Another straw-man, this time in the form of an absolute statement. To state that inflation theory does not have "a shred of empirical support" you must be lying, or misinformed.

then you really have no reason to doubt anyone's claims about their own personal inner experiences.

I have had a personal inner experience that you owe me $10,000. I will PM you with the payment details.

I don't get that double standard nor can I understand how you can rationalize such a claim. Only in your *mind* (certainly not in the lab) can energy be created or destroyed. In *real life*, energy can only change forms.

And again with the straw man.

If you get a chance, through all that smoke, can you get back to me on the bicycle challenge?

When you turn to the left while riding, which way do you turn the handlebars? Ask yourself, and the next few people you meet, and post your and their initial responses here. No cheating by looking it up.

 

[Davian]

And your understanding violates all of known science. You are claiming energy can be created when no respectable scientists would ever support that theory.

Please support your theory with science that energy can be created, without violating the law of conservation of energy.

Conservation of energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In physics, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system cannot change—it is said to be conserved over time. Energy can be neither created nor destroyed, but can change form,"

I think you are doomed from the start, and so have avoided the topic with mere claims about my understanding, which are in line with all of actual science.

So lets hear it, support your claims for inflation about energy creation from nothing.

I did not say creation from nothing, and I was referring to inflation theory:

Inflation is a mechanism for realizing the cosmological principle which is the basis of the standard model of physical cosmology: it accounts for the homogeneity and isotropy of the observable universe. In addition, it accounts for the observed flatness and absence of magnetic monopoles.

Inflation (cosmology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am not asking that you accept it, but at least try to demonstrate that you understand it. Inflation theory does not violate the law of conservation.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I did not say creation from nothing, and I was referring to inflation theory:

Inflation is a mechanism for realizing the cosmological principle which is the basis of the standard model of physical cosmology: it accounts for the homogeneity and isotropy of the observable universe. In addition, it accounts for the observed flatness and absence of magnetic monopoles.

Inflation (cosmology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am not asking that you accept it, but at least try to demonstrate that you understand it. Inflation theory does not violate the law of conservation.

I beg to differ.

Not according to inflation theory. Energy can be created, in balance with negative energy, without violating the laws of thermodynamics. Are you not familiar with the standard model of cosmology and inflation theory?

So justify your claim that energy can be created.

Inflation (cosmology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In the early proposal of Guth, it was thought that the inflaton was the Higgs field, the field which explains the mass of the elementary particles.[38] It is now believed that the inflaton cannot be the Higgs field[66] although the recent discovery of the Higgs boson has increased the number of works considering the Higgs field as inflaton.[citation needed] Other models of inflation relied on the properties of grand unified theories.[44] Since the simplest models of grand unification have failed, it is now thought by many physicists that inflation will be included in a supersymmetric theory like string theory or a supersymmetric grand unified theory. At present, while inflation is understood principally by its detailed predictions of the initial conditions for the hot early universe, the particle physics is largely ad hoc modelling. As such, though predictions of inflation have been consistent with the results of observational tests, there are many open questions about the theory."


You don't even have a consistent theory, it's all ad-hoc.

Ad hoc - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In science and philosophy, ad hoc means the addition of extraneous hypotheses to a theory to save it from being falsified. Ad hoc hypotheses compensate for anomalies not anticipated by the theory in its unmodified form. Scientists are often skeptical of theories that rely on frequent, unsupported adjustments to sustain them. Ad hoc hypotheses are often characteristic of pseudoscientific subjects."

So one should be skeptical of such ad-hoc theories in order to save a theory from falsification to compensate for anomalies or observations the theory did not anticipate.

Like I said, I am well aware of your Fairie Dust theories in an attempt to save your beliefs from falsification.

"Since its introduction by Alan Guth in 1980, the inflationary paradigm has become widely accepted. Nevertheless, many physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers of science have voiced criticisms, claiming unfulfilled promises and lack of serious empirical support. In 1999, John Earman and Jesús Mosterín published a thorough critical review of inflationary cosmology, concluding that “we do not think that there are, as yet, good grounds for admitting any of the models of inflation into the standard core of cosmology”.[101]

In order to work, and as pointed out by Roger Penrose from 1986 on, inflation requires extremely specific initial conditions of its own, so that the problem (or pseudoproblem) of initial conditions is not solved: “There is something fundamentally misconceived about trying to explain the uniformity of the early universe as resulting from a thermalization process. […] For, if the thermalization is actually doing anything […] then it represents a definite increasing of the entropy. Thus, the universe would have been even more special before the thermalization than after.”[102] The problem of specific or “fine-tuned” initial conditions would not have been solved; it would have gotten worse.

A recurrent criticism of inflation is that the invoked inflation field does not correspond to any known physical field, and that its potential energy curve seems to be an ad hoc contrivance to accommodate almost any data we could get. Paul J. Steinhardt, one of the founding fathers of inflationary cosmology, has recently become one of its sharpest critics. He calls ‘bad inflation’ a period of accelerated expansion whose outcome conflicts with observations, and ‘good inflation’ one compatible with them: “Not only is bad inflation more likely than good inflation, but no inflation is more likely than either. … Roger Penrose considered all the possible configurations of the inflaton and gravitational fields. Some of these configurations lead to inflation … Other configurations lead to a uniform, flat universe directly –without inflation. Obtaining a flat universe is unlikely overall. Penrose’s shocking conclusion, though, was that obtaining a flat universe without inflation is much more likely than with inflation –by a factor of 10 to the googol (10 to the 100) power!”"

Fairie Dust!

 

[Davian]

I beg to differ.

Whatever. If you can show scientifically how inflation theory violates the law of conservation, then do so.

So justify your claim that energy can be created.

That is not my claim, I am only paraphrasing wiki.

Inflation (cosmology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In the early proposal of Guth, it was thought that the inflaton was the Higgs field, the field which explains the mass of the elementary particles.[38] It is now believed that the inflaton cannot be the Higgs field[66] although the recent discovery of the Higgs boson has increased the number of works considering the Higgs field as inflaton.[citation needed] Other models of inflation relied on the properties of grand unified theories.[44] Since the simplest models of grand unification have failed, it is now thought by many physicists that inflation will be included in a supersymmetric theory like string theory or a supersymmetric grand unified theory. At present, while inflation is understood principally by its detailed predictions of the initial conditions for the hot early universe, the particle physics is largely ad hoc modelling. As such, though predictions of inflation have been consistent with the results of observational tests, there are many open questions about the theory."


You don't even have a consistent theory, it's all ad-hoc.

Ad hoc - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In science and philosophy, ad hoc means the addition of extraneous hypotheses to a theory to save it from being falsified. Ad hoc hypotheses compensate for anomalies not anticipated by the theory in its unmodified form. Scientists are often skeptical of theories that rely on frequent, unsupported adjustments to sustain them. Ad hoc hypotheses are often characteristic of pseudoscientific subjects."

So one should be skeptical of such ad-hoc theories in order to save a theory from falsification to compensate for anomalies or observations the theory did not anticipate.

Like I said, I am well aware of your Fairie Dust theories in an attempt to save your beliefs from falsification.

All ad-hoc? Are you lying, or do you not read what you post?

"At present, while inflation is understood principally by its detailed predictions of the initial conditions for the hot early universe, the particle physics is largely ad hoc modelling. As such, though predictions of inflation have been consistent with the results of observational tests, there are many open questions about the theory."

So, the theory is supported by observational evidence, and of course there are questions, as theories are always tentative, and subject to revision.

And, you fail at telling me what my beliefs are.

"Since its introduction by Alan Guth in 1980, the inflationary paradigm has become widely accepted. Nevertheless, many physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers of science have voiced criticisms, claiming unfulfilled promises and lack of serious empirical support. In 1999, John Earman and Jesús Mosterín published a thorough critical review of inflationary cosmology, concluding that “we do not think that there are, as yet, good grounds for admitting any of the models of inflation into the standard core of cosmology”.[101]

In order to work, and as pointed out by Roger Penrose from 1986 on, inflation requires extremely specific initial conditions of its own, so that the problem (or pseudoproblem) of initial conditions is not solved: “There is something fundamentally misconceived about trying to explain the uniformity of the early universe as resulting from a thermalization process. […] For, if the thermalization is actually doing anything […] then it represents a definite increasing of the entropy. Thus, the universe would have been even more special before the thermalization than after.”[102] The problem of specific or “fine-tuned” initial conditions would not have been solved; it would have gotten worse.

A recurrent criticism of inflation is that the invoked inflation field does not correspond to any known physical field, and that its potential energy curve seems to be an ad hoc contrivance to accommodate almost any data we could get. Paul J. Steinhardt, one of the founding fathers of inflationary cosmology, has recently become one of its sharpest critics. He calls ‘bad inflation’ a period of accelerated expansion whose outcome conflicts with observations, and ‘good inflation’ one compatible with them: “Not only is bad inflation more likely than good inflation, but no inflation is more likely than either. … Roger Penrose considered all the possible configurations of the inflaton and gravitational fields. Some of these configurations lead to inflation … Other configurations lead to a uniform, flat universe directly –without inflation. Obtaining a flat universe is unlikely overall. Penrose’s shocking conclusion, though, was that obtaining a flat universe without inflation is much more likely than with inflation –by a factor of 10 to the googol (10 to the 100) power!”"

Fairie Dust!

Do you follow Penrose's work, or just quote-mine him? Show the math and data used for that statement.

 

[Strathos]

On the contrary, I find participation in these forums to be not just entertaining, but educational, as there is lots to learn from the sciencey types here, and is good practice for discussing theology with the wife and her family (which, admittedly, has not been a big issue to date).

Yet you admit that this particular discussion is pointless.

Criteria that involves dying, time travel, or magic is not valid criteria, lol.

Why?

Provide corroborating evidence, in the form of a testable, falsifiable hypothesis.

Perhaps you are failing to grasp the meaning of "personal" experience...

Dying is easy. If you were to die tonight, and report back to me in a week (the tricky part), then I will reconsider your method. Go for it.

Why would I need to report to anyone else the hypothetical falsification of my own beliefs, which apply to me?

Perhaps you should consider informing your opinion of how the brain works using 21st century science.

There is much about the workings of the brain we don't understand.

No I did not. I was talking about the mechanics of bicycle steering, to imagine it and tell me what you think happens when you steer to the left, as an exercise in exploring personal experience. If you would like to switch that to walk down the street, let's keep it in the same perspective: how does your personal experience compare to the mechanics of a bipedal you/creature/robot walking down the street?

The bicycle challenge is only easier in that the mechanics are far simpler.

I don't know. What is the point?

I didn't say that, I said numbers are abstract. Again, you need to develop a positive ontology for the subject in question.

It seems are you just throwing out arbitrary restrictions now and moving the goalposts for every explanation I give you.

Me neither, but that was not my point. I asked about you:

Do you check under your Christmas tree on Christmas day, with hope that Santa left you presents? No? Why are you not open to that possibility?

When you see a rainbow, do you take any time to search for the leprechaun with his pot of gold? No? Why are you not open to that possibility?

Well for one thing, I'm fairly sure that any extra presents that weren't left by my family would be noticed, at least before we packed up the tree for next year.

And for the second, I don't actually ever recall seeing a natural rainbow.

The point would be, did they seriously consider that Leprechaun wishes are a possibility in this would? Tell me why you don't chase after Leprechauns, and I may then be able to tell you why I don't chase after deities.

I never suggested you "chase after" anything. Besides, I'm not the one posting on a Leprechaun forum arguing with Leprechaun-believers.

I don't see how that follows. You may simply project or allege, even subconsciously, this "complexity" as a form of cognitive dissonance that has arisen from your inability to resolve what you have read with what you observe in the world around us. You see "mystery" or "complexity" where you need to see it, or the magic goes away.

So you are asserting that it is not complex?

Even without modern scientific knowledge, when people would interpret certain passages in the Bible literally about things like geocentrism (without any real reason to doubt that interpretation), there were debates and disagreements lasting for thousands of years, over matters such as the nature of Christ, the meaning of His teachings, the nature of the Trinity, etc. These discussions continue today.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Whatever. If you can show scientifically how inflation theory violates the law of conservation, then do so.


That is not my claim, I am only paraphrasing wiki.


All ad-hoc? Are you lying, or do you not read what you post?

"At present, while inflation is understood principally by its detailed predictions of the initial conditions for the hot early universe, the particle physics is largely ad hoc modelling. As such, though predictions of inflation have been consistent with the results of observational tests, there are many open questions about the theory."

So, the theory is supported by observational evidence, and of course there are questions, as theories are always tentative, and subject to revision.

And, you fail at telling me what my beliefs are.


Do you follow Penrose's work, or just quote-mine him? Show the math and data used for that statement.

Its all in the references listed in the wiki page, be my guest and look them up. That you need to rely on Fairie Dust is your problem, stop being lazy and wanting people to do everything for you, and actually do some research. That's why your knowledge is lacking. It's from the same article you tried to pass off to me, so you shouldn't have any trouble finding them.



But those questions are not little questions. The theories that are ad-hoc fixes have stipulations of their own which in turn causes violations of the other claims.

References are at the bottom of the wiki page.

1. Jump up ^ Earman, John; Mosterín, Jesús (March 1999). "A Critical Look at Inflationary Cosmology". Philosophy of Science 66: 1–49. doi:10.2307/188736. JSTOR 188736.
2. Jump up ^ Penrose, Roger (2004). The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe. London: Vintage Books, p. 755. See also Penrose, Roger (1989). "Difficulties with Inflationary Cosmology". Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 271: 249–264. Bibcode:1989NYASA.571..249P. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1989.tb50513.x.
3. Jump up ^ Steinhardt, Paul J. (2011). “The inflation debate: Is the theory at the heart of modern cosmology deeply flawed?” (Scientific American, April; pp. 18-25). See also: Steinhardt, Paul J. and Neil Turok (2007). Endless Universe: Beyond the Big Bang. Doubleday, 2007.

 

[Michael]

Stilling burning your way through straw-men, Michael? Inflation theory does not posit that it can be demonstrated using experiments on Earth.

Deism doesn't predict that God will show up in experiments on Earth either, but that doesn't exactly add to it's empirical viability does it?

Another straw-man. I did not ask him to demonstrate that his experiences are "real" - I do not doubt that he experiences them. He may be lying, but for the purposes of discussion, I assume he is not. Do not put words in my mouth.

But there is ample evidence from human literature that other humans share similar experiences. Inflation doesn't have any effect on *anything* on Earth, *ever*!

This "God" is a dud in the lab, is it not?

Not nearly as big of a dud as your inflation deity. At least humans have reported feeling the effects of God on Earth. Your inflation creation deity is just impotent on Earth apparently. Not even a single atom goes "poof" in a lab.

Why does this "effect", under scrutiny, fail to provide evidence of an actual, outside influence that might be described as a "deity"?

Er, what kind of "scrutiny" did you have in mind exactly? I proposed some experiments, but I don't think that the technology yet exists to do it.

You are not doing science.

Me personally? Some, but not much.

Straw-man again. Inflation theory does not posit that it can be demonstrated using experiments on Earth.

So your inflation creation deity is akin to deism? He's a total dud on Earth?

And, I have no idea what you mean by "average concept of God." Do you add them all up, and divide by the total?

I mean that most theories about God posit the claim that God has a direct influence on human while they are living on Earth. Your inflation creation deity is apparently akin to a deistic dud God.

Which of your gods are you referring to? the Christian God? No, it is not.

Atheists apparently don't understand monotheism, nor the concept of multiple *religions*.

Straw-man again and again. Inflation theory does not posit that it can be demonstrated using experiments on Earth.

So it's a dud by design, much like a disinterested deistic deity. That hardly makes it *more* scientifically credible does it?

I don't have faith in it, or "believe" it. I don't really care, other than to be informed about what the theory states, at least in layman terms.

It defies the laws of physics as we understand them, and it's a bigger dud in the lab that theistic concepts of God!

Another straw-man, this time in the form of an absolute statement. To state that inflation theory does not have "a shred of empirical support" you must be lying, or misinformed.

On the contrary. You cannot demonstrate any empirical link in the lab between photon redshift and ''inflation" in controlled experimentation. Care to prove me wrong?

I have had a personal inner experience that you owe me $10,000. I will PM you with the payment details.

$10,000? I was thinking more like a buck, but I'll kick it up to a free beer if you're ever in Mt. Shasta.

If you get a chance, through all that smoke, can you get back to me on the bicycle challenge?


When you turn to the left while riding, which way do you turn the handlebars? Ask yourself, and the next few people you meet, and post your and their initial responses here. No cheating by looking it up.

I already gave you my personal answer to that question, and I'm sure you've already taken your own polls of other people, so what exactly are you fishing for?

 

[Davian]

Yet you admit that this particular discussion is pointless.

Where did I say that?

Why?

They are not scientific.

Perhaps you are failing to grasp the meaning of "personal" experience...

Or, I do. Unless, by "personal" you mean "that which should be disregarded".

Why would I need to report to anyone else the hypothetical falsification of my own beliefs, which apply to me?

You would if you wanted to make your "falsification" criteria scientific.

There is much about the workings of the brain we don't understand.

Therefore, God? Afterlife? Souls? The argument from ignorance is a fallacy, not evidence for the unknown.

I don't know. What is the point?

What do you not know? This is an exercise in exploring personal experience. You said it was easy to imagine walking down the street. The point is to contrast your personal experience with what is actually required by your brain/body to walk down the street. Try it.

It seems are you just throwing out arbitrary restrictions now and moving the goalposts for every explanation I give you.

Where have you reached any particular goalpost?

Well for one thing, I'm fairly sure that any extra presents that weren't left by my family would be noticed, at least before we packed up the tree for next year.

You did not answer the question.

And for the second, I don't actually ever recall seeing a natural rainbow.

You did not answer the question.

I never suggested you "chase after" anything. Besides, I'm not the one posting on a Leprechaun forum arguing with Leprechaun-believers.

I didn't say that. Again, tell me why you don't chase after Leprechauns, and I may then be able to tell you why I don't chase after deities.

So you are asserting that it is not complex?

Even without modern scientific knowledge, when people would interpret certain passages in the Bible literally about things like geocentrism (without any real reason to doubt that interpretation), there were debates and disagreements lasting for thousands of years, over matters such as the nature of Christ, the meaning of His teachings, the nature of the Trinity, etc. These discussions continue today.

I see words coming together to form sentences in a book. What you seem to call "complexity" could also be applied to the Star Wars movies. Do you think the Star Wars movies are "complex"?

 

[Davian]

Its all in the references listed in the wiki page, be my guest and look them up. That you need to rely on Fairie Dust is your problem, stop being lazy and wanting people to do everything for you, and actually do some research. That's why your knowledge is lacking. It's from the same article you tried to pass off to me, so you shouldn't have any trouble finding them.



But those questions are not little questions. The theories that are ad-hoc fixes have stipulations of their own which in turn causes violations of the other claims.

References are at the bottom of the wiki page.

1. Jump up ^ Earman, John; Mosterín, Jesús (March 1999). "A Critical Look at Inflationary Cosmology". Philosophy of Science 66: 1–49. doi:10.2307/188736. JSTOR 188736.
2. Jump up ^ Penrose, Roger (2004). The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe. London: Vintage Books, p. 755. See also Penrose, Roger (1989). "Difficulties with Inflationary Cosmology". Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 271: 249–264. Bibcode:1989NYASA.571..249P. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1989.tb50513.x.
3. Jump up ^ Steinhardt, Paul J. (2011). “The inflation debate: Is the theory at the heart of modern cosmology deeply flawed?” (Scientific American, April; pp. 18-25). See also: Steinhardt, Paul J. and Neil Turok (2007). Endless Universe: Beyond the Big Bang. Doubleday, 2007.

So I am lazy for not looking up the data needed to substantiate your claims? rotflmao.

I have looked it up. He is only guessing.

Did you also fail to find anything to show where inflation theory violates the law of conservation?

 

[Davian]

Deism doesn't predict that God will show up in experiments on Earth either, but that doesn't exactly add to it's empirical viability does it?

The subject was not deism.

But there is ample evidence from human literature that other humans share similar experiences.

Agreed. And they have experiences that contradict others, demonstrating that they are inherently unreliable.

Inflation doesn't have any effect on *anything* on Earth, *ever*!

Michael, tell me how long ago the inflationary epoch ended.

Not nearly as big of a dud as your inflation deity.

Every time you talk like that, you give the Cosmoquest people a little more credence for banning you from their board. How old are you?

At least humans have reported feeling the effects of God on Earth.

And I ask, name one that can demonstrate that this experience is anything other than an internal experience, that of the imagination.

Your inflation creation deity is just impotent on Earth apparently. Not even a single atom goes "poof" in a lab.

Tell me again how long ago the inflationary epoch ended.

Er, what kind of "scrutiny" did you have in mind exactly? I proposed some experiments, but I don't think that the technology yet exists to do it.

Experiments that you cannot conduct do not amount to much, do they?

Me personally? Some, but not much.

Indeed, not much here.

So your inflation creation deity is akin to deism? He's a total dud on Earth?

Tell me again how long ago the inflationary epoch ended.

I mean that most theories about God posit the claim that God has a direct influence on human while they are living on Earth.

Yet, all claims to date have failed to be demonstrated. Agreed?

Your inflation creation deity is apparently akin to a deistic dud God.

Show me a deistic "God" that has observational data as evidence for its existence.

Atheists apparently don't understand monotheism, nor the concept of multiple *religions*.

Don't put the blame on the atheist for your inability to explicitly state which kind of deity you are referring to when you say "God".

So it's a dud by design, much like a disinterested deistic deity. That hardly makes it *more* scientifically credible does it?

Straw-man again and again. Inflation theory does not posit that it can be demonstrated using experiments on Earth.

It defies the laws of physics as we understand them,

No, just how you understand them.

and it's a bigger dud in the lab that theistic concepts of God!

Straw-man again and again. Inflation theory does not posit that it can be demonstrated using experiments on Earth.

On the contrary. You cannot demonstrate any empirical link in the lab between photon redshift and ''inflation" in controlled experimentation. Care to prove me wrong?

Inflation theory does not posit that it can be demonstrated using experiments on Earth.

Do you mean "expansion"? Were you burning the wrong strawman?

$10,000? I was thinking more like a buck, but I'll kick it up to a free beer if you're ever in Mt. Shasta.

What reason do you have to doubt my personal inner experiences?

I already gave you my personal answer to that question, and I'm sure you've already taken your own polls of other people, so what exactly are you fishing for?

No, you did not say which way you would turn the handlebars, or provided answers from anyone else.

Again, when you turn to the left while riding, which way do you turn the handlebars? Ask yourself, and the next few people you meet, and post your and their initial responses here. No cheating by looking it up.

 

[Michael]

And I ask, name one that can demonstrate that this experience is anything other than an internal experience, that of the imagination.

Tell me again how long ago the inflationary epoch ended.

You seem to have your hands full at the moment with other posters, so I'll try to make this short and sweet.

Any claim that inflation occurred in the past is based upon an affirming the consequent fallacy whereby you *imagine* (have no evidence) that inflation has some effect on a photon, and you *imagine* that something called 'space' does magical expansion tricks, another claim you're making which never occurs in the lab.

In short, you *imagine* a connection between photon redshift and inflation. You *imagine* that inflation creates matter/energy as we know it. You cannot demonstrate such claims in controlled experimentation anymore than Strathos can replicate his experiences for you in some tangible way. Whatever 'complains' you have about human imagination being unreliable also apply to virtually *every* branch of theoretical physics!

Experiments that you cannot conduct do not amount to much, do they?

Ditto. You cannot show a controlled empirical cause/effect connection between inflation and photon redshift. Likewise you cannot show any empirical justification for string theory, or graviton theory, etc. They are all 'acts of faith' in things that are "unseen" in any lab on Earth.

 

[Michael]

Yet, all claims to date have failed to be demonstrated. Agreed?

Hmmm. Not really. Experiences of God on Earth have been 'replicated' by other humans for thousands of years. All claims about inflation having some effect on a photon however have failed to be demonstrated in controlled experimentation. Agreed?