SHEEPEOPLE

[Davian]

Pffft. If a Nobel Prize, and Alfven's credibility meant nothing to the mainstream, who cares about the credibility of some random programmer from Mt. Shasta anyway? I think you take the internet far too seriously.

<snip false dichotomy>
<snip false equivalency>

I certainly don't. I'm not the one posting his pet ideas into virtually every thread in these forums.

 

[Davian]

Sure I did,

You didn't. I asked, how well do you think your brain would work if we were to add days or years of propagation delays to the neurones in your brain?

 

[Michael]

You have forgotten what you read?

In this case, nope. Did you even read any of his papers?

He conceived the label. Seriously, do you not know this?

I know that his papers contain a whole lot more than simply a label, and include all sorts of metaphysical claims about "negative pressure' in a vacuum too. The lowest possible pressure in a vacuum is *zero*, not negative infinity.

Each of those is a picture of a Christian God?

There's only one universe, and probably an infinite number of "religions".

 

[Dave Ellis]

http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html

Perhaps you might consider expanding your circle of friends?

That article makes for a good laugh, but not much more. None of their claims about a "plasma universe" have ever been demonstrated, and there are plenty of reasons why it is very doubtful.

 

[Michael]

You didn't. I asked, how well do you think your brain would work if we were to add days or years of propagation delays to the neurones in your brain?

I don't see why or where your question even becomes applicable to Panentheism considering the fact that there's far more active circuitry that is visible inside of this solar system than there are circuits inside of a human brain.

If you really need an answer to that question, as far as I know, it would work just fine, it would just work more slowly.

 

[Michael]

That article makes for a good laugh,

Really? What part did you find to be funny?

but not much more.

Did you happen to actually read the paper and take a gander at the math?

None of their claims about a "plasma universe" have ever been demonstrated,

You mean besides the part that Lerner demonstrated in that paper, and/or the work of Hannes Alfven?

and there are plenty of reasons why it is very doubtful.

Such as?

 

[Davian]

The demon-stration is the world. The handwriting is on the wall, and has been, all through history (His story). If you want to "know" you have to ask...with sincerity, with hope, and he will answer.

That does sound like an exercise in self-deception. I believe one should be most critical about those things you really want to be true, so as to avoid self-deception.

On the other had, if you are not hungry and do not thirst for God, for more than the world has to offer...then you will not reach high enough, and will not hear. It is either in you to do so, or it is not.

I do not seek religion, and see no reason offered that would cause me to be concerned about whatever it is you are alluding to.

 

[Michael]

Show me an universty-level ethics class synopsis that includes cosmology.

Huh? First you asked about the God/universe combo deal, and now you're tossing in ethics? This moving goal post is in overdrive.

 

[Davian]

You do not get to require anything. You do not know God.

I could claim to "know God". How would you know if I were lying?

 

[Michael]

That does sound like an exercise in self-deception. I believe one should be most critical about those things you really want to be true, so as to avoid self-deception.

How might that same criticism apply to your personal need for falsification when no such requirement actually exists in 'science'?

 

[Davian]

In this case, nope. Did you even read any of his papers?

Yes.

I know that his papers contain a whole lot more than simply a label, and include all sorts of metaphysical claims about "negative pressure' in a vacuum too. The lowest possible pressure in a vacuum is *zero*, not negative infinity.

But you didn't know that Guth conceived of the label.

There's only one universe, and probably an infinite number of "religions".

That is not what I asked.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Actually, only ignorance is a "default position". The decision to believe any idea or withhold belief is a mental choice that is distinct from pure ignorance of concept.

That's not true. For example, if I made the claim that I had a unicorn living in my garage, you would rightly demand evidence that I actually have a unicorn in my garage. If I fail to provide that evidence, you do not need to provide justification for not believing my claim. I have not met my burden of proof, that's all that matters. That's how the null hypothesis works.

Define the term 'evidence'. I suspect we're about to debate the difference between "scientific evidence" vs. empirical evidence. They aren't one and the same standard.

Evidence would be something that can be used to demonstrate the truthfulness of a single proposition or claim.

It does however have a bearing on the concept of "evidence" since there is no empirical cause/effect evidence to support dark matter theory, yet it's still a "popular" scientific theory.

No, not really. The concept of evidence isn't affected at all by the existence or non existence of dark matter.

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/aug/HQ_06297_CHANDRA_Dark_Matter.html

If you actually read the article you linked, what it contains does not conflict with my original statement.

Apparently NASA disagrees with you, however several errors in their mass estimates of galaxies and stars in that Bullet Cluster study have been revealed since 2006:

http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15850&sid=922c39d9eeb9be674f5971e6a22606f8

Because if it's on an internet forum, it must be true.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Says you.

Correct, and luckily, I am also correct in my assertion.

You claimed to have access to infinite knowledge, yet you can not provide my middle name. That's a demonstration that there is some knowledge that you don't have access to. Therefore, you do not have access to infinite knowledge.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Infinite evidence cannot be contained within a finite setting or mind. You must change, or remain below the horizon where what you ask cannot be perceived.

So how do you know anything about this infinite knowledge seeing as you also possess a finite mind, and live in a finite setting?

 

[ScottA]

That does sound like an exercise in self-deception. I believe one should be most critical about those things you really want to be true, so as to avoid self-deception.

I do not seek religion, and see no reason offered that would cause me to be concerned about whatever it is you are alluding to.

It sounds like you have lost nothing...so, you will likely not find it.

 

[ScottA]

I could claim to "know God". How would you know if I were lying?

My knowing the truth of another or not, doesn't matter.

 

[Michael]

That's not true.

Unfortunately it is true that ignorance is the only 'default' mental state. Everything else requires a claim, information and a personal choice.

For example, if I made the claim that I had a unicorn living in my garage, you would rightly demand evidence that I actually have a unicorn in my garage.

Yep, and I might even have to make some personal judgements about what you're calling 'evidence', assuming you have any.

If I fail to provide that evidence, you do not need to provide justification for not believing my claim. I have not met my burden of proof, that's all that matters. That's how the null hypothesis works.

Well, kind of. You're right that there is a burden of proof involved in making a claim, and in weighing evidence, but both of those things are different from the only "default" mental state of human ignorance.

Evidence would be something that can be used to demonstrate the truthfulness of a single proposition or claim.

Ok. The again "evidence" is often not empirically justified in the lab. Often the "effect" is enough to declare the effect to be evidence of the proposed source of that effect. Dark matter is a great example, as is dark energy. Neither of these hypothetical entities can be shown to have a tangible effect on a photon. The relationship to photons is simply assumed.

No, not really. The concept of evidence isn't affected at all by the existence or non existence of dark matter.

Do you believe there is evidence to support "dark matter"? Dark energy? Ever see dark matter bend light in a lab?

If you actually read the article you linked, what it contains does not conflict with my original statement.

Ya it does. It claims that NASA found 'proof' (they didn't even limit themselves to calling it evidence) of dark matter. They abandoned the whole 'hypothetical' aspect, and jumped right to claiming to have 'proof' of the stuff. Why?

Because if it's on an internet forum, it must be true.

The links I rounded up for you on that post include links to published and peer reviewed papers that support every statement that I made. Would you prefer if I copy those same links and links to papers here too?

 

[ScottA]

Correct, and luckily, I am also correct in my assertion.

You claimed to have access to infinite knowledge, yet you can not provide my middle name. That's a demonstration that there is some knowledge that you don't have access to. Therefore, you do not have access to infinite knowledge.

Nothing from nothing is nothing. You haven't proven anything. You have only defined your own position.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Nothing from nothing is nothing. You haven't proven anything. You have only defined your own position.

What on earth are you talking about?

 

[Michael]

Yes.

But you didn't know that Guth conceived of the label.

Huh? I asked you specifically why you thought that Guth got to name his invisible friend because he *invented* him inside of his own imagination!

That is not what I asked.

Your question was ultimately irrelevant to the scientific question of whether or not the universe is 'aware', or the validity of Panentheism.