The stumbling block for atheists.

[Nihilist Virus]

It that is your position on the topics of exotic matter and exotic energy, why are you an atheist again?

One type of particle exists, and I find that this suggests another similar type may exist. From this, I am to conclude that God exists? Is God a particle now? Also, I said *speculate.* I didn't say that I attest to the existence of these things.

Stick to fine tuning, it's all theists have. Although I find it tedious sifting through lies, quote mines, and legitimate arguments. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is quite moronic.

Any questions?

 

[Michael]

Because this position neither requires nor suggests nor necessitates the existence of a God?

Nihilist Virus is basically suggesting that it's fine and logical to hold belief in concepts that may not even be detectable during their lifetime. I was just wondering why they didn't apply the same logic to the topic of God.

 

[Michael]

One type of particle exists, and I find that this suggests another similar type may exist.

That seems like a bit of a leap of faith.

From this, I am to conclude that God exists?

I was just noting that you seem to think it's ok to hold belief in a concept that may not be detectable in a conventional empirical manner, and I was curious why you didn't apply that same logic to the topic of God.

Is God a particle now?

God could be anything, including the universe itself.

Also, I said *speculate.* I didn't say that I attest to the existence of these things.

Point noted.

Stick to fine tuning, it's all theists have.

Nah. I've got a whole universe full of ideas.

Although I find it tedious sifting through lies, quote mines, and legitimate arguments. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is quite moronic.

Any questions?

Actually I was thinking more along the lines of Panentheism.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Well, it could work the same way at larger scales provided that the "awareness" begins locally and simply spreads out over spacetime over time. I really can't claim to know that 'awareness' is limited by the speed of light however, even if various sensory inputs to awareness are limited by particle speeds.

You posited electromagnetism as the relevant force; brain-like signal processing using electromagnetism over cosmological distances is untenable. I've said all I'm saying on awareness, but handwaving in some undefined FTL McGuffin called the 'Speed of Awareness' can't rescue a concept so fundamentally flawed. You might as well drop the pretence to a framework within the laws of physics altogether.

I believe they are similar. The scales however are quite different, as would be true with pretty much any cosmology theory we might discuss.

As explained, a cosmological scale makes it untenable.

... I don't know why you assume that all information has to travel everywhere in the universe in order for persistent macroscopic awareness to exist.

I don't. The distribution of activity behind awareness I described is simply the implication of being similar to a biological brain. You're welcome to drop that idea of similarity.

Even in physics there are hypothetical particles that can travel faster than light. According to BB theory, the universe has "expanding" faster than C too. You seem to turn a blind eye to that "exception" to your rule, so why impose such a limit on awareness?

There's no problem with an FTL scaling expansion of the spacetime metric; the constraint applies to acceleration within that metric. I thought you'd know that. As for hypothetical tachyons - fine, construct a framework where a cosmic brain functions via tachyons to generate FTL awareness, whatever that means - but don't tell me it's remotely analogous to a biological brain (and I seriously doubt you can come up with a plausible interaction between negative mass tachyons moving backwards in time FTL - and electromagnetism).

Even it that's the case, the circuity of the universe is a lot more massive than what I might find in any lifeform on Earth, and even if it takes awhile for some types of processing to occur, and for some information to spread throughout the universe, it's going to happen sooner or later, and and a living universe might have the whole of eternity to process data from various locations.

That would assume a steady-state universe, which appears not to be the case.

I can't claim to know exactly what awareness is. It's associated with brain processes, chemistry and EM fields, but I'm not convinced that chemistry and EM fields are the 'cause" of awareness. For all I know awareness might be a quantum process of some sort.

It doesn't really matter; if it requires known physical fields and forces, the timescales spatial distances are literally astronomically unsuitable.

I'm not dropping it at all, I"m simply noting that some types of information may not have to travel throughout the entire cosmos for further "processing" as you seem to imagine.

So it's functionally similar to a biological brain, except when it isn't?

Solar circuits certainly emit light and magnetic fields. In EU/PC theory suns and galaxies are even "wired together" so information can traverse long distances if necessary.

At 'c' or less - probably very much less.

It doesn't have to be 100 percent analogous does it, particularly at it relates to scales.

Correct - you suggested functional and structural resemblance.

Well, even if there is some speed limit associated with awareness, I wouldn't preclude the process from taking place albeit over longer timelines. I also see no logic behind your assumption that all information has to be processed everywhere in the universe for "thought" to occur.

I made no such assumption; the characteristic of conscious awareness is activity in widely separated brain areas as opposed to limited local activity.

The timescales of information transmission at 'c' mean that even relatively local processing (e.g. within our own (Virgo) supercluster, one of at least 10 million superclusters in the observable universe), would still be quite irrelevant to human civilization - the Virgo supercluster is 110 million light years across.

You're welcome to drop the cosmic aspect and reduce the scale - but I suspect just the Milky Way alone would still be problematic. Just consider the scales involved for a moment.

The worst you could try to imply is that the "thought process" must be much slower in some way, but only if you *assume* that all processing has to take place on a macroscopic scale rather than locally.

It makes no difference - if any signals have to traverse beyond the local - or even just our local supercluster - the timescales are unreasonably long to be relevant to humans.

How would that even be any worse that any of the *four* such special pleading arguments of LCDM? The worst you could accuse me of is introducing *one* special pleading claim, whereas there are four such constructs in the cosmology model you're defending. Care to explain that rationalization for us?

I'm not defending any cosmology model, I'm critiquing yours.

You're doing it again - a red-herring tu-quoque. The validity of other theories is completely irrelevant to the validity of yours.

And think what you're implying - if other theories can be a crock, then it's OK for yours to be a crock too

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

How? We've already spent *billions* of dollars looking for DM... Dark energy?

Well, there's more to astrophysics than dark matter and dark energy hypotheses.

For example: the CMB, stellar atmospheres, nucleosynthesis, X-ray binaries, pulsars, neutron stars, supernovae, black holes, stellar evolution of singles & binaries, galaxy formation & dynamics, luminous & active radio galaxies, the interstellar medium, planetary systems, planets, planetoids, comets, gas clouds, etc., etc.

I can certainly point you to several laboratory neutrino experiments that have been successful, and which have directly detected neutrinos, complete with control mechanisms and everything. Compare and contrast that with the last decade's worth of various DM experiments.

That wasn't the question you originally posed ("When was the last time you saw something biological in the lab being affected by..."). Nevertheless, neutrinos too were once hypothetical.

Virtually all biological concepts enjoy empirical laboratory support, or they are likely to remain 'unpopular'.

That's a common misconception. The bulk of biological science is done outside the lab. The lab has it's place, but it has it's drawbacks and limitations. It doesn't have any special epistemological status.

Pretty much every EU/PC advocate would be an interested observer (or a professional) who rejects current cosmology theory.

True - I should have said 'disinterested observer' (but not uninterested). Anyhow, EU/PC advocates are very much a minority or fringe group.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

That seems like a bit of a leap of faith.

Faith requires belief. I've never proposed belief in anything here. I've spoken only of speculation. Do Christians not see the difference?

I was just noting that you seem to think it's ok to hold belief in a concept that may not be detectable in a conventional empirical manner,

Wrong. I said it is reasonable to speculate. Again, do you see the difference?

and I was curious why you didn't apply that same logic to the topic of God.

The same logic does not apply. The speculation of more particles is based on the previous observation of other particles already known to exist. So if we lived in the world envisioned by primitive man, and if we all agreed that many deities exist, only then it would be *reasonable* to *speculate* that Jehovah exists as well. But something tells me you won't open the door to all these pagan deities.

God could be anything, including the universe itself.

So blasphemy is allowed here?

Point noted.

OK.

Nah. I've got a whole universe full of ideas.

You have a whole God full of ideas?

Actually I was thinking more along the lines of Panentheism.

Ever think of updating the thing listed in the "religion" category on your profile?

 

[Michael]

Faith requires belief. I've never proposed belief in anything here. I've spoken only of speculation. Do Christians not see the difference?

The way that things are phrased can sometimes be confusing. I doubt it's a 'Christian" issue however. You seemed to convey enthusiasm.

Wrong. I said it is reasonable to speculate. Again, do you see the difference?

I understand the difference, but admittedly it wasn't clear from your post, hence my *question* (not an accusation).

The same logic does not apply. The speculation of more particles is based on the previous observation of other particles already known to exist.

Couldn't I suggest that we have ample evidence that various forms of life exist, therefore God could exist? What's the empirical difference?

So if we lived in the world envisioned by primitive man, and if we all agreed that many deities exist,

Er, you don't condemn science because of it's previous "beliefs", so why fixates on 'primitive' religions concepts of multiple deities? What's up with that?

only then it would be *reasonable* to *speculate* that Jehovah exists as well.

FYI. of up fast forward to the 21st century you'll see that monotheism has been the "consensus" for quite some time now. Dwelling on past religious beleifs would be akin to dwelling on past scientific failures and trying to condemn the whole of science in the process.

But something tells me you won't open the door to all these pagan deities.

Why would I "open the door" to old religious or old scientific ideas? I don't really 'open the door' on flat earth theory, or Earth-centric concepts of the universe either. Why would I?

So blasphemy is allowed here?

I wouldn't classify Panentheism as "blasphemy", although I'd admit it's a minority viewpoint. It's still an empirical form of monotheism.

You have a whole God full of ideas?

Actually, yes.

Ever think of updating the thing listed in the "religion" category on your profile?

Not really. Once can hold belief in Panentheism and hold belief in Jesus. Any "personal" experience I have of God comes from Christ.

 

[Michael]

Well, there's more to astrophysics than dark matter and dark energy hypotheses.

Five percent more? That's not a whole lot. FYI, most of the mathematical models that are used by the mainstream to model the behaviors of plasma were made irrelevant and obsolete by Hannes Alfven's double layer paper *decades* ago. There really isn't much empirical substance to anything contained in mainstream theory.

For example: the CMB,

It's just another ordinary wavelength that comes from stars in a static universe theory. You could pick an x-ray spectrum and the same basic issues would apply.

stellar atmospheres,

Those models are based on a mathematical model that Alfven called "pseudoscience" by the way. Whereas Birkeland's *electric field* models explain a hot corona, and can be replicated in a lab here on Earth, the mainstream's "magic magnetic" version doesn't work so well in the lab to create a full sphere corona.

nucleosynthesis,

Sorry, but the mainstream needs a form of exotic matter to work correctly. It's not even applicable in an electric universe cosmology model.

X-ray binaries, pulsars, neutron stars, supernovae,

Love that stuff personally.

black holes,

I'm not a big fan of the concept of singularities, but I wouldn't be surprised if massive objects have event horizons.

stellar evolution of singles & binaries,

I really don't believe that the mainstream really understands much about solar physics to be honest. In 2012 SDO shot down their convection predictions, and I've yet to see the mainstream update their model to incorporate those observations of slow convection at best.

galaxy formation & dynamics, luminous & active radio galaxies, the interstellar medium,

Most of that stuff is cosmology dependent in terms of theory. It works very differently in EU/PC theory.

planetary systems, planets, planetoids, comets, gas clouds, etc., etc.

I mostly take their word for it as it relates to non-ionized materials. What they don't know about plasma physics could fill volumes, but I think they have the solids and gases down pat.

That wasn't the question you originally posed ("When was the last time you saw something biological in the lab being affected by..."). Nevertheless, neutrinos too were once hypothetical.

Are we playing legaleeze games are were going to address those empirical differences?

That's a common misconception. The bulk of biological science is done outside the lab. The lab has it's place, but it has it's drawbacks and limitations. It doesn't have any special epistemological status.

So what's a 'mainstream' concept from the field of biology that I could never hope to demonstrate in a lab in controlled experimentation?

True - I should have said 'disinterested observer' (but not uninterested). Anyhow, EU/PC advocates are very much a minority or fringe group.

The term minority is acceptable, but the term "fringe" comes with a lot of personal baggage that really should not be applied to empirical physics and empirical physics theories, particularly when you look at the purely hypothetical "mainstream" alternatives.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

The way that things are phrased can sometimes be confusing. I doubt it's a 'Christian" issue however. You seemed to convey enthusiasm.



I understand the difference, but admittedly it wasn't clear from your post, hence my *question* (not an accusation).

My post was quite clear.

Couldn't I suggest that we have ample evidence that various forms of life exist, therefore God could exist? What's the empirical difference?

God is not a life form. He is not an open thermal system with a metabolism. He does not reproduce. He cannot die. So yeah... totally bogus comparison.

Er, you don't condemn science because of it's previous "beliefs", so why fixates on 'primitive' religions concepts of multiple deities? What's up with that?

Science is humans figuring things out. Religious concepts are divine revelation and therefore there is zero excuse for getting it wrong. If you announce a new religious concept to the world and you're wrong, that makes you a fraud. If you announce a new scientific concept to the world and you're wrong, you gave it an honest shot. Don't insult science by comparing the two.

FYI. of up fast forward to the 21st century you'll see that monotheism has been the "consensus" for quite some time now. Dwelling on past religious beleifs would be akin to dwelling on past scientific failures and trying to condemn the whole of science in the process.

See above. Man, fish in a barrel here.

Why would I "open the door" to old religious or old scientific ideas? I don't really 'open the door' on flat earth theory, or Earth-centric concepts of the universe either. Why would I?

Please clarify exactly why divine revelation would be wrong if it's not because of someone just making something up. What else is there? Delusions? Story telling? None of this is analogous to science. Don't drag science down into the mud with religion please.

I wouldn't classify Panentheism as "blasphemy", although I'd admit it's a minority viewpoint.

You said God could be anything. Anything includes Satan. Saying that Satan is God is blasphemous, I assume.

It's still an empirical form of monotheism.

I don't even know what to say to this insanity. You seem to think that you can detect a deity. My skepticism meter is making that beeping sound.

Actually, yes.



Not really. Once can hold belief in Panentheism and hold belief in Jesus. Any "personal" experience I have of God comes from Christ.

I don't know if you are serious, or a Poe, or... something else. But I suspect I'm being played here. So um. Well played, sir.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I don't know if you are serious, or a Poe, or... something else. But I suspect I'm being played here. So um. Well played, sir.

WRT Panentheism: This is one of the last ideas I entertained before leaving the faith. Let me try to explain. I've heard it described (I don't remember if this was my phrasing or not) that pantheism is god in everything while panentheism is everything is in God. The universe is a subset of what God comprises. As such, this allows God the ability to intervene and to be connected to the universe. That is, since God is more than the universe, he might still be personal; he might still manifest or incarnate. Ergo, Jesus could still be God incarnate.

Obviously, I don't believe this. But, it isn't entirely out there with respect to theology. I never tried to make the universe describe what God is, though, such as constraining his mind to constructs of the universe.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So what's a 'mainstream' concept from the field of biology that I could never hope to demonstrate in a lab in controlled experimentation?

I suspect you could probably study a lot more biology in the lab if you had enough space, time, and funding to build lab environments that could emulate large and complex natural environments (or if you called zoos, farms, and parks 'labs'), and were prepared to revert to the ethics of a previous era - but in the real world, it's easier to study the relationships and behaviours of natural ecosystems in... natural ecosystems.

 

[Michael]

My post was quite clear.

If you say so. IMO your statements showed an open minded approach to one concept and a subjective bias against another potentially "undetectable' concept.

God is not a life form.

How do you "know" that? Most people would assume that God is real and "alive". Jesus certainly walked the Earth as a living being.

He is not an open thermal system with a metabolism.

Same question. I'm pretty sure that Christ had a real body with a real metabolism and everything.

He does not reproduce.

Most folks believe that he created us however.

He cannot die.

Ok.

So yeah... totally bogus comparison.

It sounds like your opinions about God and about the nature of God are a tad "bogus" or at least very subjective. You seem to have simply decided what God is and is not and you've offered no evidence to support your claims about God.

Science is humans figuring things out. Religious concepts are divine revelation and therefore there is zero excuse for getting it wrong.

Bah. People misconstrue my words and statements all the time, even when I go to great lengths to fully explain myself. Why would you expect humans to "get it right" every single time on *any* topic, including the topic of God?

The 10 commandments state quite clearly 'do not kill', yet people 'kill' each other all the time. I don't know how you can misconstrue that point, but people do so all the time.

If you announce a new religious concept to the world and you're wrong, that makes you a fraud.

Not typically. Usually it just results in another "sect" of religion being created. Not every religion can be "right", but I'm sure that people sincerely hold their beliefs to be sacred none the less. I don't necessarily assume that 'fraud' is the motive behind their new religious concept, right or wrong.

If you announce a new scientific concept to the world and you're wrong, you gave it an honest shot. Don't insult science by comparing the two.

How is inflation theory any less "made up"? I see little or no functional difference between the errors of science and the errors of religion. They're all related to human misconception.

See above. Man, fish in a barrel here.

What fish? What barrel?

Please clarify exactly why divine revelation would be wrong if it's not because of someone just making something up.

Humans are not infallible and they don't necessarily "interpret" things exactly the same. Why are their so many different, and often times conflicting opinions about the current President o the US? Unless you're claiming that humans are somehow infallible, there's plenty of room for errors in interpretation.

What else is there? Delusions? Story telling? None of this is analogous to science. Don't drag science down into the mud with religion please.

It's exactly analogous to science. For instance, there are *multiple* ways to interpret photon redshift, not just one. At some point along the way, a certain amount of subjective personal interpretation always comes into play, even in science. It's a human behavior that is unrelated to either science or religion.

It's cute how you hold science on some sort of special pedestal like that, but "scientists" are human too.

You said God could be anything. Anything includes Satan. Saying that Satan is God is blasphemous, I assume.

You're already twisting my meaning like a pretzel to suit yourself, which simply demonstrates my earlier point about humans being rather 'subjective' in what they *hear*, and now they "spin" things.

I don't even know what to say to this insanity.

So anything you personally disagree with must be a form of "insanity"? It sounds like ad-homs are your primary method of debate. I'm not impressed.

You seem to think that you can detect a deity.

I certainly "detect" something with my eyes when I look up at the night sky. When were exotic forms of matter or energy ever "detected" and if so, how were they "detected"?

My skepticism meter is making that beeping sound.

Should I care?

I don't know if you are serious, or a Poe, or... something else. But I suspect I'm being played here. So um. Well played, sir.

I'm quite serious.

 

[Michael]

I suspect you could probably study a lot more biology in the lab if you had enough space, time, and funding to build lab environments that could emulate large and complex natural environments (or if you called zoos, farms, and parks 'labs'), and were prepared to revert to the ethics of a previous era - but in the real world, it's easier to study the relationships and behaviours of natural ecosystems in... natural ecosystems.

But all those ecosystems exist here on Earth and can be studied here on Earth. Compare and contrast that with the ad-hoc concepts of LCDM which consistently fail to show up on Earth.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

But all those ecosystems exist here on Earth and can be studied here on Earth. Compare and contrast that with the ad-hoc concepts of LCDM which consistently fail to show up on Earth.

Well, yeah; things that happen on Earth happen on Earth, and things that happen in deep space happen in deep space... who'd a thunk it?

 

[Michael]

You posited electromagnetism as the relevant force; brain-like signal processing using electromagnetism over cosmological distances is untenable.

Untenable? The worst you could claim is that it would be a "slower' process, but it would still be a "tenable" process from the standpoint of physics.

I've said all I'm saying on awareness, but handwaving in some undefined FTL McGuffin called the 'Speed of Awareness' can't rescue a concept so fundamentally flawed.

LCMD has *four* handwaved items added to it, and yet I don't see you rejecting those handwaves. Why not? You're applying two different standards to two different cosmology models. Even if I *needed* (which you haven't demonstrated) to introduce an FTL communication mechanism into the process, it *still* is just *one* unsupported claim, not *four*!

You might as well drop the pretence to a framework within the laws of physics altogether.

Since you can't explain why all conscious processing must take place remotely, I see no reason to do so.

As explained, a cosmological scale makes it untenable.

It wouldn't actually be 'untenable" even in that scenario, it would just be *slooooow* at worst case.

I don't. The distribution of activity behind awareness I described is simply the implication of being similar to a biological brain. You're welcome to drop that idea of similarity.

Unless you can demonstrate why that's necessary, I see no reason to do so. You're making all sorts of assumptions about the nature of awareness, it's 'speed of propagation', a need for external processing, etc. I'm simply not making those same assumptions.

There's no problem with an FTL scaling expansion of the spacetime metric; the constraint applies to acceleration within that metric.

That's pure supernatural mumbo-jumbo because there is no metric expansion that has ever been demonstrated in the first place. It's a *concept* at best case, one that utterly and completely devoid of empirical lab support, and will always be devoid of empirical laboratory support. It's the very first "statement of faith" that is required to hold belief in LCDM. If you're going to whine about one claim that lacks empirical support, you should be whining about all of them. What's up with that double standard of "evidence"?

I thought you'd know that. As for hypothetical tachyons - fine, construct a framework where a cosmic brain functions via tachyons to generate FTL awareness, whatever that means - but don't tell me it's remotely analogous to a biological brain (and I seriously doubt you can come up with a plausible interaction between negative mass tachyons moving backwards in time FTL - and electromagnetism).

I'm not really proposing tachyons as a solution, I'm simply pointing out that such FTL concepts appear in other branches of "science'. Even if I did introduce an FTL mechanism, it wouldn't be without presedent.

That would assume a steady-state universe, which appears not to be the case.

Actually, it does appear to be the case that moment one trades in supernatural concepts like "space expansion" for ordinary processes that show up in a lab, like inelastic scattering in plasma. FYI the steady state universe theory was in fact the 'mainstream' theory right up until Hubble noticed a redshift/distance relationship in space, but even Hubble entertained "tired light" interpretations of that phenomenon.

It doesn't really matter; if it requires known physical fields and forces, the timescales spatial distances are literally astronomically unsuitable.

It's only seems unsuitable if you make a host of assumption about where processing has to occur, the speed of awareness, the nature of awareness, etc.

So it's functionally similar to a biological brain, except when it isn't?

I don't recall insisting that everything had to be exactly identical.

At 'c' or less - probably very much less.

Based on what evidence?

Correct - you suggested functional and structural resemblance.

In terms of mass layouts and current carrying properties, they are functionally similar. That's the best that anyone might be able to demonstrate in fact.

I made no such assumption; the characteristic of conscious awareness is activity in widely separated brain areas as opposed to limited local activity.

Some human reaction seems to "skip" a lot of "widely separated processing" and the response seems to be relatively instantaneous, without a lot of thought going on in the prefrontal cortex.

The timescales of information transmission at 'c' mean that even relatively local processing (e.g. within our own (Virgo) supercluster, one of at least 10 million superclusters in the observable universe), would still be quite irrelevant to human civilization - the Virgo supercluster is 110 million light years across.

Again however, you're *assuming* a need for long distance "processing' of information which I am *not* assuming.

You're welcome to drop the cosmic aspect and reduce the scale - but I suspect just the Milky Way alone would still be problematic. Just consider the scales involved for a moment.

I understand the scaling problems, but even in that scenario, the worst you could claim is that the "thinking processes" occur more slowly.

It makes no difference - if any signals have to traverse beyond the local - or even just our local supercluster - the timescales are unreasonably long to be relevant to humans.

And if a lot of the processing takes place locally (inside the solar system), the timescales don't have to be so long.

I'm not defending any cosmology model, I'm critiquing yours.

Ok.

You're doing it again - a red-herring tu-quoque. The validity of other theories is completely irrelevant to the validity of yours.

Well all cosmology theories have "issues". Finding *one* perceived problem in one cosmology theory is rarely a reason to reject the concept out of hand. You're attempting to apply a completely different standard of evidence to the cosmology theory I presented to you than is applied to any other cosmology theory under the sun. There has to be some way to "compare" the various "problems" with different cosmological models.

And think what you're implying - if other theories can be a crock, then it's OK for yours to be a crock too

I'm not implying that. I"m implying that it's pretty common for all cosmology theories to contain ideas that aren't necessarily empirically demonstrated, and I'm only introducing one of them at worst case, whereas other cosmology theories, including the most popular one, typically require *multiple* claims which defy empirical support. I'm just pointing out that if you're going to allow for "space expansion", "dark energy", "dark matter", and inflation, you can't rule out an FTL concept with a handwave and pretend that it falsifies the model being presented. Even in QM there is some evidence for FTL mechanisms:

Spooky! Quantum Action Is 10,000 Times Faster Than Light

 

[Michael]

Well, yeah; things that happen on Earth happen on Earth, and things that happen in deep space happen in deep space... who'd a thunk it?

FTL mechanisms can even be "tested" here on Earth, but the supernatural bad boys of LCDM defy such experimentation or *fail* such experimentation. Since LCDM is introducing four different "things" that don't happen on Earth, how can it be considered "better than" another cosmology theory that is as worst case only introducing *one* semi-unexplained concept that *can* be studied in the lab? QM's spooky action at a distance could allow for FTL communication to occur, provided that one could know the state of the photon pair in advance.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

If you say so. IMO your statements showed an open minded approach to one concept and a subjective bias against another potentially "undetectable' concept.

Again, there is a precedent that suggests certain types of particles may exist. That precedent is other particles. There is nothing like your deity, so your analogy has been absurd from the start.

How do you "know" that? Most people would assume that God is real and "alive". Jesus certainly walked the Earth as a living being.

I thought Christians understood the hypostatic union. The "fully man" part of Christ was an open thermal system with a metabolism. The "fully God" part had none of that.

God is not a life form.

Same question. I'm pretty sure that Christ had a real body with a real metabolism and everything.

Same answer. Hypostatic union. Why do I have to teach you about your own religion?

Most folks believe that he created us however.

I said that God cannot reproduce and you lob this at me? Really?

Let's go through this again.

I said that God cannot REPRODUCE. Are we all trans-dimensional omniscient omnipotent omnipresent omnibenevolent deities? Or are we something wholly other from God?

If I made life in a lab, that's not reproducing. What God did was making us in a lab. He didn't reproduce himself.

Basic terms here, bro.

Ok.



It sounds like your opinions about God and about the nature of God are a tad "bogus" or at least very subjective. You seem to have simply decided what God is and is not and you've offered no evidence to support your claims about God.

I'm just going off of the normal assertions Christians make about God. You have some catching up to do, starting with "hypostatic union."

Bah. People misconstrue my words and statements all the time, even when I go to great lengths to fully explain myself. Why would you expect humans to "get it right" every single time on *any* topic, including the topic of God?

Because I wouldn't expect an omnipotent omnipresent omniscient omnibenevolent deity to be unable to deliver his message, even if that process involves humans.

The 10 commandments state quite clearly 'do not kill', yet people 'kill' each other all the time. I don't know how you can misconstrue that point, but people do so all the time.

That is referring to other Jews. It was a commandment to not kill other Jews, other than in executions. God couldn't care less if they killed gentiles. Or did you forget, say, the entire book of Joshua where God commands the Jews to kill gentiles?

Not typically. Usually it just results in another "sect" of religion being created. Not every religion can be "right", but I'm sure that people sincerely hold their beliefs to be sacred none the less. I don't necessarily assume that 'fraud' is the motive behind their new religious concept, right or wrong.

So when Joseph Smith looked into his magic hat or when Muhammad (FBUH) went into those caves, these men were relaying what they actually thought they experienced?

How is inflation theory any less "made up"?

Well it made predictions that were verified. That's more than any prophet has ever done.

I see little or no functional difference between the errors of science and the errors of religion. They're all related to human misconception.

I've already explained it.

What fish? What barrel?



Humans are not infallible and they don't necessarily "interpret" things exactly the same. Why are their so many different, and often times conflicting opinions about the current President o the US? Unless you're claiming that humans are somehow infallible, there's plenty of room for errors in interpretation.

OK so a dodge to my question. Thanks.

It's exactly analogous to science. For instance, there are *multiple* ways to interpret photon redshift, not just one. At some point along the way, a certain amount of subjective personal interpretation always comes into play, even in science. It's a human behavior that is unrelated to either science or religion.

It's called cross-confirmation. Like how the gospels cross-confirm each other on every detail of, say, the resurrection narrative.

It's cute how you hold science on some sort of special pedestal like that, but "scientists" are human too.

It's relative. Science is on a pedestal compared to my views on religion.

You're already twisting my meaning like a pretzel to suit yourself, which simply demonstrates my earlier point about humans being rather 'subjective' in what they *hear*, and now they "spin" things.

You used the word "anything." Now you cry foul when I choose anything I want?

So anything you personally disagree with must be a form of "insanity"? It sounds like ad-homs are your primary method of debate. I'm not impressed.

It's not ad hominem unless I say that your arguments are invalid as a result of some characteristic about you. Here's a list of important terms you don't seem to understand:

ad hominem
speculate
hypostatic union
life form
reproduce

I hope this list will shrink and not grow, but I won't hold my breath.

I certainly "detect" something with my eyes when I look up at the night sky. When were exotic forms of matter or energy ever "detected" and if so, how were they "detected"?

Are you still going on about this? Because there are particles that can be inferred to exist via our mathematical models of galactic rotation or redshifting, I'm to infer that a Jehovah could exist? Again, other gods existing would lead me to speculate that Jehovah might exist.

Should I care?

OK, please do show me this "empirical form of monotheism."

I'm quite serious.

Again, well played. I already tipped my hat. You can take your bow now.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Untenable? The worst you could claim is that it would be a "slower' process, but it would still be a "tenable" process from the standpoint of physics.

Not if the universe it's proposed for is 'only' ~14 billion years old.

LCMD has *four* handwaved items added to it, and yet I don't see you rejecting those handwaves. Why not? You're applying two different standards to two different cosmology models. Even if I *needed* (which you haven't demonstrated) to introduce an FTL communication mechanism into the process, it *still* is just *one* unsupported claim, not *four*!

You keep on with this. I'm not applying any standard to LCMD, I'm evaluating your proposal as given. Again, the rights or wrongs of other theories are irrelevant.

Since you can't explain why all conscious processing must take place remotely, I see no reason to do so.

I haven't said that. You propose functional similarity to a biological brain, and the characteristic of conscious awareness in a biological brain is widespread activation. Take it or leave it.

Unless you can demonstrate why that's necessary, I see no reason to do so.

I don't need to demonstrate anything. If you propose a model of consciousness that claims functional similarity to biological brains, it's an expected observation.

You're making all sorts of assumptions about the nature of awareness, it's 'speed of propagation', a need for external processing, etc. I'm simply not making those same assumptions.

Nope; I'm describing the observed characteristics of conscious awareness in biological brains. You can choose not to accept them for your proposal, but that means not accepting functional similarity to a biological brain.

That's pure supernatural mumbo-jumbo because there is no metric expansion that has ever been demonstrated in the first place.

It doesn't matter whether you think it happened or not, it is not 'an exception' to the rules against accelerating to superluminal velocity.

If you're going to whine about one claim that lacks empirical support, you should be whining about all of them. What's up with that double standard of "evidence"?

Now you're being childish and rude.

I can understand that it's disappointing to discover your favoured hypothesis is untenable, but that's how science works; some ideas are stillborn, or strangled at birth. The good scientist goes back to the drawing board and comes up with a new or revised hypothesis to explain the unexplained observations... by the way, what are the unexplained observations your hypothesis was supposed to explain?

I'm not really proposing tachyons as a solution...

Fine; the problem of temporal and spatial scales remains unresolved.

It's only seems unsuitable if you make a host of assumption about where processing has to occur, the speed of awareness, the nature of awareness, etc.

It was you who suggested a structural and functional similarity to biological brains.

Based on what evidence?

Einstein's field theory. Propagation of light and magnetic fields is restricted to 'c' or less.

In terms of mass layouts and current carrying properties, they are functionally similar. That's the best that anyone might be able to demonstrate in fact.

Have you anything more than wishful thinking to support that?

Some human reaction seems to "skip" a lot of "widely separated processing" and the response seems to be relatively instantaneous, without a lot of thought going on in the prefrontal cortex.

You may be thinking of reflexes or other subconscious responses, which don't require conscious awareness (although one may become consciously aware of them after the fact).

... you're *assuming* a need for long distance "processing' of information which I am *not* assuming.

Not at all - if you propose local information processing, the results of local processing must be transmitted to the rest of the brain for appropriate integration (unless you're now proposing a relatively small local 'brain' rather than a cosmic one).

You can't have it both ways - either you have a local brain that does all information transmission and processing in a relatively small volume, e.g. the Milky Way (where signals will still take at least 100,000 years to traverse), or you have a cosmic brain the size of the observable universe or larger, where signals take hundreds of billions of years to traverse.

I understand the scaling problems, but even in that scenario, the worst you could claim is that the "thinking processes" occur more slowly.

I'm not sure you do - I've suggested the most charitable timescales for simple awareness of a stimulus for a cosmic brain with a functional similarity to a biological brain. As I mentioned previously, awareness of a stimulus is the very minimum; resolving it to a particular kind of stimulus and identifying its source takes much longer. Any meaningful conscious response would take an order of magnitude or more longer. Consciousness works relatively slowly, which is why the majority of our behaviour is in the form of 'pre-programmed' routines sequenced by a preconscious executive.

And if a lot of the processing takes place locally (inside the solar system), the timescales don't have to be so long.

Indeed. But if the results need to be made available to distant areas (as in biological brains), that's irrelevant (I ignored processing time in my original analysis). OTOH, if only local processing is involved, in what sense is this proposed brain of cosmological scale?

You're attempting to apply a completely different standard of evidence to the cosmology theory I presented to you than is applied to any other cosmology theory under the sun.

No, I'm taking your proposal as stated and critiquing it under the known laws of physics. It doesn't work.

I'm just pointing out that if you're going to allow for "space expansion", "dark energy", "dark matter", and inflation, you can't rule out an FTL concept with a handwave and pretend that it falsifies the model being presented.

Good, because I haven't done so. What I said is that not even an FTL McGuffin can rescue your fundamentally flawed concept.

Even in QM there is some evidence for FTL mechanisms:

Spooky! Quantum Action Is 10,000 Times Faster Than Light

That depends on your favoured QM interpretation; and in any case, it doesn't apply to classical information (such as could be used in a brain). I suggest you investigate the difference between classical and quantum information as it relates to entanglement.

I'm tiring of repeating myself on this subject - you have all the relevant information I can supply, and the internet has vastly more if you want to verify what I've said. You can accept it or not (I suspect not), but I'm moving on.

 

[Michael]

Again, there is a precedent that suggests certain types of particles may exist. That precedent is other particles. There is nothing like your deity, so your analogy has been absurd from the start.

There are all types, shapes, sizes and physical forms of "living beings" that exist in nature, which have every bit as much scientific precedence as your "particles". You're already "absurdly" skewing the conversation in your favor based on a blatantly *subjective* choice to exclude "God" from the "living being" category.

I thought Christians understood the hypostatic union. The "fully man" part of Christ was an open thermal system with a metabolism. The "fully God" part had none of that.

Care to cite a quote for me that specifically states that God has no "metabolism" and that God is not 'alive"? You seem to be making this up as you go as far as I can tell. It's oh so very cute when "atheists" profess to be a greater "expert" on the topic of God than a theist. It's also really amusing when they try to lecture me about "Christianity".

God is not a life form.

I thought that atheists lacked belief in God and about God, but apparently you hold very strong beliefs about what God is and is not. How does that work? You seem to 'lack belief" in your personal definition of God as far as I can tell, but I don't really see where an atheist gets off telling me how I'm personally obligated to define God or relate to God.

Same answer. Hypostatic union.

So far you are simply tossing unrelated terms at me that don't actually support your argument and you appear to be making this up as you go.

Why do I have to teach you about your own religion?

It's clear that you don't have a clue what my personal "religion' might be, and I really find it very amusing when atheists profess to be better "Christians" than I am. You're entertaining, I'll give you that much.

I said that God cannot reproduce and you lob this at me? Really?

Ya, really. God may be able to do any number of things that you personally might find objectionable, but why should I care?

He may indeed be capable of creating living organisms, nurturing them, and loving them like any parent might love their children.

Let's go through this again.

Can we do so a little less "smugly" this time because it's starting to get tedious IMO.

I said that God cannot REPRODUCE. Are we all trans-dimensional omniscient omnipotent omnipresent omnibenevolent deities?

I dunno, are we? Do you believe that we have eternal souls that can change and grow over time?

Or are we something wholly other from God?

Wholly other? We could not *possibly* be "wholly other" from a living universe that breaths life into us, and sustains that life on a daily basis. In Panentheism we could not be "wholly other", we'd simply be a 'part of" a living universe.

If I made life in a lab, that's not reproducing.

If you made life forms as intelligent as yourself it would be reproduction without the sex.

What God did was making us in a lab. He didn't reproduce himself.

So you were just sort of standing there, looking over his shoulder and witnessing all this were you? You read his mind, asked him so questions about the purpose of life and souls and such did you?

Basic terms here, bro.

These seem like your own personal terms where you start laying out your own personal belief systems about how the term "God' may be allowed to be defined. It's a bit irrational however to try to impose your own beliefs about what God is and is not upon others, particularly while labeling yourself an "atheist". I thought that atheists *lacked* belief in God and about God?

I'm just going off of the normal assertions Christians make about God.

No Christian in this conversation defined God as you did, and even still, I would not be personally required to agree with any of you in terms of how God should or should not be defined.

You're welcome to hold your own "beliefs" about God, but you can't then pretend to simply "lack belief" in God, you seem to "lack belief in a very specific definition of the term "God", one of your own "belief system".

You have some catching up to do, starting with "hypostatic union."

Explain to me how that specific term precludes God from being a living being. I don't see the connection.

Because I wouldn't expect an omnipotent omnipresent omniscient omnibenevolent deity to be unable to deliver his message, even if that process involves humans.

Unless God imposes free will, we're going to have the choice to "listen' closely to his wisdom, and live by those standards, or not. Everyone sees the current President and hears what he says, but that doesn't mean everyone shares the exact same beliefs about the President. Why would I expect God to be any different? Humans *never* completely agree on any topic or individual, so what would you expect that to be different with God?

That is referring to other Jews. It was a commandment to not kill other Jews, other than in executions. God couldn't care less if they killed gentiles.

Christ on Earth never 'killed" anyone and in fact he is reported to have healed a "Gentile" whom Peter injured. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said that we should love even our enemies, and turn the other cheek. When did he ever discuss killing Gentiles?

Or did you forget, say, the entire book of Joshua where God commands the Jews to kill gentiles?

I didn't forget it. Moses himself came down from the Mountain, tablet in hand which specifically said "Do not kill" and he got angry and had a bunch of Jews killed. That's not exactly living up to the standards that are written on those tablets, whereas the life of Christ was a living embodiment of those standards.

There were beliefs and values for which Christ was willing to be tortured to death for, but none for which he was willing to kill. Did you not notice that?

So when Joseph Smith looked into his magic hat or when Muhammad (FBUH) went into those caves, these men were relaying what they actually thought they experienced?

I believe that everyone has a "relationship" with God that is probably not exactly the same as mine. I try not to judge others for their beliefs just as I was taught by Christ. I don't personally fit easily into any particular "Christian" sect to stat with, let alone into an Islam sect, although I do like Rumi and I love his poetry about God.

Well it made predictions that were verified. That's more than any prophet has ever done.

Pfft. That's hilarious. Inflation didn't really directly 'predict" anything, certainly not all by itself. Guth *postdicted* a fit to homogeneity, and he really didn't "predict" anything in his first "holy inflation" paper. The CMB has hemispheric variations that *defy* inflation theory's claims about homogeneity in fact, and Penrose demonstrated that it's 10 to the 100th power *less* likely that we'd live in a flat universe *with* inflation than one without it.

I've already explained it.

You haven't really "explained" anything. You seem to be using your own terms for words as far as I can tell.

OK so a dodge to my question. Thanks.

No. Did you even actually *ask* a question, because it seems like you've mostly been trying to "teach" me how Christians are supposed to think and what they're allowed to believe in and how they define the term "God". I lack belief that you even speak for any sort of majority on most of the stuff you've been discussing.

It's called cross-confirmation. Like how the gospels cross-confirm each other on every detail of, say, the resurrection narrative.

I can only assume you're entirely naive about astronomy. The only thing that seems to "confirm" space expansion is more beliefs which typically require not only "blind faith" in "space expansion" as an empirical cause of photon redshift, but usually require a whole pantheon of additional supernatural items in the math formulas.

It's relative. Science is on a pedestal compared to my views on religion.

So explain to me how "science" has a 'better' explanation of the universe? 95 percent of the universe in 'pop-science' is nothing but placeholder terms for human ignorance. The other five percent is typically modeled on math formula which Alfven called "pseudoscience" and which he made obsolete with his double layer paper.

I don't even have to ascribe anything to the universe or God which I don't find here on Earth.

You used the word "anything." Now you cry foul when I choose anything I want?

You seem to do that quite often I've noticed, particularly as it relates to the topic of God.

It's not ad hominem unless I say that your arguments are invalid as a result of some characteristic about you. Here's a list of important terms you don't seem to understand:

ad hominem
speculate
hypostatic union
life form
reproduce

You seem to confuse the concept of "understanding" with "agreeing with you personally". Your entire "attitude" thus far has been what I would call "evangelical atheism" where you try to define all the term, and shove a bigoted definition of God down my throat. I've seen that formula play out in these forums many times over the years. It never goes real well.

I hope this list will shrink and not grow, but I won't hold my breath.

Does every conversation have to be an ego battle with you, or can a pleasant exchange of ideas just occur from time to time?

Are you still going on about this?

Yes, because a self proclaimed "atheist" cannot tell me personally how I must define the term "God". Get it?

Because there are particles that can be inferred to exist via our mathematical models of galactic rotation or redshifting,

They once had mathematical models to describe how the sun and other planets orbit the Earth too. So what? There are also mathematical models which can explain those same observations without exotic forms of matter or energy. What makes LCDM mathematics so much better?

I'm to infer that a Jehovah could exist? Again, other gods existing would lead me to speculate that Jehovah might exist.

Living beings exist in all sorts of different shapes and sizes, and you still have not explained to me why you're sure that God cannot be a "living being", specifically one of cosmic scale proportions.

In case you didn't notice, I actually gave you a purely empirical definition of the term God to work with, and I'll be happy to compare that description of the universe to the 'scientific' definition of your choice. I assure you that I can scientifically defend my definition of the universe better than you can defend the current "popular scientific' description.

OK, please do show me this "empirical form of monotheism."

Panentheism - Wikipedia

For a guy that's so smug, you seem a little slow on the uptake, even with Tinker Grey's help.

Again, well played. I already tipped my hat. You can take your bow now.

Done.

 

[Michael]

Not if the universe it's proposed for is 'only' ~14 billion years old.

Wait a minute! You have *zero* empirical laboratory evidence that "space expansion" has any tangible effect on a single photon. Meanwhile there are *many* inelastic scattering processes in plasma that cause photons to lose momentum to the surrounding plasma medium. You have no empirical tangible evidence to support any particular "age" of the universe which can be associated with photon redshift in the lab.

You keep on with this. I'm not applying any standard to LCMD, I'm evaluating your proposal as given. Again, the rights or wrongs of other theories are irrelevant.

You're trying to impose *time limits* on my beliefs about a cosmic scale sense of awareness based on LCMD theory! You can't have your cake and eat it too! No cosmology theory is going to be 100 percent "perfect". They'll all have their pluses and minuses. You can't expect me to meet a *greater* standard of evidence than the standard that is used in 'science', nor can you try to impose time limits from another cosmology theory on the one I'm presenting!

I haven't said that. You propose functional similarity to a biological brain, and the characteristic of conscious awareness in a biological brain is widespread activation. Take it or leave it.

Even if I "take it', I've also handed you a potential mechanism of communication that travels faster than the speed of light. Whatever the 'cause" of spooky action over a distance, it's effect is not limited to C. That can be demonstrated here on Earth. You can't even do that much for "space expansion" or your presumed "age" of the universe claim.

I don't need to demonstrate anything. If you propose a model of consciousness that claims functional similarity to biological brains, it's an expected observation.

I observe cosmic scale structures that look and function like their Earthly living counterparts.

Nope; I'm describing the observed characteristics of conscious awareness in biological brains. You can choose not to accept them for your proposal, but that means not accepting functional similarity to a biological brain.

It doesn't matter whether you think it happened or not, it is not 'an exception' to the rules against accelerating to superluminal velocity.

For brevity sake, I'm going to simply skip the posturing commentary, and ignore the local/long distance processing debate for now and stick to the key issue. I handed you a *known and measured phenomenon* that is observed to exist in nature that is not limited to C and you simply handwaved at it:

That depends on your favoured QM interpretation; and in any case, it doesn't apply to classical information (such as could be used in a brain).

Wait a minute. Why do I have to be limited to only "classical" information processing as it relates to cosmic scale phenomenon? That's a pretty arbitrary and flippant requirement.

I suggest you investigate the difference between classical and quantum information as it relates to entanglement.

What do you thing that I'm going discover that actually helps your case?

I'm tiring of repeating myself on this subject - you have all the relevant information I can supply, and the internet has vastly more if you want to verify what I've said. You can accept it or not (I suspect not), but I'm moving on.

The only thing that you've really "said" to me is that I should do more reading about QM without even the benefit of a specific scientific citation that actually supports your claim. Creationists say stuff like that whereas most scientific conversations include specific citations to real scientific studies, and sometimes include the page number and paragraph too. I'll need something a little more specific to go on I'm afraid. I handed you a known and measured QM process that is at least 10,000 times faster than C, yet you keep insisting that a cosmic scale consciousness is absolutely and fundamentally limited to C. Why? What evidence can you present that nature itself and QM are bound by C?

Even if FTL communication is required, identified FTL mechanisms have been measured in QM. You don't even have *that* much evidence to support any "space expansion" claim based on real experimentation, yet you're trying to impose a time limit on cosmic consciousness based on that premise. Surely you can see the double standard in that?