The stumbling block for atheists.

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

I said 'if the universe is ~14 billion years old'.

You're trying to impose *time limits* on my beliefs about a cosmic scale sense of awareness based on LCMD theory!

I'm not imposing anything. I've been clear from the start about why I think your model doesn't work.

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:

I explained why it won't help your model.

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.

Because information processing can't be done via quantum entanglement.

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

You might learn why quantum entanglement won't help your model with information processing.

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?

That's not what I said. There are valid interpretations of QM where quantum information doesn't travel instantaneously between entangled particles, but in interpretations where it does, it only involves the transfer of quantum state information. It can't be used to send messages, i.e. signals, classical information; therefore it can't be used for information or signal processing such as in a computer or a brain. This is just basic quantum mechanics. All signals in known physics that can be used for information processing (such as the electromagnetic signals you appear to have abandoned) travel at 'c' or less.

Your tone is becoming petulant and accusatory. I think this is a good time to end the discussion.

 

[quatona]

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.

Maybe there are too many competing Gods out there.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Done.

And at the end of it all, the admission finally comes. Masks off and the actors take a bow. Michael the character, portrayed by a Poe.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

Perhaps it's the qualitative difference in the nature of the concepts (logical content, conservatism, likelihood, plausibility).

It's fine and logical to think the core of Jupiter may consist of liquid metallic hydrogen, not so much to suppose it consists of tormented souls.

 

[Michael]

Perhaps it's the qualitative difference in the nature of the concepts (logical content, conservatism, likelihood, plausibility).

It's fine and logical to think the core of Jupiter may consist of liquid metallic hydrogen, not so much to suppose it consists of tormented souls.

Say what? Nobody proposed such a thing in the fist place. Sheesh.

 

[Michael]

And at the end of it all, the admission finally comes. Masks off and the actors take a bow. Michael the character, portrayed by a Poe.

If you say so.

 

[Michael]

Maybe there are too many competing Gods out there.

That's right up there with insisting that there must be too many competing Barack Obama's because everybody has different opinions about him.

 

[Michael]

I said 'if the universe is ~14 billion years old'.

Only two theories require faster than C expansion, young Earth Creationism and LCDM. Both of them are also "creation' (of all matter") event theories. That alone should be your first clue that the age claim of LCDM has a few "empirical problems".

I have no compelling evidence to suggest that anyone can correctly estimate the age of the universe. It could be infinite and eternal for all I know. Hubble did not suggest only *one* possible interpretation of the photon/distance relationship, contrary to popular scientific mythology.

I'm not imposing anything. I've been clear from the start about why I think your model doesn't work.

You're effectively trying to "rule out" one specific cosmology theory simply because it *might* require the addition of one concept/element that hasn't been empirically demonstrated to your personal satisfaction, whereas nothing like that requirement is *ever* applied to any other cosmology theory in "science", and certainly not the most popular "scientific" explanation.

At least I can provide you with evidence that there is at least one FTL process/mechanism that's been documented to exist in nature and which enjoys mathematical modeling as well. There have even been proposed mechanisms to overcome our current limitations in terms of using that phenomenon to communicate faster than C:

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

The group measured the state of one photon and timed how long the entangled state took to show up in the other. They found that the slowest possible speed for quantum interactions is 10,000 times the speed of light — assuming your experiment is moving relatively slowly, at least relative to light beams.

[1506.07383] Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) Correlations and Superluminal Interactions
[0712.2530] Entanglement Telegraphed Communication Avoiding Light-speed Limitation by Hong Ou Mandel Effect

At least some quantum interactions occur at FTL speeds. Whether that mechanism can ever actually be "controlled" by humans is no grounds for you to insist that all information in the cosmos must travel at less than C. That's simply your own subjective opinion.

Your grounds/explanation for eliminating one specific cosmology model based on a lack of an empirical demonstration of a mechanism which is used in that model is not 'scientific". It's a subjective personal choice that you personally made which is *not* applied in "science" today. Nobody can demonstrate at least four very important claims/mechanisms/elements of the most popular cosmology theory in the lab, yet it's still a popular model, so your grounds for dismissing cosmology models based on such a premise isn't even a valid scientific argument.

If we're 'comparing' various cosmology models to one another, then the application of an Occam's razor argument is certainly going to favor any cosmology model with only one such limitation over any model with *four* such limitations.

I explained why it won't help your model.

The problem is that you didn't actually "explain" anything or cite a single article in fact, you simply "alleged". The fact that humans haven't yet figured out a viable way to use QE to transmit information faster than C yet, is not evidence that it cannot ever be done. There are even proposals for how it might be done.

Because information processing can't be done via quantum entanglement.

"Yet", doesn't imply "never". The fact that quantum interactions are measured to be FTL precludes you from making that assumption.

You might learn why quantum entanglement won't help your model with information processing.

I'm not sure what exactly you expect me to 'learn' about your crystal ball and your ability to see into the future.

That's not what I said. There are valid interpretations of QM where quantum information doesn't travel instantaneously between entangled particles, but in interpretations where it does, it only involves the transfer of quantum state information. It can't be used to send messages, i.e. signals, classical information; therefore it can't be used for information or signal processing such as in a computer or a brain. This is just basic quantum mechanics. All signals in known physics that can be used for information processing (such as the electromagnetic signals you appear to have abandoned) travel at 'c' or less.

Even if there is such a *human* limitation at the moment, you can't know that will always be the case for humans, nor that such a limitation would apply to a cosmological being that has potentially existed eternally. You're speculating as much as I am.

Your tone is becoming petulant and accusatory. I think this is a good time to end the discussion.

Well, considering the topic, and the nature of our disagreement, eventually we will probably have to agree to disagree.

 

[quatona]

That's right up there with insisting that there must be too many competing Barack Obama's because everybody has different opinions about him.

No, it isn´t - since nobody has ever claimed that Obama is undetectable.

 

[Michael]

No, it isn´t - since nobody has ever claimed that Obama is undetectable.

I never claimed that God was undetectable. We may all have different opinions about the nature of the universe, but it's all the same universe too.

 

[quatona]

I never claimed that God was undetectable.

This is your statement I responded to:

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.
​

It was about "concepts that may not even be detectable". [sic!] Which Barack Obama is not.
Now stop being silly.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Say what? Nobody proposed such a thing in the fist place. Sheesh.

My bad, I should have prefixed it with "For example..." to avoid confusion.

 

[Michael]

This is your statement I responded to:

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.
​

It was about "concepts that may not even be detectable". [sic!] Which Barack Obama is not.
Now stop being silly.

Ah. Sorry. It had been a long day.

There's a lot of competing hypothetical particles to choose from too.