Would astronomers be comfortable without ever confirming dark matter/energy in the lab?

[Michael]

I'm really not, but I'm not taking this topic any further. Explaining science to non scientists that don't want to understand is simply frustrating.

Well, from my perspective at least, you are comparing concepts that are typically *not* studied in controlled experimentation to a concept which typically is studied in the lab and *has* been studied in a lab to the tune of tens of billions of dollars. Apples and oranges.

It's not highly subjective. Evidence is objective...that's an essential aspect of it.

Actually even that concept is debatable as the ORCH-OR debate so aptly demonstrates. For that matter, exotic matter claims are also rather subjective. The fact our technology prohibits us from seeing all types of mass at millions/billions of light years of distance is not "objective" evidence that exotic forms of matter exist.

 

[Michael]

Scientists would say that we have learned that positing an ill-defined entity then looking for evidence that can be attributed to it is an open invitation to confirmation bias and is an extremely unreliable guide to reality.

And yet "dark matter" is highly ill defined. It could be WIMPS, axions, sterile neutrinos, MACHO's, plasma, dust, black holes, etc, etc. No single test can "falsify" it, or it would be dead and buried by now.

A proposed explanation that is untestable,

Pantheistic/Panentheistic definitions of God could in theory be 'testable', certainly as "testable" as half of the descriptions of "dark matter".

has no explanatory power,

Exotic matter has no special explanatory power over ordinary matter in any theory *outside* of one otherwise falsified cosmology model, so you're only demonstrating it's weaknesses.

no predictive power,

Almost no part of the LCDM model was "predicted" in the first place. It's been postdicted all along, particularly "dark energy" which now makes up 70 percent of the entire model. You're continuing to poke holes in the whole LCDM cosmology model.

fails to widen the scope of our understanding or unify our knowledge,

Not only doesn't exotic matter "unify" our knowledge of particle physics, it's in direct opposition to everything we've observed to date. Every SUSY based "prediction" went up in flames at LHC, so now proponents of exotic matter are looking for any sort of "gap" they might find in the standard particle physics model where they hope to stuff in a new model of dark matter.


Almost any concept would "widen the scope of our understanding", including the concept of an intelligent creator.

invokes an unobservable and inexplicable ontology,

Both dark energy and dark matter are "unobservable" and inexplicable based on everything we currently know about particle physics.

and raises unanswerable questions,

And yet that's exactly what dark energy and dark matter do.

is no explanation at all.

Another shot in the foot of both the dark energy and dark matter claims.

A scientific approach would be to see if the phenomena (i.e. certain human behaviours) can be explained by a testable hypothesis involving natural phenomena (i.e. without invoking novel and inexplicable ontologies) and whether there is evidence to support such a hypothesis. The answer to both those questions is affirmative. The God hypothesis is therefore redundant.

And yet ordinary matter can and has replaced the need for exotic matter in many if not every cosmological observation it's used to supposedly "explain". The few exceptions are based on a whole slew of other 'assumptions' that have never been verified in the lab.

The dark matter particle hypotheses are one set of a number of proposed explanations for certain unexplained phenomena.

And yet most if not all of them can be explained by ordinary matter and we've found at least 1/2 dozen *serious* flaws in the galaxy mass estimates used by astronomers over the last dozen or so years.

Based on extrapolations of existing knowledge, they are testable,

And failed every test to date.

parsimonious,

Not as parsimonious as ordinary mass alternatives in most every instance.

have explanatory and predictive power,

Dark matter has been postdicted since the days of Fritz Zwicky. It was never a "prediction" to begin with. It's "predictive" value in the lab to date is zero.

and cohere well with established knowledge.

And yet exotic matter is completely outside the scope of established knowledge in particle physics.

If confirmed, such a hypothesis will widen the scope of our understanding and unify areas of existing knowledge.

That same argument could be used for almost anything.

If a particle explanation cannot be found, or an alternative explanation is demonstrated to better fit the observations, we will gain knowledge from that. What we learn by narrowing the search space or falsifying the hypothesis is important.

And yet we've already spent tens of billions of dollars on the concept and it's failed every test to date, so the possibility of outright "falsification" is zero.

No faith or belief is necessary.

False. The first bit of "faith" required is "faith" in mainstream baryonic mass estimation techniques *in spite of* all the massive problems with those estimates that have been identified over the last dozen years or so.

An excellent demonstration of willful ignorance and/or lack of understanding of the philosophy of science. I say 'willful' because this has been explained to you so many times.

It simply demonstrates the highly *subjective* nature of so called 'evidence'. One man's "evidence" is another man's nonsense.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

And yet "dark matter" is highly ill defined. It could be WIMPS, axions, sterile neutrinos, MACHO's, plasma, dust, black holes, etc, etc. No single test can "falsify" it, or it would be dead and buried by now.

This is something else you've had explained repeatedly and seem to have forgotten or ignored.

Dark matter is the name given to the observations of what behaves like non-luminous gravitating mass. It is, as yet, defined only by those observations, which could be caused by some of the things you mention (most have been ruled out), which is precisely why a number of hypotheses have been proposed and are being tested.

Exotic matter has no special explanatory power over ordinary matter in any theory *outside* of one otherwise falsified cosmology model, so you're only demonstrating it's weaknesses.

I notice that at least five of the seven possibilities you suggest above are not 'exotic' matter; but consistency was never your strong point.

'Exotic' in this context simply means non-baryonic. Other non-baryonic particles are known to exist and have been detected (e.g. neutrinos), and their explanatory power in this context is that non-baryonic particles can more easily account for the observations.

... exotic matter is completely outside the scope of established knowledge in particle physics.

See above.

 

[Michael]

This is something else you've had explained repeatedly and seem to have forgotten or ignored.

I haven't forgotten or ignored it, I'm simply pointing out how *ill defined* it is!

Dark matter is the name given to the observations of what behaves like non-luminous gravitating mass.

And the term "God" is just a name that is given to explain a variety of human experiences on Earth which is typically used to describe an intelligent creator which humans tend to interact with.

It is, as yet, defined only by those observations, which could be caused by some of the things you mention (most have been ruled out), which is precisely why a number of hypotheses have been proposed and are being tested.

So how is that any better than or worse than, or any more ill defined than the term "God"?

I notice that at least five of the seven possibilities you suggest above are not 'exotic' matter; but consistency was never your strong point.

I was simply pointing out how ill defined it is, not suggesting they're all necessarily associated with exotic forms of matter.

'Exotic' in this context simply means non-baryonic. Other non-baryonic particles are known to exist and have been detected (e.g. neutrinos),

Um no. Neutrinos have know properties which allow them to interact with other forms of matter in predictable ways, and we detect them on a regular basis. They're also a part of the standard model of solar physics. Astronomers are typiclally talking about something that is *not* described by the standard model of particle physics when they use the term dark matter, and they have *no idea* how or if it interacts with standard particle physics particles. Every 'guess' they've made to date has failed to predict anything useful in the lab.

and their explanatory power in this context is that non-baryonic particles can more easily account for the observations.

The only "observations" which exotic matter more "easily" accounts for would be observations which require *additional* ad hoc assumptions which also defy laboratory support, like space expansion, inflation, creation (of matter) events, etc. That's hardly a plus.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I haven't forgotten or ignored it, I'm simply pointing out how *ill defined* it is!

It's ill-defined only in that it's awaiting definitive explanation; as I said it's currently a set of observations and a set of hypotheses proposed to explain them. The observations themselves are well-defined and the hypotheses are well-defined.

And the term "God" is just a name that is given to explain a variety of human experiences on Earth which is typically used to describe an intelligent creator which humans tend to interact with.
...
So how is that any better than or worse than, or any more ill defined than the term "God"?

Well for a start, the term 'God' has literally thousands of often very different descriptions, most of which are individually ill-defined themselves. Which God are you referring to?

If you're going to treat 'God' as a set of observations awaiting explanation by the testing of various God hypotheses, then you needn't bother - as I explained previously those observations already have satisfactory natural explanations.

If think you have a God hypothesis that is better than the natural explanations, I refer you to my previous analysis of the God hypothesis under common abductive criteria, and ask you again to explain in what respect it is a better hypothesis under those criteria than, for example, 'Magic'?

If you think I'm wrong in my previous analysis, present your well-defined God hypothesis so that we can assess it for testability, predictive and explanatory power, knowledge unification, parsimony, and coherence with existing knowledge - and compare it with 'Magic'.

I was simply pointing out how ill defined it is, not suggesting they're all necessarily associated with exotic forms of matter.

OK; I explained above how meaningless that is.

Um no. Neutrinos have know properties which allow them to interact with other forms of matter in predictable ways, and we detect them on a regular basis. They're also a part of the standard model of solar physics. Astronomers are typiclally talking about something that is *not* described by the standard model of particle physics when they use the term dark matter, and they have *no idea* how or if it interacts with standard particle physics particles.

Pauli hypothesised the existence of an unknown particle, the neutrino before the Standard Model existed, to explain the results of beta decay; it wasn't the only hypothesis for those observations. How is that significantly different from hypothesising as yet unknown particles to explain the 'dark matter' observations, for which there are also other hypotheses?

The Standard Model is apparently self-consistent, but it doesn't explain a number of particle observations and various other phenomena. As such it is an incomplete model and a number of extensions and enhancements have been suggested (including one of the drivers for the LHC, supersymmetric partner particles). It has already been modified to allow for neutrino mass. So it should be no surprise that observations potentially consistent with a new particle are not dismissed simply because they don't appear in the Standard Model as it stands.

The only "observations" which exotic matter more "easily" accounts for would be observations which require *additional* ad hoc assumptions which also defy laboratory support, like space expansion, inflation, creation (of matter) events, etc. That's hardly a plus.

Lol! if you throw out any cosmology that can't be done 'in the lab' (how is that defined?), you'll lose a lot more than dark matter.

The issue is that baryonic matter has, in general, been ruled out as an explanation. It doesn't fit the data.

 

[Michael]

It's ill-defined only in that it's awaiting definitive explanation; .....

Let's do a little direct comparison to the topic of God, shall we?

One could make the same argument about the topic of God. The term "God" is not "particularly" well defined and it too is awaiting a more definitive explanation. Like DM variations between WIMPS, SIMPS, axions, sterile neutrinos, etc, the term God often has somewhat *different* meanings depending on the specific definition of the term. They can't all be correct, but at least one of them could be correct. Like DM, all of the current definitions might be incorrect in fact, yet that doesn't necessarily rule out the possibility of the basic idea being correct.

....as I said it's currently a set of observations and a set of hypotheses proposed to explain them.

Again, this compares well with the topic of God which is also based on various observations related to the effect of said entity upon human beings. The effects are observed, but the source of said effects is not directly observed.

The observations themselves are well-defined and the hypotheses are well-defined.

Meh. WIMP theories seem to be sliding up and down the energy scale ladder as we speak. Each new "test" seems to rule out some ideas and some of the better defined mathematical models, but other options, and other energy scales remain untested, and may be untested forever.

Well for a start, the term 'God' has literally thousands of often very different descriptions, most of which are individually ill-defined themselves. Which God are you referring to?

Why would it matter since the number of potential dark matter definitions is virtually infinite. Some of them might be testable (and were tested), but some of them might never become testable at all, or at least not in my lifetime. Axions are quite different from sterile neutrinos, which are both different from WIMPS and SIMPS.

The possibilities tend to be contradictory and equally difficult to pin down in terms of actual energy states, interactions with other particles, decay emissions, etc.

If you're going to treat 'God' as a set of observations awaiting explanation by the testing of various God hypotheses, then you needn't bother - as I explained previously those observations already have satisfactory natural explanations.

Well, I'd of course argue that observations of "missing mass" also have very satisfactory natural explanations. The number of demonstrated errors in previous baryonic mass estimates is staggering in fact. It's down right embarrassing IMO.

If think you have a God hypothesis that is better than the natural explanations, I refer you to my previous analysis of the God hypothesis under common abductive criteria, and ask you again to explain in what respect it is a better hypothesis under those criteria than, for example, 'Magic'?

Well, unlike the "space expansion" concept of LCDM fame, a Pantheistic/Panentheistic definition of God need not necessarily violate any conservation of energy laws, and it could easily be compatible with the standard model of particle physics for that matter. It doesn't necessarily require any invisible forms of matter or energy either.

If you think I'm wrong in my previous analysis, present your well-defined God hypothesis so that we can assess it for testability, predictive and explanatory power, knowledge unification, parsimony, and coherence with existing knowledge - and compare it with 'Magic'.

You've never really demonstrated that DM has any unique "predictive" ability to begin with, nor that it has a lot of explanatory value either, at least not in and of itself. There's no evidence that we have the ability to correctly estimate the mass of distant galaxies in all cases to begin with, so ordinary matter would work in most cases to "fill in the gaps" between our current mass estimates and lensing/rotation data. Only be evoking *additional* ad hoc claims can it actually be used to "postdict" anything particularly interesting.

Based on a pantheistic definition of God, we might even "predict" that the mass layout and current flow patters of the universe itself are similar to the mass layout and current flow patterns of living organisms found on Earth. We might even predict that the primary interaction mechanism between 'God' and humans is electromagnetic (and/or gravitational) in nature.

OK; I explained above how meaningless that is.

Your "explanation" wasn't particularly compelling or convincing from my perspective.

Pauli hypothesised the existence of an unknown particle, the neutrino before the Standard Model existed, to explain the results of beta decay; it wasn't the only hypothesis for those observations. How is that significantly different from hypothesising as yet unknown particles to explain the 'dark matter' observations, for which there are also other hypotheses?

Well, for starters the *laws* of physics as we understood them, specifically the conservation of energy laws, required the existence of neutrinos to explain the missing energy of some types of beta decay. No laws of physics require or insist that exotic forms of matter most likely exist. That's a huge difference right there. We also had *direct laboratory experimental support* for the existence of "missing mass" in the case of beta decay, whereas exotic matter models are based purely on uncontrolled observations of distant objects combined with the "assumption" that our ordinary mass estimates are correct. That's different too. particularly since so many *recent* (last decade or two) observations have repeatedly shown that our mass estimates of distant galaxies and galaxy clusters were seriously flawed in many different ways. We've even found more ordinary mass inside of our own galaxy since 2012 than all the mass we knew about prior to 2012. That's *very* different. It would be like finding out that our original measurements of beta decay processes were flawed, thus undermining the need for neutrinos in the first place.

The Standard Model is apparently self-consistent, but it doesn't explain a number of particle observations and various other phenomena. As such it is an incomplete model and a number of extensions and enhancements have been suggested (including one of the drivers for the LHC, supersymmetric partner particles). It has already been modified to allow for neutrino mass. So it should be no surprise that observations potentially consistent with a new particle are not dismissed simply because they don't appear in the Standard Model as it stands.

And yet the standard model has been tested to incredible orders of precision and has passed all such tests with flying colors. Meanwhile SUSY sparticles haven't been observed and the mathematical models have been completely useless in terms of making accurate predictions in the lab.

Lol! if you throw out any cosmology that can't be done 'in the lab' (how is that defined?), you'll lose a lot more than dark matter.

Except for issues related to scaling, there's really no need to abandon what can and has been learned in the lab to date.

The issue is that baryonic matter has, in general, been ruled out as an explanation. It doesn't fit the data.

With the exception of CMB power spectrum claims, and nucleosynthesis claims, ordinary matter cannot and has not been ruled out in any cosmological setting. In fact more ordinary matter in space is being found and identified all of the time. Those two specific exceptions however require the introduction of yet *more* ad hoc assumptions about the causes of redshift, and additional forms of "dark energy" to make them work properly, so they are not even 'stand alone' predictions of exotic matter models in and of themselves.

It's a bit like making additional "predictions" about Zeus by introducing Athena, Aries and Apollo into the mix. They're hardly a stand alone predictions of the basic DM concept.

In terms of "statements of faith", I really don't see how 'holding faith'/'holding belief' in the existence of God is any empirically (in the lab) different from holding belief in exotic forms of matter and/or energy. It's evidently just more "palatable" to atheists to hold faith in exotic forms of matter and energy, even if that means accepting the fact that we can't identify 95 percent of our physical surroundings. From my perspective, it seems rather irrational to hold the belief that we only understand 5 percent of our physical universe but we can safely rule out the possibility of an intelligent creator. That doesn't even make any sense IMO.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Let's do a little direct comparison to the topic of God, shall we?

One could make the same argument about the topic of God. The term "God" is not "particularly" well defined and it too is awaiting a more definitive explanation. Like DM variations between WIMPS, SIMPS, axions, sterile neutrinos, etc, the term God often has somewhat *different* meanings depending on the specific definition of the term. They can't all be correct, but at least one of them could be correct. Like DM, all of the current definitions might be incorrect in fact, yet that doesn't necessarily rule out the possibility of the basic idea being correct.

Sure; I'm just waiting to see a well-defined God hypothesis.

... the number of potential dark matter definitions is virtually infinite.

The possibilities tend to be contradictory and equally difficult to pin down in terms of actual energy states, interactions with other particles, decay emissions, etc.

The hypotheses are well-defined, e.g. a particle with specified properties within specified bounds.

Well, I'd of course argue that observations of "missing mass" also have very satisfactory natural explanations.

Anything goes in fringe science and pseudoscience.

Well, unlike the "space expansion" concept of LCDM fame, a Pantheistic/Panentheistic definition of God need not necessarily violate any conservation of energy laws, and it could easily be compatible with the standard model of particle physics for that matter. It doesn't necessarily require any invisible forms of matter or energy either.

You've had conservation of energy explained to you several times, ignorance is no excuse; you're trolling.

But you seem confident that your preferred definition of God is robust, so post it up here and let's assess it.

You've never really demonstrated that DM has any unique "predictive" ability to begin with, nor that it has a lot of explanatory value either, at least not in and of itself.

The DM hypotheses and full details are all in the public domain, ready for comparison, just as soon as we see your full God hypothesis.

I asked you to present your well-defined God hypothesis so that we can assess it for testability, predictive and explanatory power, knowledge unification, parsimony, and coherence with existing knowledge - and see how it compares to 'Magic' under those criteria.

Based on a pantheistic definition of God, we might even "predict" that the mass layout and current flow patters of the universe itself are similar to the mass layout and current flow patterns of living organisms found on Earth. We might even predict that the primary interaction mechanism between 'God' and humans is electromagnetic (and/or gravitational) in nature.

You can predict what you like, but I already explained to you more than once how those predictions simply can't work.

But without a definition we can't say whether those predictions follow from it. Post up your God definition, we can assess whether it really does make those predictions, and whether it has any value as a hypothesis for people's God beliefs.

You were the one that introduced the idea of a comparison with God as a hypothesis, so let's do it.

Your "explanation" wasn't particularly compelling or convincing from my perspective.

It was sufficient for you to abandon your idea of electromagnetic communication across the cosmic web and attempt to replace it with quantum woo. You can refresh your memory in 'The Stumbling Block For Atheists' thread, a rerun of the original; for example, page #88 onwards, where variant and I poke holes in your fantasy (the 'speed of awareness'? really?).

Well, for starters the *laws* of physics as we understood them, specifically the conservation of energy laws, required the existence of neutrinos to explain the missing energy of some types of beta decay. No laws of physics require or insist that exotic forms of matter most likely exist. That's a huge difference right there.

Like I said, neutrinos are exotic matter in this context.

We also had *direct laboratory experimental support* for the existence of "missing mass" in the case of beta decay, whereas exotic matter models are based purely on uncontrolled observations of distant objects combined with the "assumption" that our ordinary mass estimates are correct.

Nope; neutrinos were thought to be massless until relatively recently; it wasn't missing mass in beta decay, it was the need for conservation of energy and momentum that prompted Pauli's speculation.

...<evasive handwaving>...

You've spent long enough avoiding following up on your God-as-hypothesis idea; let's see your well-defined God hypothesis so we can assess it against the common abductive criteria, and see whether it can outrank 'Magic'.

 

[Michael]

Sure; I'm just waiting to see a well-defined God hypothesis.

Pantheism - Wikipedia
Panentheism - Wikipedia

"God" as defined in pantheism or panentheism is certainly more physically defined than the LCDM cosmology model. Nothing about God is necessarily "invisible" save for perhaps God's "consciousness".

The hypotheses are well-defined, e.g. a particle with specified properties within specified bounds.

Um, bounds? Specifically what bounds? Now that all the "popular" SUSY models bit the dust at LHC, and popular WIMPS space has been eliminated in various experiments, the "gap surfing" is already in overdrive.

Anything goes in fringe science and pseudoscience.

Wow, talk about projection. It's even possible to physically define "God" without resorting to invisible and unseen (in the lab) particles and energies with ad hoc properties galore.

You've had conservation of energy explained to you several times, ignorance is no excuse; you're trolling.

Your "explanation" for violating conservation of energy laws sounds more like an "excuse", or at minimum an obvious case of special pleading.

But you seem confident that your preferred definition of God is robust, so post it up here and let's assess it.

Any and all definitions of God *as* the physical universe are more robust than a cosmology model that based on 95 percent "invisible/dark" stuff.

The DM hypotheses and full details are all in the public domain, ready for comparison, just as soon as we see your full God hypothesis.

Full details? No. Astronomers can't even define the specific energy state of DM. It's like a series of "vague details" that vary from one model to the next model.

I asked you to present your well-defined God hypothesis so that we can assess it for testability, predictive and explanatory power, knowledge unification, parsimony, and coherence with existing knowledge - and see how it compares to 'Magic' under those criteria.

Oh please. The term "magic" more closely aligns with all that invisible mass/energy in LCDM than it applies to Pantheism.

You can predict what you like, but I already explained to you more than once how those predictions simply can't work.

Your explanation amounts to a *assumption* that macroscopic intelligence and/or consciousness has to be centrally located in a galaxy cluster, far, far away. I subscribe to no such beliefs since our own sun has more visible circuits in it's atmosphere than a typical human being has in their entire brain. That's just the circuits I can see on the outside too.

It was sufficient for you to abandon your idea of electromagnetic communication across the cosmic web and attempt to replace it with quantum woo.

Um, no, quantum entanglement is a known and demonstrated fact and it's not limited to the speed of light. As physically limited beings we might never be able to transmit information faster than light, but the universe itself exists on a much larger scale. I have no idea if our physical limitations of communication apply in such a case.

Even the LCDM cosmology model supposedly allows for information (and space) to expand/travel faster than C, so your argument is not only based on "assumptions" galore, it's also being violated by the LCDM cosmology model! The transmission of information (light from distant galaxies) isn't even limited to C in the LCDM cosmology model!

You can refresh your memory in 'The Stumbling Block For Atheists' thread, a rerun of the original; for example, page #88 onwards, where variant and I poke holes in your fantasy (the 'speed of awareness'? really?).

I'll skim through that thread as I get time today.

Like I said, neutrinos are exotic matter in this context.

No they aren't. They're part of the standard model of particle physics.

Nope; neutrinos were thought to be massless until relatively recently; it wasn't missing mass in beta decay, it was the need for conservation of energy and momentum that prompted Pauli's speculation.

Experiments suggested missing "energy" and mass and energy are equivalent in GR. I suppose you could argue them to be "resting massless" like photons, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

You've spent long enough avoiding following up on your God-as-hypothesis idea; let's see your well-defined God hypothesis so we can assess it against the common abductive criteria, and see whether it can outrank 'Magic'.

I haven't "avoided" a well defined "God hypothesis", in fact your own link shows that I've discussed it for *years*. You may not like it of course, but it's certainly more "physically defined" than the LCDM cosmology model.

 

[Michael]

FYI, there's more trouble for the LCDM model of cosmology:

Weird galaxies suggest our best understanding of the cosmos is wrong

I'm not a paid subscriber to New Scientists so I couldn't read the whole article, but I assume that it relates to this paper:

The ultra-diffuse dwarf galaxies NGC 1052-DF2 and 1052-DF4 are in...

Adopting the former distance for DF2 and assuming that NGC 1052-DF4 is at 20.0Mpc, the existence of both is in tension at≥4.8σ with the ΛCDM model. If both galaxies are at20.0Mpc the ΛCDM cosmology has to be rejected by≥5.8σ.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Pantheism - Wikipedia
Panentheism - Wikipedia

Good. So which of the variety of definitions of Pantheism are you espousing?

There are a variety of definitions of pantheism.​

Or are you nailing your flag to the mast of Panentheism, in which case, which of the multitude of forms are you proposing for your hypothesis?

So far, you've presented two whole classes of ill-defined ideas as your 'well-defined hypothesis'. Not so much falling at the first hurdle, but failing to leave the start line.

Your "explanation" for violating conservation of energy laws sounds more like an "excuse", or at minimum an obvious case of special pleading.

Noether's Theorem applied in Einstein's General Relativity is the basis for the conservation of energy being a local phenomenon, as has been explained more than once. If you reject these foundations of modern physics, there's little point continuing.

Your explanation amounts to a *assumption* that macroscopic intelligence and/or consciousness has to be centrally located in a galaxy cluster, far, far away.

Nothing of the sort. You claimed, apparently on the basis of the similarity between the shapes of a few isolated neurons and that of the cosmic web, that the universe could be structurally and functionally like a biological brain, using electromagnetism for signal transmission.

You were apparently unaware that superficial similarity of shape does not imply deep similarity of function; that even if the cosmic web could function like a few isolated neurons, a brain contains around 80 billion neurons tightly packed together; that electromagnetic communication would not have had time to traverse the multiple billion light-year structures involved sufficiently to do any useful information processing since the web formed (considerably less than the ~13.8 billion year age of the universe); that such a cosmic brain could not be aware of, or communicate with, creatures inside it that would be smaller than subatomic particles at the scale of a biological brain; that electromagnetic radiation strong enough to affect human brains would easily be detected (think transcranial stimulation); but couldn't be targetted precisely enough to create beliefs, even if that was possible (it isn't); that the cosmic web model you based your idea on was reliant on dark matter (ironic!); etc., etc. The whole thing was a painful Dunning-Kruger exercise.

After getting physics & biology 101, you jumped off the deep end and started talking of circuits in the sun - which at cosmic web neural scales would be like an atom in a biological brain - dropped electromagnetic signalling in favour of quantum woo, and started handwaving about the 'speed of awareness'. IOW, you abandoned the original basis of your idea wholesale, moving from speculative pseudoscience to pure fantasy. When this was pointed out you became petulant and insulting.

Um, no, quantum entanglement is a known and demonstrated fact and it's not limited to the speed of light. As physically limited beings we might never be able to transmit information faster than light, but the universe itself exists on a much larger scale. I have no idea if our physical limitations of communication apply in such a case.

You also appear to have forgotten what I told you then (see the 'no communication theorem').

I haven't "avoided" a well defined "God hypothesis", in fact your own link shows that I've discussed it for *years*.

If you're referring to your 'cosmic brain' idea, it was comprehensively dismantled as 'not even wrong' (see above). You don't seriously mean to say the 'cosmic brain' was it?

You have a habit, when pressed to support or defend a claim you've made, of switching tack and criticising someone else's theory or idea. I don't know whether this is a deliberate distraction tactic or you really think that if you can find an error in another idea it makes yours more likely to be correct, but I've pointed it out many times in the past (as have others), yet you seem unable to stop yourself.

 

[Michael]

Good. So which of the variety of definitions of Pantheism are you espousing?

There are a variety of definitions of pantheism.​

Or are you nailing your flag to the mast of Panentheism, in which case, which of the multitude of forms are you proposing for your hypothesis?

The simplest one. The concept of God *being* the physical universe works for me, though I suspect the visible part is simply the tip of the iceberg. I do however see plenty of evidence that God 'interacts' with humans, so I'd start with a simplified version of panentheism rather than pantheism.

So far, you've presented two whole classes of ill-defined ideas as your 'well-defined hypothesis'.

Both of them are "better" physically defined than the currently popular cosmology model, and neither of them *necessitates* ad hoc forms of matter or energy. Both of them are compatible with the standard model of particle physics.

Not so much falling at the first hurdle, but failing to leave the start line.

Oh please. How many various version of inflation are their to chose from these days? Dark matter? Where does dark energy come from and how does it retain constant density over multiple exponential increase in volume? Where's all the antimatter from the supposed 'bang'? Compared to the unanswered/unanswerable questions of the LCDM model, you have nothing to complain about.

Noether's Theorem applied in Einstein's General Relativity is the basis for the conservation of energy being a local phenomenon, as has been explained more than once. If you reject these foundations of modern physics, there's little point continuing.

That's a tad "handwavy". What *exactly* is the corresponding conservation law of "space expansion", or "dark energy"? How can you claim energy is conserved when "dark energy" retains a constant density over multiple exponential increases is volume? What offsets that energy?

Nothing of the sort. You claimed, apparently on the basis of the similarity between the shapes of a few isolated neurons and that of the cosmic web, that the universe could be structurally and functionally like a biological brain, using electromagnetism for signal transmission.

Well, EM fields would be *one* of the signal transmission types, photons being another, gravity being another.

You were apparently unaware that superficial similarity of shape does not imply deep similarity of function;

Talk about "spin". Sheesh.

that even if the cosmic web could function like a few isolated neurons, a brain contains around 80 billion neurons tightly packed together; that electromagnetic communication would not have had time to traverse the multiple billion light-year structures involved sufficiently to do any useful information processing since the web formed (considerably less than the ~13.8 billion year age of the universe);

Um, you're "assuming" that redshift is related to "space expansion" and that the universe has a finite age. I make no such assumptions. You're also glossing over the fact that information propagation speeds aren't limited to C in the LCDM model while *insisting* they have to apply to any other cosmology model. That is kind of hypocritical if you ask me.

that such a cosmic brain could not be aware of, or communicate with, creatures inside it that would be smaller than subatomic particles at the scale of a biological brain;

How did you arrive at that conclusion exactly? Let me guess: you're assuming that the universe has to have a *centralized* sense of awareness?

that electromagnetic radiation strong enough to affect human brains would easily be detected (think transcranial stimulation);

Actually I suggested that it might be possible to measure them in active experiments in fact.

but couldn't be targetted precisely enough to create beliefs, even if that was possible (it isn't);

Ok, I'll bite. Why couldn't it be "targeted enough"? You're talking about a consciousness that is omnipresent in every atom of the universe.

that the cosmic web model you based your idea on was reliant on dark matter (ironic!); etc., etc.

I'm sure that those "dark matter" computer models predict what we already observe, namely threads of current carrying plasma weaving a circuitry pattern through the universe.

The whole thing was a painful Dunning-Kruger exercise.

Ah, the obligatory personal insults from an individual who can't even name so much as a single source of the most abundant feature (DE) of the LCDM cosmology model, let alone explain how it retains constant density over multiple exponential increases and volume and somehow magically avoids coming into conflict with the conservation of energy laws.

After getting physics & biology 101, you jumped off the deep end and started talking of circuits in the sun - which at cosmic web neural scales would be like an atom in a biological brain -

Ya, an "atom" with more complex circuity than an entire human being.

dropped electromagnetic signalling in favour of quantum woo,

You mean noting that quantum entanglement isn't limited to C? I didn't "drop" anything, nor did I ever limit all communication in space to electrical current.

and started handwaving about the 'speed of awareness'.

I simply note that I have no idea what the speed of "awareness" might be.

IOW, you abandoned the original basis of your idea wholesale, moving from speculative pseudoscience to pure fantasy.

No I didn't. I simply pointed out the issues that were relevant to the discussion.

When this was pointed out you became petulant and insulting.

Sounds like more political spin to me.

You also appear to have forgotten what I told you then (see the 'no communication theorem').

Who said anything about *multiple* observers?

If you're referring to your 'cosmic brain' idea, it was comprehensively dismantled as 'not even wrong' (see above). You don't seriously mean to say the 'cosmic brain' was it?

I love how you simply give the LCDM model a "free pass" while it violates conservation of energy laws and evoking at *least* four ad hoc, seemingly "magical" elements, while complaining about some 'unexplained' aspects of another cosmology model. That's rich.

You have a habit, when pressed to support or defend a claim you've made, of switching tack and criticising someone else's theory or idea. I don't know whether this is a deliberate distraction tactic or you really think that if you can find an error in another idea it makes yours more likely to be correct, but I've pointed it out many times in the past (as have others), yet you seem unable to stop yourself.

The only purpose in *comparing* cosmology concepts is to demonstrate that one or two "unexplained" aspects of any cosmology model has *never* been used as scientific grounds for dismissing that cosmology model. You seem to turn a blind eye to all the unanswered aspects of the LCMD cosmology model while *insisting* that I must personally explain and account for every nuance of Pantheism/Panetheism at a cosmic scale. That's simply not reasonable or necessary.

If it's fine for LCDM proponents to leave dozens of questions unresolved, then it's certainly reasonable to expect that any other cosmology model, including Pantheism/Panetheism should be afforded the same luxury. The fact you're using two entirely different standards of evidence is the problem, which is why I keep making the comparison in the first place.

 

[sjastro]

Your "explanation" for violating conservation of energy laws sounds more like an "excuse", or at minimum an obvious case of special pleading.

It has been explained to you on numerous occasions why the conservation of energy doesn’t apply.
Given the mathematical details were clearly beyond your capacity for comprehension it was simplified for you by giving a historical perspective where Einstein and Hilbert understood the conservation of energy was not an inviolate property in GR a good ten years before an expanding cosmological model was even conceived.

By ignoring the mathematical details as if they don't exist, it's quite obvious who is engaging in special pleading.

special pleading
noun

1. argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavourable to their point of view.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The simplest one. The concept of God *being* the physical universe works for me, though I suspect the visible part is simply the tip of the iceberg. I do however see plenty of evidence that God 'interacts' with humans, so I'd start with a simplified version of panentheism rather than pantheism.

OK, so God is just another name for the physical universe. In that case, the explanation for God beliefs (ironically mostly about a different sort of God) are exactly the same as the natural ones, and God interacts with humans because humans are part of the universe and naturally interact with it.

If that is really the case you're making, your hypothesis appears to be identical to the natural explanation; so the label of 'God' is redundant, both because it adds nothing to our description of the universe, and because it's likely to cause confusion with supernatural gods.

Well, EM fields would be *one* of the signal transmission types, photons being another, gravity being another.

Photons and the EM field? Seriously?
Gravity waves are limited to the speed of light and are orders of magnitude harder to detect over cosmological distances than light; not even useful for intragalactic signalling.

How did you arrive at that conclusion exactly? Let me guess: you're assuming that the universe has to have a *centralized* sense of awareness?

Huh? No, if it's functionally similar to a biological brain (your suggestion), not centralized at all. Which only makes the signal propagation time more problematic.

Why couldn't it be "targeted enough"? You're talking about a consciousness that is omnipresent in every atom of the universe.

No, I'm not. Your original proposal was a cosmic brain which couldn't possibly work as described. Your most recent proposal is just the physical universe, nothing about panpsychism - and even panpsychists don't claim that intrinsic consciousness can generate EM fields strong enough to influence neural connectivity (and conservation of energy definitely applies here). It's fantasy woo of the highest order.

You mean noting that quantum entanglement isn't limited to C? I didn't "drop" anything, nor did I ever limit all communication in space to electrical current.

Quantum entanglement doesn't help. To entangle the particles they must interact at a single event in spacetime. Then they must be transmitted at light speed or slower to the desired separation, at which point measuring a relevant property on one particle will give a random value that will be mirrored by the other particle. Can you see why this is not useful for even sub-light speed communication?

I simply note that I have no idea what the speed of "awareness" might be.

What you meant by awareness having a speed, as if it was a mobile thing in itself, isn't clear to me.

But nevermind; once more it seems that this is going nowhere.

 

[Michael]

OK, so God is just another name for the physical universe. In that case, the explanation for God beliefs (ironically mostly about a different sort of God) are exactly the same as the natural ones, and God interacts with humans because humans are part of the universe and naturally interact with it.

Works for me.

If that is really the case you're making, your hypothesis appears to be identical to the natural explanation; so the label of 'God' is redundant, both because it adds nothing to our description of the universe, and because it's likely to cause confusion with supernatural gods.

That's not true, it adds "awareness" to nature itself. It also explains *what* (physically) God is, and how God interacts with humans.

Photons and the EM field? Seriously?

Ok, admittedly it's poor wording, but charged particle movement isn't required, in fact *particle* movement isn't even technically required in quantum zeno effect experiments.

Scientists Have Finally Achieved Direct Counterfactual Quantum Communication

You can't rule out faster than light transmission of information in QM if even particle transmission is *optional*. Developments in the field also rule *out* your "no communication theorem" by the way.

https://phys.org/news/2019-08-anonymous-protocol-quantum-networks.html

Gravity waves are limited to the speed of light and are orders of magnitude harder to detect over cosmological distances than light; not even useful for intragalactic signalling.

It'll still be interesting to see if they too experience entanglement properties.

Huh? No, if it's functionally similar to a biological brain (your suggestion), not centralized at all. Which only makes the signal propagation time more problematic.

You're again *assuming* that it's "problematic".

No, I'm not. Your original proposal was a cosmic brain which couldn't possibly work as described. Your most recent proposal is just the physical universe, nothing about panpsychism - and even panpsychists don't claim that intrinsic consciousness can generate EM fields strong enough to influence neural connectivity (and conservation of energy definitely applies here). It's fantasy woo of the highest order.

Oh please, compared to the combo of "inflation+space expansion+exotic matter+exotic energy", LCDM proponents are the last folks on Earth who should be talking about "fantasy woo".

Whatever generates consciousness and awareness, it certainly involves electrical current, particles in the standard particle physics model, and quantum effects of some sort. Nothing I've proposed is outside of experimental physics, whereas the "space expansion" concept itself cannot *ever* be demonstrated in a lab.

Quantum entanglement doesn't help. To entangle the particles they must interact at a single event in spacetime. Then they must be transmitted at light speed or slower to the desired separation, at which point measuring a relevant property on one particle will give a random value that will be mirrored by the other particle. Can you see why this is not useful for even sub-light speed communication?

I can see why it might not allow humans to send information faster than C, but I have no idea how or if that limitation applies to an all pervasive consciousness.

What you meant by awareness having a speed, as if it was a mobile thing in itself, isn't clear to me.

I mean *something* seems to travel between two entangled particles at faster than light speeds, so I can't rule out the possibility that awareness itself occurs at faster than light speeds.

But nevermind; once more it seems that this is going nowhere.

My point is that if you're "just fine" with the possibility that one's 'faith' in exotic forms of matter might never be demonstrated in your lifetime, it's really not any different than a theist having "faith" in God without the need to see God show up in a lab experiment. The *effect* is evidently enough to validate that kind of faith.

 

[Michael]

It has been explained to you on numerous occasions why the conservation of energy doesn’t apply.

Imagine someone telling you (repeatedly) that conservation of energy simply doesn't apply to their 'free energy" machine. That's about the effect your "explanation" has on me personally.

By ignoring the mathematical details as if they don't exist, it's quite obvious who is engaging in special pleading.

Your "mathematical details" are ultimately irrelevant from my perspective, and just more "special pleading". GR theory doesn't *require* a curved universe vs. a flat universe, nor does it *require* "space" expansion or dark energy. These are simply optional ways that you're attempting to (mis)use the math related to GR to attempt to justify your claims that conservation of energy "should" not apply to some cosmology model, and to attempt to justify an obvious case of special pleading. I simply don't believe it anymore than I would believe a guy who tried to use GR related mathematics to attempt justify his "free energy"/"over-unity" machine, and claiming that it runs on "space expansion" and "dark energy".

 

[sjastro]

Imagine someone telling you (repeatedly) that conservation of energy simply doesn't apply to their 'free energy" machine. That's about the effect your "explanation" has on me personally.



Your "mathematical details" are ultimately irrelevant from my perspective, and just more "special pleading". GR theory doesn't *require* a curved universe vs. a flat universe, nor does it *require* "space" expansion or dark energy. These are simply optional ways that you're attempting to (mis)use the math related to GR to attempt to justify your claims that conservation of energy "should" not apply to some cosmology model, and to attempt to justify an obvious case of special pleading. I simply don't believe it anymore than I would believe a guy who tried to use GR related mathematics to attempt justify his "free energy"/"over-unity" machine, and claiming that it runs on "space expansion" and "dark energy".

Of course the "mathematical details" are irrelevant from your perspective because you are out of your depth and the mathematics is way beyond your level of comprehension.
It is totally ludicrous to critique a subject which you have no understanding of.
It's like doing a review of the works of William Shakespeare despite not being able to read or write.

Since the maths is beyond you here is a historical and simplified account of why energy is not necessarily conserved in GR.
Note the issues of energy conservation where known in 1915 years before the BB theory.
The female mathematician who changed the course of physics—but couldn’t get a job

 

[Michael]

Of course the "mathematical details" are irrelevant from your perspective because you are out of your depth and the mathematics is way beyond your level of comprehension.

The problem for you is that since I am a programmer, and math was my minor, I actually understand where the core assumptions of GR end, and where the LCDM "speculation" (aka mathematical myth-making) begins.

GR theory doesn't *require* half of the ridiculous nonsense that is required by the LCDM cosmology model, and we both know it.

Sticking magic into a GR formula doesn't validate the violation of the conservation of energy laws, or validate the concept of magic either.

You can try to belittle me personally and berate me all you like but it's not helping your case one bit. It just makes you look desperate.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That's not true, it adds "awareness" to nature itself. It also explains *what* (physically) God is, and how God interacts with humans.

The only awareness we have evidence for is in biological creatures on Earth. The rest, as I already explained, doesn't require calling the universe 'God'.

Ok, admittedly it's poor wording, but charged particle movement isn't required, in fact *particle* movement isn't even technically required in quantum zeno effect experiments.

Scientists Have Finally Achieved Direct Counterfactual Quantum Communication

So what? DCQC is just a complicated way of sending information using the phase of the wave-like nature of light rather than the explicit particle. It isn't FTL, it doesn't help the signal propagation problem of cosmic-scale information processing.

You can't rule out faster than light transmission of information in QM if even particle transmission is *optional*. Developments in the field also rule *out* your "no communication theorem" by the way.

https://phys.org/news/2019-08-anonymous-protocol-quantum-networks.html

FTL transmission of classical information is ruled out in quantum field theory. Light can't travel faster than... light If you have a better theory, the Nobel Prize awaits.

Citation for 'no communication theorem' disproof necessary; the link you posted is about anonymous communication protocols, something completely different. So far, none of your citations support the claim you cite them for.

You're again *assuming* that it's "problematic".

I'm assuming only that the core tenets of the laws of physics (SR, GR, & QFT) hold. You can invent fantasy physics, but if you want to apply it in the real world, you have to justify it by demonstrating how existing physics is wrong; the 'burden of proof' is yours. But as you've repeatedly demonstrated a deep lack of understanding of existing physics, that's clearly not going to happen.

I can see why it might not allow humans to send information faster than C, but I have no idea how or if that limitation applies to an all pervasive consciousness.

Exactly, you have no idea. But you having no idea about something doesn't make it possible.

I mean *something* seems to travel between two entangled particles at faster than light speeds, so I can't rule out the possibility that awareness itself occurs at faster than light speeds.

What seems to happen and what actually happens are not necessarily the same thing. What measurement of entangled particles reveals is a correlation; and, as I've said before, there are QM interpretations that don't involve anything travelling between entangled particles.

My point is that if you're "just fine" with the possibility that one's 'faith' in exotic forms of matter might never be demonstrated in your lifetime, it's really not any different than a theist having "faith" in God without the need to see God show up in a lab experiment. The *effect* is evidently enough to validate that kind of faith.

Once again, what you think about the world bears no relation to reality. I have no 'faith' in exotic (i.e. non-baryonic) matter. It's something we've already detected (e.g. neutrinos); some form of it is a leading candidate for the DM observations, but there are alternatives. We don't yet know the answer.

As for the difference between a scientific hypothesis and faith in God, it's been explained here many times; if you haven't grasped it by now, you never will.

Still waiting for the 'well-defined' God hypothesis; it seems to be becoming ever less well-defined, now panpsychism has been added to the many versions of pantheism and panentheism...

 

[sjastro]

The problem for you is that since I am a programmer, and math was my minor, I actually understand where the core assumptions of GR end, and where the LCDM "speculation" (aka mathematical myth-making) begins.

GR theory doesn't *require* half of the ridiculous nonsense that is required by the LCDM cosmology model, and we both know it.

Sticking magic into a GR formula doesn't validate the violation of the conservation of energy laws, or validate the concept of magic either.

You can try to belittle me personally and berate me all you like but it's not helping your case one bit. It just makes you look desperate.

Who are you trying to kid?
You have zero understanding of tensor analysis and Riemannian geometry which forms the backbone of GR and is taught at post grad level in physics and applied maths; not as a maths minor.
If you understood the maths you would have noted that Einstein’s original equations were used where there was no cosmological constant and energy was found not to be conserved in curved spacetime.
This was the status of GR in 1915.

Given the maths is beyond your level of comprehension, the link I supplied was supposed to make things easier for you to understand particularly the issues of energy conservation which were known in 1915 also predated expanding spacetimes and dark energy.
One would have expected a computer programmer where logic is a prerequisite would have used the same logic to realise their error into thinking GR only “validated” the non conservation of energy after the additions of expanding spacetime and dark energy.

 

[Michael]

The only awareness we have evidence for is in biological creatures on Earth. The rest, as I already explained, doesn't require calling the universe 'God'.

Yet humans have reported experiencing something they call "God" for thousands of years of recorded history, and a living universe offers an explanation of such "effects". Again, if your only "evidence" of exotic matter is an uncontrolled "effect', it's equally valid to postulate a living universe to explain the 'effect' it might have on humans.

So what? DCQC is just a complicated way of sending information using the phase of the wave-like nature of light rather than the explicit particle. It isn't FTL, it doesn't help the signal propagation problem of cosmic-scale information processing.

It demonstrates that even particles are optional when it comes to transferring information, so again, ruling out the possibility of faster than light communication is a personal subjective choice. Tachyon type particles have just as much laboratory support as 'dark matter'.

FTL transmission of classical information is ruled out in quantum field theory.

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

And yet something seems to be traveling faster than light. As I've pointed out however, it's not even *necessary* that such a process has to occur for the universe to be "conscious".

Light can't travel faster than... light If you have a better theory, the Nobel Prize awaits.

Well, the *worst* you could suggest is that FTL communication is *one* Nobel away from a completely verified theory, whereas the LCMD model is at least four such steps away.

Citation for 'no communication theorem' disproof necessary; the link you posted is about anonymous communication protocols, something completely different. So far, none of your citations support the claim you cite them for.

Chinese Researchers Achieve Stunning Quantum-Entanglement Record

Your theorem has been falsified.

I'm assuming only that the core tenets of the laws of physics (SR, GR, & QFT) hold.

How is that any different than me assuming that the standard model of particle physics is correct, and the conservation of energy laws are valid?

You're essentially "assuming" that an intelligence that could be *eternal* for all we know is utterly incapable of having more advanced technology and more information than we do.

You can invent fantasy physics,

You mean like space expansion, inflation, and fantasy forms of matter and energy?

but if you want to apply it in the real world, you have to justify it by demonstrating how existing physics is wrong;

Except you never did that with the standard model of particle physics, now did you?

the 'burden of proof' is yours.

Yet somehow you shirked your own burden of proof?

But as you've repeatedly demonstrated a deep lack of understanding of existing physics, that's clearly not going to happen.

The irony is that you're promoting a cosmology model that is based upon 95 percent placeholder terms for human ignorance, not actual known "physics".

Exactly, you have no idea. But you having no idea about something doesn't make it possible.

Irony overload (again).

The other thing you keep blatantly ignoring is the fact that FTL communication isn't even necessary in the first place.

What seems to happen and what actually happens are not necessarily the same thing. What measurement of entangled particles reveals is a correlation; and, as I've said before, there are QM interpretations that don't involve anything travelling between entangled particles.

And likewise there are QM interpretations where it *does* happen. You can't simply rule it out because it's inconvenient in terms of your argument.

Once again, what you think about the world bears no relation to reality. I have no 'faith' in exotic (i.e. non-baryonic) matter. It's something we've already detected (e.g. neutrinos);

False. Neutrinos are a part of the *standard model* of particle physics, unlike dark matter.

some form of it is a leading candidate for the DM observations,

For starters, neutrinos are not "cold", so sterile neutrinos are certainly not a leading candidate for "cold" dark matter. They move far too fast.

but there are alternatives. We don't yet know the answer.

Yet you refuse to allow me the same consideration?

As for the difference between a scientific hypothesis and faith in God, it's been explained here many times; if you haven't grasped it by now, you never will.

You've never demonstrated that there is any empirical laboratory difference between them in the first place!

Still waiting for the 'well-defined' God hypothesis; it seems to be becoming ever less well-defined, now panpsychism has been added to the many versions of pantheism and panentheism...

I've provided you with a perfectly 'plausible' definition of the term and it doesn't even "require" FTL processes in the first place!