Modern physics, Heisenberg, and questions of free will

[sterlingice]

This is the type of article that makes me think we really have no idea what we are talking about in physics and there's just some "make stuff up" theories out there. Sure, it fits mathematically, but we've our understanding of modeling it is all wrong and there's no way to disprove that.

SI

[mrsimperless]

Can fractals make sense of the quantum world?
hxxp://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20127011.600-can-fractals-make-sense-of-the-quantum-world.html?full=true

A good read that was slashdotted the other day. I do a fair amount of science reading and just read John Gribbin's Deep Simplicity a few weeks ago which is a great introduction to Chaos Theory. The more I read Gribbin the more he is becoming one of my favorite science writers.

[QuikSand]

Interesting article, thanks.

[Marc Vaughan]

But isn't this the key to your problem? The belief in free will is little more than human arrogance - the wish to believe that we're not merely a consequence of predictable mechanisms. It may well be that all we have is unpredictability.

I actually see mankind and indeed everything as utterly predictable - we're nothing more than hugely complicated computers in essence, we respond in ways pre-programmed in us by our design and experience.

We 'think' we have free will, but really don't - its the electrical impulses in our brain which cause things to happen - just as its electrical impulses in a computers processor which do the same.

(oddly this doesn't bother me in the slightest - because the reasons behind actions are beyond my comprehension I will always have the misconception that my ideas and actions are my own, thats natural human nature imho - even when my own logic dictates to the contrary.)

[cartman]

Tangentially related, but one physicist is trying to define just what is time.

What Is Time? One Physicist Hunts for the Ultimate Theory | Wired Science | Wired.com

[QuikSand]

Carroll's is the next book in my Audible queue.

[GrantDawg]

My cat's breath smells like cat food.

[cartman]

Pretty cool "scale of the universe" flash presentation

http://primaxstudio.com/stuff/scale_of_universe.swf

[flere-imsaho]

Fascinating article, even if the concepts of theoretical physics remain out of my league. I think the closest I've ever gotten to understanding this was when my brother-in-law, who's a nuclear physicist working at Fermi, and probably the most intelligent person I know personally, explained time dilation to me.

Blew my mind that time was the malleable concept in the example of time dilation (and close-to-the-speed-of-light travel).

[cartman]

Might be a breakthrough coming to beat the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

Quantum memory may topple Heisenberg's uncertainty principle

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by cartman

Pretty cool "scale of the universe" flash presentation

http://primaxstudio.com/stuff/scale_of_universe.swf

Now what I can't understand about this idea that the universe is 93 billion light years across (the extreme 46.5 billion light years from the centre and big bang point) is this:

If the universe is 14 billion years old and nothing can travel faster than light then how can anything be greater than 14 billion light years away from the point of the big bang - 28 billion light years across? Was/is the universe expanding faster than the speed of light?

There's obviously something wrong with my thinking but I don't know what it is. Anyone enlighten me?

As for your second link, cartman, I couldn't get beyond

maximally entangling a particle with a quantum memory

And that's only the second line

[SackAttack]

Apparently general relativity explains the expansion stuff, although you'd probably have to find someone who understands it to get the 'how' of that.

[Dutch]

NOVA Online | Runaway Universe | How Big is the Universe?
How big is the universe? Could it be infinitely large? If the universe has an edge, what is beyond the edge? And if the universe had a beginning, what was going on before that?

Our experience of the everyday world does not prepare us to grasp the concept of an infinite universe. And yet, trying to imagine that the cosmos actually has a boundary does not make things any easier.

There is an edge to what we are able to see and could ever possibly see in the universe. Light travels at 300,000 kilometers per second. That's top speed in this universe—nothing can go faster—but it's relatively slow compared to the distances to be traveled. The nearest big galaxy to our Milky Way, the Andromeda galaxy, is two million light-years away. The most distant galaxies we can now see are 10 or 12 billion light-years away. We could never see a galaxy that is farther away in light travel time than the universe is old—an estimated 14 billion or so years. Thus, we are surrounded by a "horizon" that we cannot look beyond—a horizon set by the distance that light can travel over the age of the universe.

This horizon describes the visible universe—a region some 28 billion light years in diameter. But what are the horizons of a civilization that inhabits the most distant galaxies we see? And what about galaxies at the limits of their vision? There is every reason to think that the universe extends a long way beyond the part of the universe we can see. In fact, a variety of observations suggest that our visible patch may be a small fraction—maybe an infinitely small fraction—of the whole universe.

[revrew]

This thread began with a discussion of the "clockwork universe" and "free will." Not being an expert in QM or other scientific complexities, I do think I can contribute an "outside of the box" comment.

First of all I reject completely the "clockwork universe" premise, because it is inherently naturalist - representing a belief that complete truth can be discerned completely within the natural world. As a devoted supernaturalist - one who believes truth is incomplete unless it takes into account the supernatural - I reject this, and wonder if everything that comes after it isn't necessarily confused because it starts with a flawed premise.

If we think (as I do), that truth is a highway, straight and true, but with many "off-ramps", the first question, the first exit, then, is the fundamental question of the nature of the universe - is it exclusively natural or inherently supernatural.

If one takes the "exclusively natural" off-ramp, there are whole, magnificent worlds of science, philosophy, psychology, theology, economics, etc ... but they have all departed from the highway of truth.

If one continues on the supernatural "highway," however, additional questions emerge - first theological (what is the nature of this supernatural?), then physics (what is the nature of the natural), then philosophical (how do we know what is true), then biological (what is the nature of life), then psychological (what is the nature of man), etc.

The question of "free will" (at least in humans) is an area of psychology - the nature of man. But, to continue my analogy, if you've already taken the offramp back at naturalism, it would only be by accident that you could arrive back on the highway to find the truth of/behind "free will."

To boil it all down, I would summarize as the following: "It's no wonder the truths of human behavior elude a man's philosophy, when he has excluded from his study the very truths (of God) that would answer his questions."

[JediKooter]

Supernatural theories require supernatural evidence. It ain't there. The universe IS natural. To fall back on "god did it" is lazy and speaks nothing of us humans wanting to know more and continually advancing our knowledge of the universe. Just because we don't have the answer now, does not mean that 'god did it'.

[Kodos]

How did "Supernatural" become the highway of truth, and science become an "off ramp"? Seems like things we can actually observe and/or attempt to prove/disprove should get to be the highway of truth, and the Supernatural world should be an off ramp.

How can something inherently unprovable be the highway of truth?

I might believe in Jarta, the Goddess of Lawn Jarts. But that doesn't put her on the highway of truth.

Sorry, Rev, I have a lot of respect for your ideas and usually like your explanations about your belief system, but this one has me scratching my head. Right about here, things fall apart for me:

If one takes the "exclusively natural" off-ramp, there are whole, magnificent worlds of science, philosophy, psychology, theology, economics, etc ... but they have all departed from the highway of truth.

The assumption that the most observable/provable view of existence (naturalist stuff that science is concerned with) is an off ramp because it doesn't account for forces we can't observe/measure seems to be an odd starting point. Why has it departed the highway of truth? Because you define it that way?

[Dutch]

In before the thread implosion...oh wait...it's imploding RIGHT NOW!

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Kodos

How did "Supernatural" become the highway of truth, and science become an "off ramp"? Seems like things we can actually observe and/or attempt to prove/disprove should get to be the highway of truth, and the Supernatural world should be an off ramp.

How can something inherently unprovable be the highway of truth?

I might believe in Jarta, the Goddess of Lawn Jarts. But that doesn't put her on the highway of truth.

Sorry, Rev, I have a lot of respect for your ideas and usually like your explanations about your belief system, but this one has me scratching my head. Right about here, things fall apart for me:



The assumption that the most observable/provable view of existence (naturalist stuff that science is concerned with) is an off ramp because it doesn't account for forces we can't observe/measure seems to be an odd starting point. Why has it departed the highway of truth? Because you define it that way?

agree

[molson]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Supernatural theories require supernatural evidence. It ain't there. The universe IS natural. To fall back on "god did it" is lazy and speaks nothing of us humans wanting to know more and continually advancing our knowledge of the universe. Just because we don't have the answer now, does not mean that 'god did it'.

True, but "supernatural" is just a word we use for fields that we really don't know shit about. It doesn't mean there's nothing to it at all. The field of Astronomy used to be "supernatural".

"God did it" may be lazy, but so is concluding that there is nothing to the universe beyond what our limited minds can currently test scientifically.

We really don't know anything about the brain, and about any kind of force that has been vaguely described as "spirtuality" (but can be theorized and speculated about, based on our limited experiences, in a million different ways.)

I tend to think that the "truth" - unattainable to us currently, would blow our minds with regards to the workings of our brain, and the "spirtual".

[Kodos]

I think the universe is weirder than we could ever imagine. Physics regularly blows my mind. Some of the things they come up with are way beyond my ability to understand.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Supernatural theories require supernatural evidence. It ain't there. The universe IS natural

It sounds like you just said: Supernatural evidence requires natural evidence.

If some-thing is supernatural then it would not have all natural qualities right? You are then dismissing something for purposely being something it is not.

If a supernatural "answer" could be proved then it would not require faith. Which is again a fundamental quality to this approach.

It seems sitting back a waiting for "evidence" is a more lazy approach

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

THIS time people will be convinced to change their minds.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

THIS time people will be convinced to change their minds.

It's like Quantum Leap -- always hoping that THIS is the jump that will take us home.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

THIS time people will be convinced to change their minds.

Speaking for myself, I don't spout my opinions on message boards to change anyone's minds, I do it as an outlet to express them without damaging personal relationships.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by Kodos

How did "Supernatural" become the highway of truth, and science become an "off ramp"? Seems like things we can actually observe and/or attempt to prove/disprove should get to be the highway of truth, and the Supernatural world should be an off ramp.

How can something inherently unprovable be the highway of truth?

I might believe in Jarta, the Goddess of Lawn Jarts. But that doesn't put her on the highway of truth.

Sorry, Rev, I have a lot of respect for your ideas and usually like your explanations about your belief system, but this one has me scratching my head. Right about here, things fall apart for me:

The assumption that the most observable/provable view of existence (naturalist stuff that science is concerned with) is an off ramp because it doesn't account for forces we can't observe/measure seems to be an odd starting point. Why has it departed the highway of truth? Because you define it that way?

I'll leave JediKooter's snotty answer alone and deal with your more open, respectful tone. I also have to admit a slight error in my previous post, in that I listed philosophy as coming later on the highway, when, in my worldview (which is what the whole highway thing is) it is in fact the first step.

Philosophy: What is truth? And how do we know it? Define it?

Once you say, "The only knowable truth is that which can be observed, tested, measured, reasoned or sensed by humans" you have taken the naturalist "off-ramp."

Now, Kodos, you come to me and say, "How can something inherently unprovable be the highway of truth?" Assuming you define "inherently unprovable" to mean it is untestable by measurement, reason or laboratory methods, it would demonstrate you've already accepted a naturalist worldview. But what if the naturalist worldview is flawed from the beginning (which I contend it is)? Then those tests cannot be assumed to be the determiners of truth.

But the big difference, perhaps, that I see under the surface is that I also reject the notion, which I inferred from other posts, that the existence of the supernatural is simply that which is unexplained or unknown in the natural. No, I would argue the supernatural exists, regardless of whether it can be known or unknown by scientific measures.

In fact, far from accepting the supernatural is "inherently unprovable," I believe it was proven and demonstrated conclusively in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus the Christ. So sincerely do I believe it, that were I to trust in that truth or what I see with my own two eyes, I would believe Jesus. I admit as much.

Now, I did NOT mean to imply that science itself is the offramp. No, the scientific method of observation and experiment is a valid way of testing the natural world. Science itself is not on the offramp, only the underlying assumption that all truth is determined by its observation in the natural world and that it's only "good" science if it rejects the supernatural, and even more to the point, it's only true if it rejects supernatural explanation.

I do not believe you can both accurately understand "free will" and reject all supernatural explanation at the same time.

But since the divide between naturalism and supernaturalism is the very first fork in the road, I completely understand why you, Kodos, would argue that supernaturalism is the first off-ramp, while I believe naturalism (not science, but the atheistic naturalism that informs many of modern science's foundational assumptions) is the first off-ramp. It is as though we are two people on two different roads, each saying the other is on the wrong path.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by revrew

Once you say, "The only knowable truth is that which can be observed, tested, measured, reasoned or sensed by humans" you have taken the naturalist "off-ramp."

Now, Kodos, you come to me and say, "How can something inherently unprovable be the highway of truth?" Assuming you define "inherently unprovable" to mean it is untestable by measurement, reason or laboratory methods, it would demonstrate you've already accepted a naturalist worldview. But what if the naturalist worldview is flawed from the beginning (which I contend it is)? Then those tests cannot be assumed to be the determiners of truth.

But the big difference, perhaps, that I see under the surface is that I also reject the notion, which I inferred from other posts, that the existence of the supernatural is simply that which is unexplained or unknown in the natural. No, I would argue the supernatural exists, regardless of whether it can be known or unknown by scientific measures.

In fact, far from accepting the supernatural is "inherently unprovable," I believe it was proven and demonstrated conclusively in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus the Christ. So sincerely do I believe it, that were I to trust in that truth or what I see with my own two eyes, I would believe Jesus. I admit as much.

I'm going to try to avoid debating religion here, but I find this point of view...fascinating.

You say that the naturalist viewpoint is flawed from the beginning by not accounting for the supernatural, but you take your evidence for the supernatural from a naturalistic bit of evidence - the reported history of Jesus Christ.

Anyone else here find this illogical?

[revrew]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I'm going to try to avoid debating religion here, but I find this point of view...fascinating.

You say that the naturalist viewpoint is flawed from the beginning by not accounting for the supernatural, but you take your evidence for the supernatural from a naturalistic bit of evidence - the reported history of Jesus Christ.

Anyone else here find this illogical?

I see your point, but it's not quite accurate that my "evidence for the supernatural" is only from the reported history of Jesus Christ. Personally, my evidence includes the recorded history of Jesus, the history of the church through the ages, and personal experience - any of which have supernatural implications, if the supernatural in fact exists.

At the same time, I don't think one has to accept my faith in Jesus to see the premise I'm putting forward - that how one determines truth will necessarily lead a person to all kinds of other conclusions, and that by limiting the truth quest to the natural world or by accepting only the natural world's "proofs," a person has dramatically altered their path for seeking truth at the very first fork in the road.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by revrew

that how one determines truth will necessarily lead a person to all kinds of other conclusions, and that by limiting the truth quest to the natural world or by accepting only the natural world's "proofs," a person has dramatically altered their path for seeking truth at the very first fork in the road.

this approach kind of prevents you from saying other supernatural faiths are wrong

[revrew]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

this approach kind of prevents you from saying other supernatural faiths are wrong

1st question on "the highway" - Philosophy, what is truth?

2nd question on "the highway" - theology, what is the supernatural?

Not debating (yet) how to discern differences between supernatural "proofs"

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by revrew

If we think (as I do), that truth is a highway, straight and true, but with many "off-ramps", the first question, the first exit, then, is the fundamental question of the nature of the universe - is it exclusively natural or inherently supernatural.

Getting back to the thread, what if the last sentence read: exclusively neutral or inherently supernatural?

a lot of folks i imagine would say the universe does not care about them, but that lack of caring allows a freedom to hopefully comes to terms with the fact the universe does not care about them

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by molson

True, but "supernatural" is just a word we use for fields that we really don't know shit about. It doesn't mean there's nothing to it at all. The field of Astronomy used to be "supernatural".

I have to respectfully disagree. Just because we don't know anything about a subject, it is not automatically assigned a supernatural label. Quantum physics, to the most part, is barely understood by the scientists who have doctorates in it. Yet, I think we can say that there is nothing supernatural about it.

"God did it" may be lazy, but so is concluding that there is nothing to the universe beyond what our limited minds can currently test scientifically.

Not sure if you are referring to something I said, but, I definitely did not imply that. It's quite simple, what we don't know yet...we don't know yet and just because we don't know yet, there's one of three possibilities; we will eventually know, we just wont ever know or we know some of it but not all.

We really don't know anything about the brain, and about any kind of force that has been vaguely described as "spirtuality" (but can be theorized and speculated about, based on our limited experiences, in a million different ways.)

Again, I respectfully disagree with you. We know a lot about the brain. Just in the last 20 or so years with advances in medical technology scientists and doctors been able to delve more into how the brain works. As for spirituality, there's probably almost as many definitions for it as there is for love...another intangible, but, touches so many people.

I tend to think that the "truth" - unattainable to us currently, would blow our minds with regards to the workings of our brain, and the "spirtual".

I have no concept of one central 'truth' that explains everything. That concept makes no sense to me. I'm aware that there is the 'theory of everything' in the scientific community, but, I don't think that's what people are referring to when they bring up the idea of 'the truth'. We humans like things wrapped in nice neat little packages, unfortunately, that's not how things work in reality.

Originally Posted by AENeuman

It sounds like you just said: Supernatural evidence requires natural evidence.

If some-thing is supernatural then it would not have all natural qualities right?

You are then dismissing something for purposely being something it is not.

You kind of caught on to what I was trying to say. In other words, there is no such thing as supernatural evidence, so there isn't going to be any. It was more a play on Carl Sagan's statement of: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

If a supernatural "answer" could be proved then it would not require faith. Which is again a fundamental quality to this approach.

If a supernatural 'thing' was ever proven to exist then it would cease to be supernatural.

It seems sitting back a waiting for "evidence" is a more lazy approach

The only people required to provide the proof or evidence are the ones making the supernatural claims. If I claim I saw Big Foot or a ghost, who would be the one expected to provide the proof? Me or you? Then once I've provided some kind of evidence, that evidence can then be dissected to prove or disprove my claim.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by revrew

I'll leave JediKooter's snotty answer alone and deal with your more open, respectful tone.

I'm sorry that you feel what I wrote as snotty. It sounds like you are trying to avoid having to defend your position (which is your prerogative), but, when you hear over and over again by people that believe in a god, yet show zero evidence to support their position, you have to be a bit skeptical when they start talking about the 'natural' world. If someone started spouting stuff that isn't in the bible or just isn't true, I'm sure you would raise a skeptical eyebrow or two.


"In fact, far from accepting the supernatural is "inherently unprovable," I believe it was proven and demonstrated conclusively in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus the Christ. So sincerely do I believe it, that were I to trust in that truth or what I see with my own two eyes, I would believe Jesus. I admit as much."

Just going off what you said: So, Big Foot exists, faeries, the aether, Thetans, Thor, Oden, and elves? There's just as much evidence for them existing as there is your jesus and your god.

If that seems snotty or anything, I'm sorry you feel that way and I'm not demanding a reply from you. Also understand that I don't believe in any religion or god/gods and am also not required to respect them and if that comes across as too crass, well, not much I can do about that. I will respect the person, regardless if I think they are right or wrong.

Again, I apologize if you felt I was being snotty.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by revrew

In fact, far from accepting the supernatural is "inherently unprovable," I believe it was proven and demonstrated conclusively in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus the Christ. So sincerely do I believe it, that were I to trust in that truth or what I see with my own two eyes, I would believe Jesus. I admit as much.

I can follow this line of thinking this far. But if one can accept that you can know something, which is not provable by "natural" evidence to another, how is one supposed to distinguish between you, who claim that you have proof of the truth behind Jesus' life and death, and another who claims to have the proof behind Allah, or another with another supernatural or religious truth? How are those of us who have not seen one of these proven in our own lives supposed to distinguish between those of you who are certain of a supernatural truth, yet disagree? Does it not seem possible to you that others of different faiths are just as absolutely certain as you are about a different supernatural truth?

[Autumn]

As for getting back closer to the original topic, I think it's interesting to explore how these quantum issues relate to psychology. Many modern findings in psychology have demonstrated the illusory nature of free will in terms of the nature of decision making. We have much less control over the decisions we make than we believe, and I wonder if there's an connection somewhere there.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

I'm sorry that you feel what I wrote as snotty. It sounds like you are trying to avoid having to defend your position (which is your prerogative), but, when you hear over and over again by people that believe in a god, yet show zero evidence to support their position, you have to be a bit skeptical when they start talking about the 'natural' world. If someone started spouting stuff that isn't in the bible or just isn't true, I'm sure you would raise a skeptical eyebrow or two.


"In fact, far from accepting the supernatural is "inherently unprovable," I believe it was proven and demonstrated conclusively in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus the Christ. So sincerely do I believe it, that were I to trust in that truth or what I see with my own two eyes, I would believe Jesus. I admit as much."

Just going off what you said: So, Big Foot exists, faeries, the aether, Thetans, Thor, Oden, and elves? There's just as much evidence for them existing as there is your jesus and your god.

If that seems snotty or anything, I'm sorry you feel that way and I'm not demanding a reply from you. Also understand that I don't believe in any religion or god/gods and am also not required to respect them and if that comes across as too crass, well, not much I can do about that. I will respect the person, regardless if I think they are right or wrong.

Again, I apologize if you felt I was being snotty.

There is a heck of a lot of evidence that Jesus was a real person. As to whether all that happened, happened...that's where debate begins. Most people accept he was real though.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by Autumn

I can follow this line of thinking this far. But if one can accept that you can know something, which is not provable by "natural" evidence to another, how is one supposed to distinguish between you, who claim that you have proof of the truth behind Jesus' life and death, and another who claims to have the proof behind Allah, or another with another supernatural or religious truth? How are those of us who have not seen one of these proven in our own lives supposed to distinguish between those of you who are certain of a supernatural truth, yet disagree? Does it not seem possible to you that others of different faiths are just as absolutely certain as you are about a different supernatural truth?

Though I fear I've sidetracked this thread enough already, my point from the beginning has been only this: That I content truth is not limited to the natural world.

If you wish to know which claims on the supernatural are actually true, I suggest you pursue, test, seek, try. Examine for yourself the claims.

But to say without that truth quest that the supernatural can't be known, can't be real - to simply disqualify half the possible avenues for truth - I have to wonder, why would a person make such a large assumption?

And, yes, it does seem possible to me that others of different faiths (even no faith) are as certain as me. I don't doubt they're sincere. I simply contend, they're sincerely wrong.

If anyone would like to continue this discussion further, I invite your PMs. I really didn't mean to hijack the thread this much.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by rowech

There is a heck of a lot of evidence that Jesus was a real person. As to whether all that happened, happened...that's where debate begins. Most people accept he was real though.

I think the evidence is, there was someone named Jesus that may have been a leader of a fringe group at the time. That is my summary of things that I have read over the years. There is definitely debate on actual events for sure.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

this approach kind of prevents you from saying other supernatural faiths are wrong

The problem with faith as a source of truth is there is no way to distinguish between faiths. The Judeo/Christian tradition insists that the afterlife exists in heaven/hell while the Hindu/Budhhist faiths insist we are reincarnated.

Which is true? There is simply no way of determining and consequently no way of deciding if either is true at all. Faith - accepting something because some authority says so - leads to a situation of zero confidence that any faith is true. Anything goes - it merely needs an authority with the charisma and persuasion. Hence the many cults we see.

Historically humans have always turned to the "supernatural" to deal with anything we don't currently understand. The sun, the wind, the sea - everything we didn't understand at the time were supernatural beings. Our real arrogance is in believing that our understanding is so wonderful if we don't understand it then it must be supernatural - ie beyond our nature.

As our understanding advances the supernatural explanations diminish - which is why faith is always on the retreat and proponents fall back on the idea that it does not deal with the same subject material as science. In reality it deals with exactly the same subject material but without the same humility and acceptance of our own limitations.

It is clearly possible that there is something that could genuinely be called "supernatural" but our history suggests that we turn to supernatural explanations far too quickly and that a little patience may well save us dedicating ourselves to fantastic entities that prove to be illusory. It may indeed be the case that there is something that is beyond our understanding - in which case it's beyond our understanding and manufactured "faiths" do not change that.

In an earlier post I pointed out that I can't understand that the universe is 93 light years across when the combination of the speed of light and the age of the universe calculates to only 28 light years across. Should I conclude there must be something supernatural about this or simply that there is a limitation to my understanding of the subject? We humans are clearly on a path of increasing understanding so maybe we should wait awhile before concluding that some of this stuff will never be understood.

And on the subject of free will - for the moment I suspect that we merely mistake unpredictability for free will.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

The problem with faith as a source of truth is there is no way to distinguish between faiths ... Which is true? There is simply no way of determining and consequently no way of deciding if either is true at all.

I contend everything quoted above is false. It is a cop-out to say "there's no way of knowing," if you haven't earnestly tried. A multitude of opinions does not mean that all are equal. If there is truth - and I contend there is - it can be found.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

Now what I can't understand about this idea that the universe is 93 billion light years across (the extreme 46.5 billion light years from the centre and big bang point) is this:

If the universe is 14 billion years old and nothing can travel faster than light then how can anything be greater than 14 billion light years away from the point of the big bang - 28 billion light years across? Was/is the universe expanding faster than the speed of light?

There's obviously something wrong with my thinking but I don't know what it is. Anyone enlighten me?

As for your second link, cartman, I couldn't get beyond



And that's only the second line

Because the speed of light is not constant. It varies. That is why it is defined as the speed of light in a vacuum. Some scientists believe that the speed of light may have been faster in the early universe and allowed things to expand more quickly.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Kodos

How did "Supernatural" become the highway of truth, and science become an "off ramp"? Seems like things we can actually observe and/or attempt to prove/disprove should get to be the highway of truth, and the Supernatural world should be an off ramp.

How can something inherently unprovable be the highway of truth?

I might believe in Jarta, the Goddess of Lawn Jarts. But that doesn't put her on the highway of truth.

Sorry, Rev, I have a lot of respect for your ideas and usually like your explanations about your belief system, but this one has me scratching my head. Right about here, things fall apart for me:



The assumption that the most observable/provable view of existence (naturalist stuff that science is concerned with) is an off ramp because it doesn't account for forces we can't observe/measure seems to be an odd starting point. Why has it departed the highway of truth? Because you define it that way?

I'll take a stab.

I've said it before, science is man placing his framework upon his surroundings. It is man trying to make sense of nature.

Religion is man trying to determine why everything is here, as well as a reason for being (in this regard philosophy overlaps religion).

Let's imagine that the Big Bang Theory is 100% true. What caused it to be? What caused the point singularity to exist? What caused it to spontaneously expand?

To me, science is easy. You make a hypothesis and rigorously test it. You can define science. You can prove it.

The problem is, the real answers that we need as a society are philosophical in nature. Why are we here? What should we do? What is right and what is wrong? Should we fight wars? Are wars ever good? Etc., etc. On the surface, war is inherently bad. However, our country was founded through war. Was that not a good thing? What about removing Hitler from power? Was that not a good thing?

People talk about things getting worse in society, but I look at our curriculums at schools. Kids do not take civics, ethics, or philosophy courses any more. To me, those were the true thinking courses. Not that they would apply in work, but you could apply those lessons in life. It could give you something to build a personal ethic around. Now, you see too many nihilists who if they do not get their way are willing to pull everything down around them.

Ack, sorry I got a little sidetracked. To finish, the supernatural is truly what we need to learn more about, but unfortunately, given the way we think scientifically, we do not have any way of proving it or disproving it with our current technology. So as a society, we esteem science more, because it is tangible, but we find the quest for the proof of God to always be out of our reach.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by revrew

I contend everything quoted above is false. It is a cop-out to say "there's no way of knowing," if you haven't earnestly tried. A multitude of opinions does not mean that all are equal. If there is truth - and I contend there is - it can be found.

With all due respect, I contend that without evidence, it's your word against mine.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by revrew

I contend everything quoted above is false. It is a cop-out to say "there's no way of knowing," if you haven't earnestly tried. A multitude of opinions does not mean that all are equal. If there is truth - and I contend there is - it can be found.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with "trying".

Faith comes from revelation. It comes because some authority has said it is so. From the priesthood, from a holy book. Whatever. There is no evidence or "proof" for faith. That's what we mean by taking something "on faith". We mean that we accept it because of our trust (or faith) in the source. Christian faith relies on acceptance of the truth of the bible, Islamic faith on the Koran etc.

Because there is no evidence or proof or natural (to take on the previous argument) justification there is no way you can decide between faiths. There is no way you can prove that the Christian after-life is correct and the Hindu reincarnation is wrong. Neither has any natural justification - they rely on the bible/church or the Hindu holy book. Each will be accepted by "the faithful" but no one can justify to a neutral rational being that either of these is closer to the truth than the other.

If you believe you can, than explain to me why the Christian after life is correct and the Hindu reincarnation incorrect (which I presume is your view). Holding the unpleasant idea that there is no after-life I'm open to your persuasion.

If faiths contradict then clearly one or more of them has to be wrong - and clearly faiths contradict. But there is no way of knowing which is wrong so it is clearly difficult to justify belief in any of them because it may be that the one you choose is wrong. It is also a very real possibility that they're all wrong - but a very peculiar idea of "truth" if they're all right.

Another aspect of faith, of course, is illustrated by the phrase "keeping faith". This indicates you continue believe in the truth of the faith even when the evidence points against it. This clearly highlights the clash between faith and evidence/reason. This is simultaneously faith's greatest strength and greatest weakness. It sustains belief but also prevents the believer from seeing error. The Catholic church sustained the idea that the earth was the centre of the universe for 1300 years - but it was wrong and continued to argue against it until the evidence was too overwhelming even for faith.

Faith is at the opposite end of the justification spectrum to evidence/reason. In fact it only really exists in the absence of these. When it is supported by evidence/reason it ceases to be faith. If there is evidence/reason then the "truth" no longer has to be taken on faith - faith is no longer necessary.

I think where we differ, revrew, is that I'm speaking of faith strictly in relation to the justification for truth. I think you're defending the massive edifice that religions build around their core truths. I'm strictly interested in its value as an indicator of truth not as a blueprint for life, not as a description of a whole religion.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

It has nothing whatsoever to do with "trying".

Faith comes from revelation. It comes because some authority has said it is so. From the priesthood, from a holy book. Whatever. There is no evidence or "proof" for faith. That's what we mean by taking something "on faith". We mean that we accept it because of our trust (or faith) in the source. Christian faith relies on acceptance of the truth of the bible, Islamic faith on the Koran etc.

Because there is no evidence or proof or natural (to take on the previous argument) justification there is no way you can decide between faiths. There is no way you can prove that the Christian after-life is correct and the Hindu reincarnation is wrong. Neither has any natural justification - they rely on the bible/church or the Hindu holy book. Each will be accepted by "the faithful" but no one can justify to a neutral rational being that either of these is closer to the truth than the other.

If you believe you can, than explain to me why the Christian after life is correct and the Hindu reincarnation incorrect (which I presume is your view). Holding the unpleasant idea that there is no after-life I'm open to your persuasion.

If faiths contradict then clearly one or more of them has to be wrong - and clearly faiths contradict. But there is no way of knowing which is wrong so it is clearly difficult to justify belief in any of them because it may be that the one you choose is wrong. It is also a very real possibility that they're all wrong - but a very peculiar idea of "truth" if they're all right.

Faith is at the opposite end of the justification spectrum to evidence/reason. In fact it only really exists in the absence of these. When it is supported by evidence/reason it ceases to be faith. If there is evidence/reason then the "truth" no longer has to be taken on faith - faith is no longer necessary.

I went to quote only specific parts of your post, and found it was just about all relevant.

If we're going to discuss the nature of faith vs. reason, however, I don't think they are by definition opposites, as you seam to imply. A couple of examples:

1. A scientist comes to the conclusion that 1+1=2. Why? Because after testing it repeatedly, he comes to the conclusion that it will always be so. He believes there are constant universal laws, so 1+1 will always equal 2. But why does he believe this? Why couldn't 1+1=3 in 50 years? Has he tested every instance? No. He's simply seen enough evidence to be "reasonably certain" (in his mind) his belief that this universal law (or take gravity, or thermodynamics, or ...) is held constant. Truthfully, one of science's first leaps of faith is the belief that the universe's laws remain constant. It's simply having enough evidence that one is sure of the faith he puts in his conclusions. Many - if not all - of the things people call "logic" or "reason" or "science" are simply small leaps of faith based on enough evidence to convince that person the leap is justified. Philosophically speaking, how do we know our brains aren't just "Inception"-like fantasies that make everything "seem" sensible, when it's really just nonsense? It's an act of reason-justified "faith" to believe your reason is worth anything at all.

2. There are many recorded instances of men who went looking for evidence of faith, who weren't willing to make the giant leap of faith that says, "I believe it because the Bible says so." I agree, that's a heckuva leap. But through "trying" as I said above, or through careful examination, to use another phrase, they slowly closed the gap, filling it with enough evidence that the now smaller leap from reason to faith was one they felt confident in making. Perhaps the most popular example of this is the former atheist and journalist Lee Stroebel, who recorded his journey in the book "The Case for Christ."

Finally, by "trying" I simply meant careful investigation and earnest seeking. There IS natural, historical and verifiable evidence for the existence of Jesus, his death, and even his resurrection from the dead. There is evidence for the existence of God, but what evidence will be satisfactory for one man to move into the realm of faith compared to another man, varies. There IS a way of being "reasonably certain."

Too many, however, throw up the misleading emotional and mental defenses that prevent earnest investigation. They believe faith is the opposite of thinking. They insist the only proof is some ancient book of little value. They say there's no way to know something unless they can measure it in a test tube. Etc, Etc.

And again, my point from the beginning has been that not all truth can be found in a test tube. Now, I add the corollary that the non-test tube truths CAN be known, with "reasonable certainty," by those who will earnestly investigate.

[DaddyTorgo]

Just picking out one point...

There's no evidence for his resurrection. Nothing beyond stories told by his followers (who are hardly impartial observers in the matter). It'd be like my best friends getting together after I was dead and made up a joint story to try to further my legacy. Would you just believe them? No. You'd ask for pictures or video or some sort of proof.

But because it happened thousands of years ago we're just supposed to take these guys word for something that is scientifically impossible (insofar as we understand biology these days)?

Nuh uh.

Evidence for the existence of God? Again - it's all stories (a mix of ethical fables and adaptations/explanations of historical events affecting cities/empires/large groups of people) written down either as heresay, or else commonly shared and shaped into a collective narrative by members of a small religious splinter group.

As a historical and sociological document I find the bible fascinating - as a literal "faith tool", not so much.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I would guess that the evidence revrew speaks of is not physical.

[Mac Howard]

I don't say, refrew, that faith is the opposite, I say that one precludes the other. Once there is evidence for something it ceases to be faith. If you tell me something without evidence then I must take it "on faith". If you supply me with evidence then it is evident to me and I ceases to be sustained by faith. Faith is needed when evidence is absent. When evidence is available faith is unnecessary.

In the above you constantly refer to evidence to sustain your faith. Jesus is justified by evidence for example (I would dispute this but it's another argument). If that were the case then faith would be unnecessary. In reality the evidence is dubious and therefore faith is necessary.

There is an assumption in many of your posts which I don't think is justified - the assumption that there is such a thing as "the supernatural". Where is the justification for this? What convinces you that supernatural things exist? There are certainly things we don't understand but that doesn't make them supernatural. It merely points to our limited knowledge. But we have mistakenly allocated supernatural explanations for things before that we haven't understood only to find natural explanations later.

I pose three questions:

1) what do you mean by the "supernatural"?

2) can we interact with it?

3) If not how can we know it, if so would it not be natural?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

I would guess that the evidence revrew speaks of is not physical.

Then it's not evidence.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Just picking out one point...

There's no evidence for his resurrection. Nothing beyond stories told by his followers (who are hardly impartial observers in the matter). It'd be like my best friends getting together after I was dead and made up a joint story to try to further my legacy. Would you just believe them? No. You'd ask for pictures or video or some sort of proof.

But because it happened thousands of years ago we're just supposed to take these guys word for something that is scientifically impossible (insofar as we understand biology these days)?

Nuh uh.

Evidence for the existence of God? Again - it's all stories (a mix of ethical fables and adaptations/explanations of historical events affecting cities/empires/large groups of people) written down either as heresay, or else commonly shared and shaped into a collective narrative by members of a small religious splinter group.

As a historical and sociological document I find the bible fascinating - as a literal "faith tool", not so much.

100% correct. That is why you have to have faith if you believe in God.

My point is what caused everything? What caused existence as we know it to be?

In astronomical terms, as we learn more about solar systems around us, the more it becomes apparent how special our solar system is. Part of that is due to a lack of high quality planet detection, but even our beliefs in how solar systems develop is different than it was 10-15 years ago. We used to believe that Jupiter or Saturn could not exist close to the sun, but we have found many gas giants that orbit their star inside those orbits.

How do we not know there is a higher power that governs the universe and what we observe?

[rowech]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Just picking out one point...

There's no evidence for his resurrection. Nothing beyond stories told by his followers (who are hardly impartial observers in the matter). It'd be like my best friends getting together after I was dead and made up a joint story to try to further my legacy. Would you just believe them? No. You'd ask for pictures or video or some sort of proof.

But because it happened thousands of years ago we're just supposed to take these guys word for something that is scientifically impossible (insofar as we understand biology these days)?

Nuh uh.

Evidence for the existence of God? Again - it's all stories (a mix of ethical fables and adaptations/explanations of historical events affecting cities/empires/large groups of people) written down either as heresay, or else commonly shared and shaped into a collective narrative by members of a small religious splinter group.

As a historical and sociological document I find the bible fascinating - as a literal "faith tool", not so much.

Here's the thing about that...it's a point that always bugs me. Would you be willing to die for saying these things? These guys did. They were executed because they wouldn't shutup about this stuff. They were warned, knew they would die, and kept going anyway.

Now, before you make the cult argument...cult deaths are always done at the same time so nobody can back out. These weren't. They watched some die and you know what? They just kept going...louder. Wouldn't shutup and so they were killed.