DHA's Wager

And this means it is not done by the gods of dark stuffs how? And the fact that there is no natural explanation for their existence or behavior, not even the twinkling of a theory, leaving us with something that is by definition supernatural, doesn't bother you as long as you accept the gods of the dark stuffs. How do you know {he\she\it\they} haven't? Ah. Thus whenever one has doubts one only has to choose an opinion and then stick by it adamantly and the doubt is resolved. Sounds like faith to me. You shouldn't be afraid to say "I don't know" on any topic once the balance of knowledge has been exhausted.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

RAZD responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Incorrect. We can see the effect that we are ascribing to dark matter and dark energy. Anybody else can see it simply by going out and looking up.

---

​

And this means it is not done by the gods of dark stuffs how?

---

Because it isn't god.Since we communicate through langauge, we need to come up with a word or phrase that describes what it is that we are seeing. They just happen to be "dark matter" and "dark energy."So unless you're going to insist on calling it "the gods of gravity," then there's no reason to call it "the gods of dark stuff."

quote:

---

quote:

---

The reason we found out about what we are calling "dark energy" and "dark matter" is because we didn't think it was there.

---

​

And the fact that there is no natural explanation for their existence or behavior, not even the twinkling of a theory, leaving us with something that is by definition supernatural, doesn't bother you as long as you accept the gods of the dark stuffs.

---

Excuse me? "By definition supernatural"? Since when? Is gravity supernatural? What do you mean "not even the twinkling of a theory"? Quantum theory long since predicted that there should be some sort of antigravitational force due to supersymmetry. It seems we may have found just such a thing in dark energy.

quote:

---

quote:

---

When was the last time you could run an experiment and have god turn up?

---

​

How do you know {he\she\it\they} haven't?

---

Because every time we've run the experiments trying to get god in the box, god resolutely fails to show up. Care to point to one where god kept the appointment?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Only if one is mired in Cartesian Doubt.

---

​

Ah. Thus whenever one has doubts one only has to choose an opinion and then stick by it adamantly and the doubt is resolved.

---

Incorrect.Do you know what Cartesian Doubt is?

quote:

---

You shouldn't be afraid to say "I don't know" on any topic once the balance of knowledge has been exhausted.

---

You are assuming the balance of knowledge has been.We can still see the galaxy turning. Seems we know something.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Dark stuffs are outside of our current understanding of the natural universe, hence supernatural by definition. No, that is not the point. Our natural world behaves according to the current theories of gravity ... except where the gods of dark stuffs need to be invoked to make it match observations. Like epicycles. Why does mathematical symmetry have any validity in controlling the way theories are constructed? Isn't this forcing theory to conform to a preconceived notion of the solution?And "some sort of antigravitational force" is not any kind of description of what causes that force or how it behaves. But okay, you may have a twinkling of a twinkling of a concept that may become a part of a theory ... that may possibly have something to say about dark stuffs. Excuse me while I hold my breath okay?Now I fully expect a new theory of gravity to resolve things so that dark stuffs are not necessary at all, in which case they really will be the "epicycles" of the 20th century. I find it humorous that people are so willing to defend dark stuffs as real when all you have is evidence of gravitational anomalies.Until that happens, attributing the behavior to the mythological existence of dark stuffs is no different than attributing it to the behavior of a god or gods, and in fact you cannot show that one is more true than the other.They are each based on faith in their belief about the universe, and denial of the other view. The logical point of view is that you don't know.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

RAZD responds to me:

quote:

---

Dark stuffs are outside of our current understanding of the natural universe

---

Since when? It's an outcropping of quantum theory so unless you're going to say that quantum theory is supernatural....At any rate, you are confusing "our current understanding" with "all there is to know." Just because we don't understand something about the natural world does not mean it is "outside the natural world," as indicated by your definition of "supernatural."By this definition, anybody who doesn't understand evolution could claim that it is "supernatural" since it is "outside his current understanding of the natural universe."

quote:

---

quote:

---

Is gravity supernatural?

---

​

No, that is not the point.

---

No, that is the entire point. Your definition of "supernatural" is "outside of our current understanding of the natural universe." Well, gravity falls in that category as the Pioneer space probes show us. Therefore, gravity is supernatural by your definition.

quote:

---

Our natural world behaves according to the current theories of gravity

---

No, it doesn't. The Pioneer space probes are slowing down.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Quantum theory long since predicted that there should be some sort of antigravitational force due to supersymmetry.

---

​

Why does mathematical symmetry have any validity in controlling the way theories are constructed?

---

You don't know what "supersymmetry" means with regard to quantum chromodynamics, do you? While it can be metaphorically understood as a geometric concept of symmetry in that "what is on one side should appear on the other," that is merely a metaphor. It is a much deeper mathematical construct.Instead, supersymmetry in QC is the theoretical framework that ties bosons and fermions together. The simplistic structure of it is that for every particle of one type, there should be a similar superparticle of the other type. Thus, we can see why they call it "symmetry."By using supersymmetry, the derivation of the hydrogen atom is much easier and it also provides a candidate for dark matter. We hope to detect a superparticle when the Large Hadron Collider comes online. Specifically, the nuetralino which is the superpartner of the photon...and an example of "dark matter."Another experiment to detect them is to observe the galactic center since they should be annihilating there with a unique gamma ray signature. VERITAS and GLAST are hoping to detect them and some results are promising.

quote:

---

Isn't this forcing theory to conform to a preconceived notion of the solution?

---

No, it's the way science is done: You get some evidence, make some speculations about it based upon what you learned from the evidence, and then test the process to see if your predictions are borne out.It isn't like this stuff was dreamed up simply because. It was developed because this seems to be where everything is headed.

quote:

---

And "some sort of antigravitational force" is not any kind of description of what causes that force or how it behaves.

---

(*sigh*)I am not a physicist and I don't pretend to be. I do not know enough about the details to be able to describe them well. Thus, my use of the phrase "some sort of antigravitational force." It isn't because the concept is nebulous and vague to physicists but because it is nebulous and vague to me. I don't understand the physics involved. I dare say that there are very few people in this world who do. But that doesn't mean our head scratching is universal.

quote:

---

But okay, you may have a twinkling of a twinkling of a concept that may become a part of a theory ... that may possibly have something to say about dark stuffs. Excuse me while I hold my breath okay?

---

Perhaps you should do a bit more research. We're almost to the point of creating dark matter in the lab. Remember the LHC mentioned above?

quote:

---

Now I fully expect a new theory of gravity to resolve things so that dark stuffs are not necessary at all

---

(*chuckle*)They're about to create something that you think doesn't exist. What will you do then?

quote:

---

The logical point of view is that you don't know.

---

Actually, we think we do.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

um, since the first day it was invoked to explain the observations that did not match the natural understanding of the universe. which means either dark stuffs in our solar system or some other {process\relationship} is causing the effect, which should be expected anyway regardless of what is causing the behavior in the galaxies, right? you are still using observations as evidence for an explanation of the observations. is just explaining the preconception that the math is correct first and foremost.seems to me that there are a lot of particles that supersymmetry predicts that have yet to be found. way more than just partners needed for the cosmic dance.and as far as that goes, got any 'gravitons' yet? How many experiments have been designed for gravitons where they have willingly showed up? No it was "dreamed up" to make the mathematical part of the theory work out nice and pretty. when they do they do. until they can actually show something is there -- and that it adds up to the volume required -- my bets are on the other horses, some of them dark .it's not that I don't believe dark stuffs exist, it is that I believe that some other explanation is more likely. you are talking about something that supposedly makes up some 96% of the universe, and yet we still ...

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

and none of which proves that there are no godsand hence that the agnostic position is not more logically valid.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I think you’re redefining Atheist so it begs the question.One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.From what I know, there isn’t sufficient reason for me to believe or admit the existence of God or gods. Therefore, I disbelieve and or deny. Further, I fail to see where my disbelief must be carved in stone. That I might change my belief in the future is not does not automatically invalidate by present. That I might be proven wrong in the future doesn’t make my Atheistic beliefs less valid, incorrect, or even illogical.

RAZD responds to me:

quote:

---

um, since the first day it was invoked to explain the observations that did not match the natural understanding of the universe.

---

I think you have the arrow backwards. They didn't come up with the name and then try to find some anomaly to apply it to. Instead, they observed something and then developed an explanation to explain it...just like scientific method says you're supposed to do.All conclusions are tentative.

quote:

---

which means either dark stuffs in our solar system

---

No, it means this dark stuff is outside the solar system. That's why they're slowing down. They have left the solar system, passed through the heliopause, and are now in interstellar space.And something unusual is going on.

quote:

---

you are still using observations as evidence for an explanation of the observations.

---

What else is one supposed to use? Faith? Of course you use observation when dealing with something scientifically. That's the entire basis of science: Observation. You theorize, yes, but the only way to test the theory is through more observation. The only way the theory gets supported is through observation. The theory makes a prediction that must be tested through experimental observation.That's one of the biggest problems of string theory: How on earth do you test it? How do you observe anything at that level?

quote:

---

is just explaining the preconception that the math is correct first and foremost.

---

Incorrect. Mathematics isn't first and foremost as a preconception. It is foremost out of necessity. Physics is nothing more than applied mathematics. Mathematics is the way the universe works on the most fundamental level.

quote:

---

seems to me that there are a lot of particles that supersymmetry predicts that have yet to be found.

---

Indeed, they haven't found any yet. Your point?

quote:

---

and as far as that goes, got any 'gravitons' yet? How many experiments have been designed for gravitons where they have willingly showed up?

---

Well, you can help out by downloading Einstein@Home and using your computer's downtime to help in the search for gravity waves.Of course, gravitons are part of the ToE, not QM. We do not have a quantized definition of gravity (and that's part of the reason that evolution is so much more established than gravity...we still don't even know what gravity is.) String theory would seem to help solve that, but we aren't that far.

quote:

---

quote:

---

It isn't like this stuff was dreamed up simply because. It was developed because this seems to be where everything is headed.

---

​

No it was "dreamed up" to make the mathematical part of the theory work out nice and pretty.

---

Huh? You seem to be saying that if you see something that is consistent and not what you expected, you're not allowed to actually do any sort of analysis on it to incorporate the new data into the old and develop a new theory.By this logic, relativity is "supernatural" since it contradicted the previous Newtonian view of the universe and was "'dreamed up' to make the mathematical part of the theory work out nice and pretty."

quote:

---

it's not that I don't believe dark stuffs exist, it is that I believe that some other explanation is more likely.

---

And the basis for this feeling of yours is what, precisely?Be specific. What experiments, articles, studies, or data are you using to justify your opinion?

quote:

---

you are talking about something that supposedly makes up some 96% of the universe, and yet we still ...

---

(*chuckle*)Just how much of the universe is occupied by baryonic matter? Let's take just the solar system, centered on the sun and out to the heliopause. How much of this volume is occupied by matter?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

RAZD responds to me:

quote:

---

and none of which proves that there are no gods

---

Nobody said it did.

quote:

---

and hence that the agnostic position is not more logically valid.

---

Huh?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

really? Seems to me you are using agnostic(1b) as atheist. The definition of atheist is pretty clear to me.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Gods seem a lot like people, everyone has god figured out, but no one can explain it to you until you first believe.

You would have to stretch to reach that conclusion from any of my statements. Try again. My understanding is that the observed anomalies in their behavior have been going on for some time and are not limited to their leaving the solar system.In any event this certainly should not be unexpected, no matter what explanation of the anomalous behavior of galaxies turns out to be true (ie anomalous behavior should be observed "here" as well as "there" whether it is due to dark gods or to misunderstanding the gravity of the matter). Last time I checked the scientific process did not run: (1) make observation {A} that does not fit with previous theories, (2) devise explanation {B} that explains how {A} could happen, and then (3) use {A} as evidence that {B} is correct.This is what I am objecting to. The evidence to corroborate {B} has to be both new and predicted by {B}, or my understanding of the scientific process is wrong Wrong. Physics is how the universe works. Math is part of the model to explain it. And it is impossible for math to properly totally model reality. Because a formula works out is no guarantee that the universe will even notice to say nothing about following suit. No. What I am saying is not to become bemused by the math involved in one explanation to the point of not looking at other possibilities. Why? I said it was an opinion. And I could say "after you" but there are several other explanation for the anomalous behavior that do not require the invocation of dark stuffs, from ekpyrosis to einsteins' universal constant, and others. I also look at the problem of the gravitons and other missing elements of current theory. Then we have the problem that dark matter was not good enough to explain all the anomalous behaviors, so now we have to have dark energy. What's next? Dark Gravity? It is a pattern that historically has been resolved by a new theory, not forcing things to fit the old theories. They tried that with epicycles if memory serves. :Chuckle:Totally irrelevant strawman. Would you say that we have a good understanding of over 90% of the composition of the solar system? Or is it only 4%? The question is about how much we understand the universe, not how much volume it takes up.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Well, I can break it down for you, if you think that will help.1). I am not skeptical about the existence of God. I am quite sure that the God of the Bible simply does not exist.2). I do profess true atheism (see my previous post).3). I am not full of doubt about God.4). I have committed to my position.Oh and the big one, 5). I don’t believe it is impossible to know if the Christian God exists.So given that, will you retract your statement about atheists, at least in my case?

So? Why only that one? Many people of other faiths don't believe that god exists, yet still believe in a god. Again, same issue. And it matters little what you believe if you cannot demonstrate it. Which statemtent are you refering to here?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

It really is quite simple.Absent proof that {A} exists, and
Absent proof that {A} does not existWhat is the most logical position:
(1) Yes {A} exists
(2) No {A} does not exist
(3) We don't know if {A} exists or notRegardless of what {A} is (whether it is dark stuffs, gravitons or gods), and whether you (or I) believe that {A} exists (or doesn't) has no bearing on the issue.All that is at issue is determining what is the more logical position: (1), (2) or (3).

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}