You ask for my proof that the “Fairy tales” I believe are true. We both know I don’t have proof. You either believe the Gospels that the resurrection is historical or you don’t.
How can one with such intellect capable of nuanced complex communication within a syntax of brevity and clarity not know that such stories are fictitious? The parts of the brain that lend skill to the one should be more than capable of analyzing the egregious lack of legitimacy and integrity of the other.
You are an enigma. What happened? Did you get dropped hard on your head into the baptismal?
Well, Merry Christmas anyway and I hope you recover soon.
I am not saying that this proves anything about Christianity, but it does prove that you can be a particularly brilliant individual and be a Christian.
I think you and Collins and Polkinghorne were all dropped on your heads real hard into the baptismal bowl. All three of you (should) know that without the most extraordinary quality/quantity of evidence anything so extraordinarily in violation of physics at the most basic level as is religion cannot be said to exist; that "DNA and evolutionary biology as God’s fingerprints in our world," is an article of faith with no meaning let alone any reality.
Somehow, someway, the religious meme, an insidious malicious disease-infested worm, got into the brains of some very intelligent people, probably at a very early age, and proceeded to slowly eat the synapses.
You're a zombie: some brain parts are dead but still able to do calculus.
Make a change in a particle here and somehow information passed at infinite speed to a paired particle light years away and makes a change to that particle.
Entanglement is a real head scratcher. We don't (yet) understand what is actually happening here. But one idea we can discount is that Jesus is putting the information into his side-saddle then is riding his superluminal donkey clear across the universe to deliver the intrinsic spin to the other particle.
Yet, people tend to treat other areas of our ignorance in a similar religious fashion. Three millennia ago the big ignorance was where did we come from. Well ... god did it, obviously.
That is just so simple and clear a thought. It provides a strong emotional satisfaction. We have an answer that we really don't need to analyse especially since analysis is not possible (so some may think).
In the end, everything appears to be nothing.
Well, energy, in whatever form it may take, is not "nothing." Matter appears to be one of many manifestations of energy, whatever that turns out to be.
It seems to me that the one thing that is fundamental is consciousness that causes us to perceive a particular form of reality.
Except we already know that consciousness is an emergent property of complex biochemistry. It is not fundamental in a physics sense to anything.
I mentioned earlier that I see the narrative in the Bible that describes a progressive revelation in our understanding of the nature of God. I contend that we continue to learn although that progression is certainly not linear.
All ideas, even wrong ones, go through such transitions.
God was a big thing in that culture. Being fictitious it is not hard to imagine different people had different ideas and they argued, and warred, over this evolution of traits. Remember that these books of yours are only the very few from among hundreds. This bible of yours is just the select few of the surviving tomes accepted by the political powers of the time.
And, please, don't try to tell me this process was divinely inspired.
I realize that my specific belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ sounds strange to you, Percy and others.
No, not strange. Ludicrously laughable might be a better fit.
We do not know everything. Truth is we hardly know anything compared to what there is still left to get known but what we do know we know very very well indeed.
The progressive revelation in the field of physics has led us to understand the world that is far weirder than we could ever have imagined, and in fact far weirder than the idea that Jesus after death was resurrected.
Mention Heisenberg. Mention entropy. Mention QFT.
In this universe there can be no defiance of these things. The number and state of the particles, the diffusion of the photons involved, the increase in entropy, cannot be reversed for a dead human brain, let alone reverse the breakdown of metabolic pathways of a three-day-dead putrefying body.
I know, I know, we do not know everything and, besides, god can do anything. So people have ignorance in which to invest their hopes.
But when it comes to the most basic operations of the stuff and glue of this universe, which we know about as well as any one of ICANT's absolute truths can possibly be, this resurrection thing is a physical (physics-cal) impossibility.
I'm afraid there is no way around these items. Not without a lot of pure majik of a kind never ever seen anywhere in anything else in this universe ... ever ... and, frankly, Heisenberg and entropy deny even that.
It seems that we are an emergent part of a greater reality.
Sure, and ignorance provides a license to invent. That doesn't mean we are allowed to violate the sacred rules, the beatification of Heisenberg, the veneration of entropy.
Why then is it so hard to believe that there is another dimension/universe that Jesus, somewhat particle like, could physically move from another dimension to our own and back again. Does that really sound any stranger than the quantum world?
Ya. That's pretty silly. Superluminal interdimensional donkey.
You do know that this multidimensional stuff is speculation, right? It is a math hack in models that have yet to show any great viability; intriguing ideas that could help explain a few nagging issues but, so far, nothing of any scientific substance or predictive value. There are no other dimensions there to "believe" in. So believing that Jesus, somewhat particle like, could physically move from another dimension to our own and back again, is a rather silly proposal to make at this point in our experience.
In conclusion, my basic point is that subjective experience is allowed to question any and all sacred rules in pursuit of truth.
That is most certainly true of religious rules.
But some of the rules of physics require a whole lot more than anything subjective could possible muster to be of any challenge.
As for the three of you and the voices, were there mushrooms on the pizza?
You know I'm going to say there has to be a rational natural non-spooky answer to that. But you say you lived it so I cannot challenge that except to say there was something in this scenario that you missed.
Somehow, someway, the religious meme, an insidious malicious disease-infested worm, got into the brains of some very intelligent people, probably at a very early age, and proceeded to slowly eat the synapses.
This is what I believe happened to me, whether I'm "very intelligent" or not.
Well, you ain't no dim bulb. Just look around at your creation here.
My religious beliefs sit in isolation from the rest of what I know because they're incompatible with the reality of observation and study.
You're not alone. Most of us still battle the worm.
Some how though you seem quite happy to believe that out of who knows what we have within one second from an infinitely small singularity a massive, maybe even infinite universe that by this time was made up of assorted basic particles which themselves were, at least so it appears, dimensionless. Over hundred of thousands of years these particles through who knows how many processes combined to form atoms.
Ultimately these atoms combined and formed compounds, were drawn together by gravity, wherever that came from, to form suns and then planets and so on. Then somehow out of these atoms incredibly complex cellular structures formed and gradually formed living material such as plants and then evolved into humans. Somewhere in that evolutionary process we wound up with creatures that had consciousness with an understanding of self and eventually to an understanding that other selves mattered. There is the anthropic principle. The universe has to be very precisely the way it is to support life.
There! You got it!
If we can stop right there we can agree and we can then close up EvC and go watch cat videos.
Not gonna happen, is it.
That's ok. I'm not enthralled with cat videos anyway.
We've mentioned Heisenberg in several places now and we both know what it says. But, do you understand why the uncertainty principle says what it says? Do you understand why this thing is seen not as just an annoying little theory but a hard and fast impediment to complete knowledge built into the very fabric of spacetime itself?
Do you understand why our theories tell us all this stuff you mentioned above are considerably more than just possible or probable or likely?
Some how though you seem quite happy to believe ...
No belief. None. What do our models tell us and at what confidence level. Set belief aside. Only the facts as revealed to us by the models.
Do we need to get into why we have a high level of confidence in models that have never lied to us before? I hope not. I don't want to go down that hole again.
... that out of who knows what we have within one second from an infinitely small singularity a massive, maybe even infinite universe that by this time was made up of assorted basic particles which themselves were, at least so it appears, dimensionless.
Please understand that this singularity word is code for "we've no freaking idea what this thing is". From there you got it right. From this thing we can't understand sprang the whole of the universe, maybe infinite in extent, maybe not, with particles that are easy to understand and manipulate in the math of our models as point particles the true extent of which we still don't completely understand because our technology hasn't taken us there, yet.
Over hundred of thousands of years these particles through who knows how many processes combined to form atoms.
Not sure I understand "through who knows how many processes". Lots of the really smart people know precisely how many of what processes were needed to accomplish this feat. I know because I read their work and their peers works and having a good comfort level that these folks know their stuff I have thrown it all out because I really don't care how it all happened in excruciating detail anymore, just that it did happen more or less how the smart guys say it did and we have the results.
Ultimately these atoms combined and formed compounds, were drawn together by gravity, wherever that came from, to form suns and then planets and so on.
From the effects of matter on spacetime. GR, the curving of spacetime. To our present best understanding, that is what gravity is.
I won't quibble about 'formed compounds' since, eventually, the suns that did form and blew up, as in BANG, I mean really BIG BANGS (no, not that one, the one that stars do when they die) like hypernova and bigger, eventually they formed all the rest of the periodic table so that compounds, mostly organic compounds, could be formed.
[aside] This universe seems to have a thing for organic compounds since that is what we see most out there in the way of complex molecules floating around all over the cosmos in huge hoards. Like the Mongols coming down off the stepps to plunder and pillage their way across the sky. Or not.
Then somehow out of these atoms incredibly complex cellular structures formed and gradually formed living material such as plants and then evolved into humans.
I am rather partial to the RNA World hypothesis, myself. It allows, as do most of our present abiogenesis models, for something quite simpler than an incredibly complex cellular structure to happen way sooner than you indicate. Maybe millions++ years before anything that looked anything even close to a most simple pre-proto-cell let alone something "incredibly complex".
But, ya, from simple replicators to complex cells in under 200 million years, then maybe a couple billion more years to go from single cell to multi-cell structures (thank you mitochondria) and a couple billion more years to get to Uncle Ugger who kept falling out of his tree then to Uncle Edger who kept falling out of his car.
Somewhere in that evolutionary process we wound up with creatures that had consciousness with an understanding of self and eventually to an understanding that other selves mattered.
Yup, we got that. And all it took was chemistry. Ok, maybe some empathy that grew stronger in the population as those without so much died out from being too damn ornery to live with, but that's advanced chemistry.
There is the anthropic principle.
Yes, there is. And all that says is if it wasn't this way we wouldn't be here to talk about it. Not really all that helpful, actually, but, hey, if you like it, go with it.
The universe has to be very precisely the way it is to support life. The atheist has to believe that this all happened by chance and/or good fortune.
Again, no belief. The universe took on the values in the physical constants and the constituents of the stuff that got here by some (as yet) unknown processes. This atheist doubts very much that chance or good fortune had anything to do with it. We may find out some time in the far, far, far future that the universe had no other options. We don't know. Nobody does.
Now we as humans up from the muck down from the trees, ya, lots of chance, lots of luck. I think it was Stephen Jay Gould who said (and I do not quote), "If we wind the clock back far enough and let evolution run its course anew humans would probably not be in the picture today."
I would not be able to come even close to coming up with enough faith to believe that.
Ya, I know. Let go the faith, let go the need for belief as a crutch to understanding and just follow the facts, the evidence. Let them take you on a stroll down the Sandwalk. The Sandwalk, btw, was a pathway Darwin trekked daily for exercising both body and brain.
I have no problem with the history of the universe as explained by modern physics but I do have a massive problem with the idea that out of mindless particles we have sentient life with a concept of morality all driven by endless unguided mindless processes.
Well that is what the universe is telling us. Can't alter that. She says what she says.
Frankly I think it takes more than a bang on the head to believe that.
When I was a pre-teen many moons ago my brother hit me in the head with a 2X4. That's the excuse I give for having this big bald spot in the middle of my scalp.
As a side note I find the concept of Dawkin's memes interesting. I find it very compatible with the Christian concept of spreading God's love to all. People are impacted when they experience the sacrificial love of others. The hope is that ultimately that meme of sacrificial love will be spread to all and that we will all be one tribe.
Lose the religious overtones and we have agreement.
Energy however is dimensionless, and if that is what everything is made up of then things again aren't at all what they appear.
Is it? Like the other particles in the box the photon and the gluon , both spin 1 particles (bosons: energy or force carriers), are treated in the math as point particles. So are the electron and the quarks which, I presume, you would call real stuff since they have mass. In that sense everything in the Standard Model is dimensionless and you and I are not really here.
I can almost assure you that I may or may not be here regardless of all my constituent parts being mathematically treated as zero-dimensional point-particles.
Well, that is assumption, not knowledge. I have been interested in the ideas of Penrose and others who suggest that consciousness is basic to our perception of all that is. I think that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle plays into this.
That's a deep one. I can't address this at the moment. I've been here far too long already. Maybe later. But don't forget the micro-tubules he seems to like so much as a consciousness bridge. That's his key.
"Hidden Worlds of Dark Matter -- An entire universe may be interwoven silently with our own"
That has nothing to do with extra dimensions. That is the speculation that since we cannot see, feel, interact with what we are calling dark matter then there just may be entire bodies of the stuff, unseen to us, floating around in our universe forming (loosely) stars, planets, galaxies and like that right along with the stuff we can see.
I wouldn't say it's rubbish but until there is some evidence then it is rubbish.
Have a good evening, GDR.
Edited by AZPaul3, : Ok. I gotta stop this. Enough already.
I have given up on trying to reconcile God with reality. I choose to believe in God at times because it comforts me. (42) why not! I have nothing but a fragile faith and arbitrary absurdity to wash it down with.
Then come over to the dark side. Let reality prevail. For those times you need comfort, get a dog. Arbitrary Absurdity? Is that anything like Everclear?
If evolution is a mindless process that has resulted in the creatures we have today, and that it all started without any cellular life, how would a blind process know that the sense of vision was something that existed at all in order to begin the evolutionary process that resulted in vision being a reality.
GDR, really. I think you actually already know.
Light from our star is energy. Powerful energy. Photons do strange and wonderful things to chemistry. Early microbes were not confined to the dark. Any strange and wonderful things that happened to even a small portion of a microbe's chemistry that could be used as a tripwire for when whatever kind of light was present or not, is just sitting there asking, sorta, to be stumbled and bumbled into something useful ... like a light detector. Modification and reproduction do the rest. Octopus eyes. The best on the planet.
And the vast majority of the various convergent evolutionary paths of Earth eyes respond most effectively to the same rather narrow range of light frequencies. Just so happens that narrow range corresponds directly to the frequencies of our star's most prolific electromagnetic outputs.
No majik necessary. Just chemistry.
Also you said in another post when I mentioned the observer effect that even though there was no one there to measure or observe anything that the rocks etc of our world would still exist. How do you know that or is it simply something you believe. If you know it then how do you know it.
If I understand you right the observer effect, as you call it, is part of the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. An observer collapses the wave function of a superposition. The part most folks miss, thank you pop-culture science news, is that ANY macro object (a dust mote) interacting with any particle is an "observer" thus collapsing the function.
There is the age old question that if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it does it still make a sound. Assuming that there is no conscious life around I would say no it does not. It is not a sound until it is perceived as sound. It is only an increased movement of air waves. Possibly it is the same for observing rocks.
Sorry. Yes there is a sound, whether it is perceived or not. The vibrating waves of air molecules still vibrate at the same frequencies, travel the same paths and echo off the same hills whether any equipment is there to observe them or not. The physical operations are the same. For a falling tree in a forest it is physically impossible for the vibrations to not be produced and propagate. Saying this is not "sound" because it is not "heard" is a semantical absurdity with a badly forced philosophical goal.
Maybe you are right but it does seem to me that allowing for a pre-existing intelligence is actually a simpler answer.
Oh, you’re funny.
All the questions that need to be answered about the particle in question now need to be applied to this mysterious intelligence as well. You have at least doubled the amount of knowledge required to understand this system. That doesn’t qualify as “simpler”.
Maybe “simpler” in the respect that one can just throw the label “it’s majik” at it so one doesn’t have to digest the actions in detail and think too hard on what actually is happening but that’s not the kind of “simpler” Occam is look for when he strops his razor. Quite the opposite, in fact.
I know you are trying to justify your concepts of god but please acknowledge that introducing that extra entity and its bunch of extra steps that also require rigorous explanation is not in any way simpler.
I know that with my very limited knowledge I am on shaky ground here but you have to assume that the dust mote exists if it is not observed. In reality, we have no way of knowing any of this as we are not observing or measuring it.
how do we know?
The point is not whether the dust mote or the pebble or the moon exists. The point is that if such a macro composite item interacts with a particle in a superposition state that particle is said to be observed and the superposition state is broken.
Thus we are all defining the character of this "God of Heaven".
Just drawing a logical conclusion from the attributes given this god from his proponents such as yourself. Or is that an older version of a god that is no longer in fashion? Is infinite love a thing anymore?