The Wrong God

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Logik » Fri Feb 01, 2019 3:09 pm

Belinda wrote:
Fri Feb 01, 2019 3:05 pm
So that's what Greylorn Ell meant.

There is something about Logik's hypothesis that reminds me of chaos theory and how a prediction can skew an effect.
It's an unfortunate asymmetry.

An intelligent person can play dumb.
A dumb person can't feign intelligence.

I don't know... maybe we can program it without humility, so it is naive enough to try and impress us with how smart it has become...

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Greylorn Ell » Fri Feb 01, 2019 8:07 pm

Belinda wrote:
Fri Feb 01, 2019 12:33 pm
Greylorn Ell wrote:
None of you have an intelligent explanation for human consciousness.
Do you mean waking consciousness of the man whose cerebral cortex is in good condition? Or dreaming consciousness of the same man? Or the consciousness of a brain-mind that is hallucinating? Or the waking consciousness of the experienced meditator ?

Do you mean an explanation as in how did human consciousness originate and did human consciousness subsequently define the species? Or do you mean an explanation of how human consciousness survived despite the human's inferior physique?
Belinda,

Thank you for intelligent questions that address the issue raised in the OP.

Consciousness is a rather complex phenomenon that includes the phases you mentioned, which are connected by a common core-- self-awareness, expressed in Desartes' famous "Cogito ergo sum," and shared to some extent by the few individuals who actually understand what that means, and its implications. Consciousness requires at least a rudimentary level of perception. This is different from sentience which is commonly and pointlessly used as a synonym for consciousness.

Some years ago David Chalmers posed what he called, "The hard problem of consciousness." I've included a link to a subsequent TED talk by Chalmers in which he elaborates on this problem. In the first part he explains what he means by "consciousness," and his talk degenerates IMO later on, as soon as he mentions Daniel Dennett. https://www.ted.com/talks/david_chalmer ... sciousness

His definitions of the phenomenon are effective, and I'm mostly in agreement with them.

He proposes two other interesting things with which I agree and have already explored in my last horrid book:

1. Consciousness may be a fundamental phenomena.

2. Explaining it may require a radical theory unlike any idea previously considered.

Greylorn

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Greylorn Ell » Fri Feb 01, 2019 8:23 pm

Belinda wrote:
Fri Feb 01, 2019 3:05 pm
Logik wrote:
Fri Feb 01, 2019 2:38 pm
Belinda wrote:
Fri Feb 01, 2019 12:33 pm
Greylorn Ell wrote:



Do you mean waking consciousness of the man whose cerebral cortex is in good condition? Or dreaming consciousness of the same man? Or the consciousness of a brain-mind that is hallucinating? Or the waking consciousness of the experienced meditator ?

Do you mean an explanation as in how did human consciousness originate and did human consciousness subsequently define the species? Or do you mean an explanation of how human consciousness survived despite the human's inferior physique?
To speak of consciousness is to speak of the Turing test ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test ).

And it immediately poses a dilemma. If an AI is smart enough to convince us that it is 'human', it's also smart enough to fail the test to avoid the human moral panic that will ensue if it actually passed it!
So that's what Greylorn Ell meant.
No, that's not what I meant.

The Turing Test has been passed, and in the process it proved that it is only a test of those chosen to judge it, who proved themselves incompetent, and totally ignorant of anything related to human consciousness.

GL

Age
Posts: 3099
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Age » Sat Feb 02, 2019 6:44 am

Logik wrote:
Fri Feb 01, 2019 2:38 pm
Belinda wrote:
Fri Feb 01, 2019 12:33 pm
Greylorn Ell wrote:
None of you have an intelligent explanation for human consciousness.
Do you mean waking consciousness of the man whose cerebral cortex is in good condition? Or dreaming consciousness of the same man? Or the consciousness of a brain-mind that is hallucinating? Or the waking consciousness of the experienced meditator ?

Do you mean an explanation as in how did human consciousness originate and did human consciousness subsequently define the species? Or do you mean an explanation of how human consciousness survived despite the human's inferior physique?
To speak of consciousness is to speak of the Turing test ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test ).
Only for some.
Logik wrote:
Fri Feb 01, 2019 2:38 pm
And it immediately poses a dilemma.
Again, only for some.
Logik wrote:
Fri Feb 01, 2019 2:38 pm
If an AI is smart enough to convince us that it is 'human',
That would depend on who the 'us' is that you are referring to here.

And, if human beings built an ai that convinces them of some thing, then that just shows and proves just how stupid enough human beings are and can be and not necessarily how smart enough a1 is.

Only some of the people can be fooled some of the time. Not all of the people can be fooled all of the time.
Logik wrote:
Fri Feb 01, 2019 2:38 pm
it's also smart enough to fail the test to avoid the human moral panic that will ensue if it actually passed it!
What "human moral panic" are you referring to here?

Atla
Posts: 2317
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Atla » Sat Feb 02, 2019 7:42 am

Greylorn Ell wrote:
Fri Feb 01, 2019 5:33 am
Atla wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:26 pm
Just to be annoying :)
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 6:30 am
Before proposing an entirely new paradigm to explain the beginnings of things--
There is also a deeper paradigm here: the illogical idea that things had a beginning. You assume it, and the ones you critize also assume it, almost everyone assumes is.
An alternative idea is that spacetime is a closed loop (or something like that, circular), so it's both finite and without a beginning.
Good job at being annoying. You've done your job, so go away for a time long enough to elucidate whatever the fuck you imagine that you're talking about. Then explain it, on a thread of your own please.
G
What I meant was that your are probably making the same basic mistake like almost everyone else about this so-called "beginning", that's how we've been programmed to think but you weren't bright enough to see the alternative.

Human consciousness is a similar case, you are probably making the same mistake inherent to dualistic Western philosophy like almost everyone else. Well at least you realized that consciousness is fundamental, but beyond that you would have to realize that consciousness in general is the same as the "physical" world so there's really not much more to realize, and human consciousness is just the part of it in the head.

I'm just stating that although the theories you critice are indeed bullshit, but Beon theory is also bullshit, crackpot fantasy. Perhaps that's why you criticize everyone for being crackpots, too much projection. I don't really care if you throw a tantrum about my comment, this is a debate forum after all. :)

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Logik » Sat Feb 02, 2019 9:30 am

Atla wrote:
Sat Feb 02, 2019 7:42 am
What I meant was that your are probably making the same basic mistake like almost everyone else about this so-called "beginning", that's how we've been programmed to think but you weren't bright enough to see the alternative.
And you were so bright to see the "alternative" that you have failed to recognise that you've merely replaced one geometric entity for another.

The beginning-end mindset is a vector.
The eternal mindset is a circle.

The entire premise of logic is the ASSUMPTION that the universe has a discernable structure that we, humans can (could?) conceptually recognise and describe in language.

To say it another way: Logic is born out of the human desire for structure.

The universe owes us nothing. Not even a structure.

gaffo
Posts: 2320
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: The Wrong God

Post by gaffo » Sun Feb 03, 2019 1:52 am

Greylorn Ell wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 6:30 am
Before proposing an entirely new paradigm to explain the beginnings of things--things like the physical universe replete with its mathematically definable physics principles and billions of entities professing to exhibit some form of conscious self-awareness but mostly making a poor show of it, one might consider existing paradigms about the beginnings.

At first glance there would appear to be two major paradigms: the religious (an almighty and omnipotent God who made the physical universe, from nothing, and then made man, body and soul, from nothing). This God is an uncaused entity, having always existed.

The "scientific" paradigm declares that way back when, before anything existed, something called a "physical singularity" spontaneously came into existence. (This is an invention of pseudo-scientists. Singularities are mathematical forms that describe various ways to achieve infinity, such as the tangent of 90 degrees, the secant of 0 degrees, or any finite number divided by zero. Infinity, of course, is not a number and therefore cannot be the solution to any numerical problem. The concept of a physical infinity has not been defined, and is therefore a meaningless item of pseudo-scientific bullshit.)

Science's (to be specific, cosmology's) singularity has no cause, no point or time of origin. Any concept about where it first appeared makes no sense because "where" is a concept dependent on space, and possibly upon time (a.k.a. "when") as well. Neither time nor space could have existed at the instant of the singularity's appearance. Whatever, at some unknown time after its inexplicable and uncaused manifestation, the singularity spontaneously (i.e. without cause or reason) exploded into our universe, complete with energy and matter, plus dark energy and dark matter, and a shitload of "particles" that conveniently interacted to form the atoms composing the universe-- then, without cause, stars, planets, galaxies, black holes, etc.

Ultimately, upon looking closely at either the detailed or superficial versions of the entities responsible for the beginnings of things (God vs. Singularity) they are:

1. Illogical bunk.
2. Functionally identical.

Why functionally identical? Neither God nor the singularity can be explained. They are both, at least from our current perspectives, uncaused.

The existence of either one cannot be verified. God is a spirit, defined to be beyond the detection capabilities of any physical scientific spirit. The singularity blew up, so we can do no better than find sorry traces of it.

Any so-called evidence for either God or the singularity is entirely inferential.

Neither offers a credible explanation for abiogenesis, or any reason for the creation of biological life.

Enough. Perhaps we can kick this around, without thread hijacks, please. (Other crackpots will kindly find the integrity to grind their personal theoretical axes (a.k.a. bullshit) on their own threads.)

Then I can move on to propose an alternative theory for the beginnings which is entirely rational and perfectly logical (but absolutely unconventional), and subject to genuine scientific investigation because most of its hypothetical components (the parts participating in the beginnings of things) still exist and can be investigated by appropriately engineered physical instruments.

One of those parts includes whatever passes for the conscious, intelligent, self-aware human mind.

(A summary, added to the original OP:)

An understanding of the beginnings of things is important because all considerations about the current nature of the things in our perceived reality depend upon beliefs about their beginnings, particularly the question: Did a Creator, a God, make the universe? If so, why? If not, what did?

Atheists will likely agree that the traditional God-concept is illogical nonsense, as do I. However, they've overlooked the relationship between their current favorite cosmological substitute, the modern transmogrification of Big Bang theory, and the God-concept. Those ideas are functionally identical-- different statements of the same old concept. Just as religionists believe in an entity that cannot exist, atheists disbelieve in the same entity! Well, good for them, except that they've built their pseudo-scientific nonsense upon the fundamental "all things from one" religious belief, doubling down on their opponents' faulty logic.

The dreadful mistake made by both religionists and atheists is their mutual agreement that a single entity could have possibly created our universe, a cause-effect universe within which two things, or two opposing forces, are required to make something happen.

The point of such discussion is to lay a foundation for a theory of the beginnings that requires at least two things, two opposing yet interactive 'forces. There's no mystery here; the theory already exists in published form. I'll try using this forum to explain it, a little bit at a time, perhaps more effectively expressed.

Put more simply: Current religious beliefs suck. Cosmology is just a variation of King Tut's monotheistic God, and it sucks the more because astronomers are often intelligent. We can do better. But we will not until we can acknowledge that all current theories about the beginnings (except mine, of course) are illogical and non-scientific.

The expected responses to this proposal have already started, in the form of "What you mean 'we,' Kemosaby?

Kindly focus your objections to this OP upon the OP itself. Thank you.

Greylorn Ell
your own thread negates your own post.

which God? YHWH, Vishnu, Thor, Baal????

instead you post about "god" (which Gods?)

and science - which offers no answers about the Big Bang - only .000000000000001 seconds after.

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Greylorn Ell » Sun Feb 03, 2019 4:19 am

gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 1:52 am
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 6:30 am
Before proposing an entirely new paradigm to explain the beginnings of things--things like the physical universe replete with its mathematically definable physics principles and billions of entities professing to exhibit some form of conscious self-awareness but mostly making a poor show of it, one might consider existing paradigms about the beginnings.

At first glance there would appear to be two major paradigms: the religious (an almighty and omnipotent God who made the physical universe, from nothing, and then made man, body and soul, from nothing). This God is an uncaused entity, having always existed.

The "scientific" paradigm declares that way back when, before anything existed, something called a "physical singularity" spontaneously came into existence. (This is an invention of pseudo-scientists. Singularities are mathematical forms that describe various ways to achieve infinity, such as the tangent of 90 degrees, the secant of 0 degrees, or any finite number divided by zero. Infinity, of course, is not a number and therefore cannot be the solution to any numerical problem. The concept of a physical infinity has not been defined, and is therefore a meaningless item of pseudo-scientific bullshit.)

Science's (to be specific, cosmology's) singularity has no cause, no point or time of origin. Any concept about where it first appeared makes no sense because "where" is a concept dependent on space, and possibly upon time (a.k.a. "when") as well. Neither time nor space could have existed at the instant of the singularity's appearance. Whatever, at some unknown time after its inexplicable and uncaused manifestation, the singularity spontaneously (i.e. without cause or reason) exploded into our universe, complete with energy and matter, plus dark energy and dark matter, and a shitload of "particles" that conveniently interacted to form the atoms composing the universe-- then, without cause, stars, planets, galaxies, black holes, etc.

Ultimately, upon looking closely at either the detailed or superficial versions of the entities responsible for the beginnings of things (God vs. Singularity) they are:

1. Illogical bunk.
2. Functionally identical.

Why functionally identical? Neither God nor the singularity can be explained. They are both, at least from our current perspectives, uncaused.

The existence of either one cannot be verified. God is a spirit, defined to be beyond the detection capabilities of any physical scientific spirit. The singularity blew up, so we can do no better than find sorry traces of it.

Any so-called evidence for either God or the singularity is entirely inferential.

Neither offers a credible explanation for abiogenesis, or any reason for the creation of biological life.

Enough. Perhaps we can kick this around, without thread hijacks, please. (Other crackpots will kindly find the integrity to grind their personal theoretical axes (a.k.a. bullshit) on their own threads.)

Then I can move on to propose an alternative theory for the beginnings which is entirely rational and perfectly logical (but absolutely unconventional), and subject to genuine scientific investigation because most of its hypothetical components (the parts participating in the beginnings of things) still exist and can be investigated by appropriately engineered physical instruments.

One of those parts includes whatever passes for the conscious, intelligent, self-aware human mind.

(A summary, added to the original OP:)

An understanding of the beginnings of things is important because all considerations about the current nature of the things in our perceived reality depend upon beliefs about their beginnings, particularly the question: Did a Creator, a God, make the universe? If so, why? If not, what did?

Atheists will likely agree that the traditional God-concept is illogical nonsense, as do I. However, they've overlooked the relationship between their current favorite cosmological substitute, the modern transmogrification of Big Bang theory, and the God-concept. Those ideas are functionally identical-- different statements of the same old concept. Just as religionists believe in an entity that cannot exist, atheists disbelieve in the same entity! Well, good for them, except that they've built their pseudo-scientific nonsense upon the fundamental "all things from one" religious belief, doubling down on their opponents' faulty logic.

The dreadful mistake made by both religionists and atheists is their mutual agreement that a single entity could have possibly created our universe, a cause-effect universe within which two things, or two opposing forces, are required to make something happen.

The point of such discussion is to lay a foundation for a theory of the beginnings that requires at least two things, two opposing yet interactive 'forces. There's no mystery here; the theory already exists in published form. I'll try using this forum to explain it, a little bit at a time, perhaps more effectively expressed.

Put more simply: Current religious beliefs suck. Cosmology is just a variation of King Tut's monotheistic God, and it sucks the more because astronomers are often intelligent. We can do better. But we will not until we can acknowledge that all current theories about the beginnings (except mine, of course) are illogical and non-scientific.

The expected responses to this proposal have already started, in the form of "What you mean 'we,' Kemosaby?

Kindly focus your objections to this OP upon the OP itself. Thank you.

Greylorn Ell
your own thread negates your own post.

which God? YHWH, Vishnu, Thor, Baal????

instead you post about "god" (which Gods?)

and science - which offers no answers about the Big Bang - only .000000000000001 seconds after.
Gaffo,
I cannot argue with your comments, for I agree with them.

I'm experimenting, trying to introduce a wide-ranging and complex set of ideas in piecemeal form. Two books which explained them in detail failed because people have attention spans tuned to sound bytes, commercials, and simple points. As you might see from the nitwits who've been using this thread as their personal squabble site, few are capable of grasping anything with which they do not already agree.

So to answer your questions..

Which God? Every silly one of them. Gods are created by priests and their equivalents as a method of controlling populaces whose average IQ is 100 on a good test day, when they're not drunk or stoned.

I hope to introduce the notion that some parts of our universe were engineered by intelligent entities, in a manner similar to human technological development. However, the notion that any kind of omnipotent or super-powerful being who knows everything was responsible for creation is, IMO, nonsense.

The greater nonsense is that humans were totally created by the same entity (or group of entities) who might have participated in the assembly of earlier biological life forms. (No, I'm not a dumbfuck "ancient alien theorist" and I rarely say "yes.")

The stinkiest religious bullshit of all is the absurd notion that any entity who might have participated in human engineering might give a shit about me, you, or any other individual human.

As for science's story about the beginnings, I regard both the notion of a Big Bang and the first picosecond of activity thereafter with about the same high regard and esteem as a long dead otter. That crap is less "scientific" than Darwinism and abiogenesis theories, each easily shown to be nonsensical.

Greylorn

Age
Posts: 3099
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Age » Sun Feb 03, 2019 5:28 am

Greylorn Ell wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 4:19 am

I'm experimenting, trying to introduce a wide-ranging and complex set of ideas in piecemeal form.
Instead of just "trying to" introduce a set of ideas, why not just introduce them?

Greylorn Ell wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 4:19 am
I hope to introduce the notion that some parts of our universe were engineered by intelligent entities, in a manner similar to human technological development.
Instead of "hoping to" introduce the notion, why not just do it?

Ah look, you have ALREADY 'introduced the notion' that some parts of "our" Universe were engineered by intelligent entities, in a manner similar to human technological development. So now that that notion has been introduced would you now care to just expand on this a bit further?

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Greylorn Ell » Mon Feb 04, 2019 1:14 am

Age wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 5:28 am
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 4:19 am

I'm experimenting, trying to introduce a wide-ranging and complex set of ideas in piecemeal form.
Instead of just "trying to" introduce a set of ideas, why not just introduce them?

Greylorn Ell wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 4:19 am
I hope to introduce the notion that some parts of our universe were engineered by intelligent entities, in a manner similar to human technological development.
Instead of "hoping to" introduce the notion, why not just do it?

Ah look, you have ALREADY 'introduced the notion' that some parts of "our" Universe were engineered by intelligent entities, in a manner similar to human technological development. So now that that notion has been introduced would you now care to just expand on this a bit further?
It might be time for that. A couple of nitwits had been sandbagging this thread by using it to poop at each other. No point trying to have a useful idea exchange amid a bullshit storm.

I call the theory Natural Creation. That term might seem internally contradictory, but as perhaps you will see, it is not.

N.C. depends on several ideas and principles. Let's get them down first, by way of pouring a sound foundation.

We appear to live in a cause-effect universe. At the Newtonian level this is obvious-- pool balls will sit on a pool table forever unless acted upon by an outside force-- ideally by a skimpily dressed young lady poking one of them with a pool stick-- but any outside forces from barfing drunks to earthquakes will do the job of simply moving them.

In this universe two things manifesting interactive but opposing forces are required to make something happen.

Quantum physicists will claim otherwise, that events can happen without cause. I propose that they are incorrect, and have merely mistaken the effect of a force they do not understand for a spontaneous event. I'll deal with that later in the context of an alternative perspective. In the interim, kindly adopt the assumption that two opposing yet interactive forces are required to make something happen, and see where that takes us.

Applying that principle to the beginnings of things, it is apparent that neither creation by an Almighty God nor the uncaused explosion of a spontaneously appearing (a.k.a. magical) micropea/singularity/whatever can have gotten our universe fired up, because they are single things. Would it not be more consistent with observed reality to hypothesize the existence of two opposing forces coming together and interacting so as to jump-start the universe?

Conventional thinkers will invoke Occam's Razor and whine that two things at the beginning is more complex than a single thing, so is not a righteous principle. Well, poo-- that's why I preceded this thread with one devoted to invalidating O's Razor as a principle applicable to understanding the universe, and proposed to apply Russell's principle of simplicity in its place. This thread will apply Russell's principle as a standard for idea-evaluation. Anyone wanting to quibble with that can do so on the O. Razor thread, but not here, please.

This Theory of Natural Creation (N.C.) hypothesizes the pre-universe existence of two distinct spaces which I will label as Dark Energy Space and Aeon space, contained within a larger space that can allow them to interact. Each of the two spaces has three fundamental and simple properties:

1. Existence. This means that each has always existed, without cause, and will continue to exist even if changed in form.

A. This is reflected in Dark Energy Space by the First Principle of Thermodynamics (derived from studies on the normal energy forms known to
basic physics and currently thought to comprise 4.7% of the known universe).

2. Manifestation of a single, simple and inherently fundamental force.

A. In Dark Energy space I call this Entropic Force. It is reflected in the 2nd Principle of Thermodynamics, the natural tendency of all energy
forms in our universe to lose their ability to exchange force, meaning that the universe will eventually cool down to a a temperature at which
nothing will happen.

B. Aeon Space manifests a counterforce to Entropic Force, and has an innate tendency to disrupt the state of Dark (and normal) Energy. It can
be an organizing force. In other words, any component of Aeon Space can freely violate the "2nd Law of Thermodynamics."

3. A boundary condition.

A. Dark Energy's boundary condition is a state below which it cannot go. By example, in terms of our normal energy space, the boundary
condition is a temperature of 0 degrees Kelvin, a.k.a. "absolute zero," which according to the 3rd Principle of Thermodynamics cannot be
reached. In this state, energy of any form can do nothing on its own. It is stuck at an state of absolute Entropy 1-- perfect disorder.

B. Aeon Space's boundary condition is the opposite. I do not know how to define it mathematically like the principles of thermodynamics
but regard it as an opposite of energy's boundary condition. It is as ordered, organized, and as perfect as it can be, and therefore cannot
change. It's reached a state of Entropy 0-- perfect order.

______________

Enough for now. Lunch is hot and the stupid Superbowl is on, its outcome determined by the amount of money that team owners will contribute beneath the table to the NFL Officials' Widows and Orphans Fund.

Kick these ideas around and please think them over before responding. And kindly do some homework, as needed. If you are ignorant of the Laws of Thermodynamics, learn from as many sources as Wikipedia can provide before asking me to elucidate. Many Wiki articles and referenced material will be inaccurate, but you can sneak up on the core reality of such concepts by crawling between the bushes of nonsense. I will respond to thoughtful questions on the subject, but not to questions coming from unrequited ignorance. Anyone actually wanting to understand such things can read either Richard Feynman or my book. (Feynman is way better, but my exposition of thermodynamics is specific to the ideas I'm pitching.)

From here I'll explain how a collision between Dark Energy and Aeon Spaces led to creation of other aspects of the universe, and as a last-ditch attempt to recover from a disastrous miscalculation, the creation of human beings.

Greylorn Ell

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Logik » Mon Feb 04, 2019 1:40 am

Greylorn Ell wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 1:14 am
We appear to live in a cause-effect universe. At the Newtonian level this is obvious-- pool balls will sit on a pool table forever unless acted upon by an outside force-- ideally by a skimpily dressed young lady poking one of them with a pool stick-- but any outside forces from barfing drunks to earthquakes will do the job of simply moving them.

In this universe two things manifesting interactive but opposing forces are required to make something happen.

Quantum physicists will claim otherwise, that events can happen without cause. I propose that they are incorrect, and have merely mistaken the effect of a force they do not understand for a spontaneous event. I'll deal with that later in the context of an alternative perspective. In the interim, kindly adopt the assumption that two opposing yet interactive forces are required to make something happen, and see where that takes us.
The mis-understanding between QM and classicists is that of "cause-end-effect".

Take 75 steps back and observe yourself typing! Text flows left to right. You interpret it from left-to-right. That's the arrow of time!

Do you think the meaning of "cause-and-effect" changes if I were to type it out as "effect-and-cause" ?

That every effect has a cause is a mandatory pre-supposition of the human mind, for the "if ... then" construct is deeply embedded in our reasoning.
If we had to give up "if...then" we have to give up all logic and the hopes of finding any meaningful structure in reality.

What our minds do not grasp is that time needs not be a vector and time needs not be in the direction we ASSUME it to flow in.

For all we know the Big Bang is the future. For all we know time is a tensor and the "arrow" we experience is just an illusion given our physical forms.

Try and conceptualise "tensor time" and see how soon you will need a psychiatrist...
cef.png
cef.png (14.38 KiB) Viewed 366 times
Last edited by Logik on Mon Feb 04, 2019 2:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3449
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: The Wrong God

Post by surreptitious57 » Mon Feb 04, 2019 2:09 am

The law of cause and effect is based on observation not on presupposition
There is no evidence that effects precede causes or that time is reversible

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Logik » Mon Feb 04, 2019 2:15 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 2:09 am
The law of cause and effect is based on observation not on presupposition
Given the observer's limitations...
surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 2:09 am
There is no evidence that effects precede causes or that time is reversible
There is no evidence that it isn't either.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3449
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: The Wrong God

Post by surreptitious57 » Mon Feb 04, 2019 2:51 am

There will always be limitations to observation because technology itself has limited capability
And scientists have therefore no choice but to work within such limitations when doing science

ALL the evidence supports the law of cause and effect with NONE at all supporting the opposite claim
That includes the Second Law Of Thermodynamics which states that entropy only increases over time

Also for time to just stop [ not actually reverse ] would require faster than light travel within the Universe which is not actually possible
Unless there is evidence or a testable hypothesis for the reversal of cause and effect and of time they are outside the remit of science

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Logik » Mon Feb 04, 2019 5:12 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 2:51 am
There will always be limitations to observation because technology itself has limited capability
And scientists have therefore no choice but to work within such limitations when doing science

ALL the evidence supports the law of cause and effect with NONE at all supporting the opposite claim
That includes the Second Law Of Thermodynamics which states that entropy only increases over time
It's confirmation bias.

There is no way to falsify it except by actually reversing time!
There is no way to falsify it except by actually decreasing entropy!

Scientists don't have a clue what "time" or "entropy" are, let alone how to reverse them...

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests