The Wrong God

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

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

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Greylorn Ell » Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:42 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:00 am

I might also suggest that Ockham would then dispense of the proposal for the necessity of two entities at the creation, because we'd be multiplying explanations beyond the necessary there. Really, if we want a final answer, we're looking for a single Uncaused Cause, or we once again simply have infinite regress.
I.C.
I neglected to mention that I dispensed with Ockham's crap in favor of Russell's criterion in the thread, "Before sliding down the bannister..."

I did so purposely, knowing that someone would bring up Ockham on this thread. You will gain a deeper understanding of Ockham's deficiencies by studying that thread.

Thank you.
Greylorn

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6413
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Immanuel Can » Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:51 pm

Greylorn Ell wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:42 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:00 am

I might also suggest that Ockham would then dispense of the proposal for the necessity of two entities at the creation, because we'd be multiplying explanations beyond the necessary there. Really, if we want a final answer, we're looking for a single Uncaused Cause, or we once again simply have infinite regress.
I.C.
I neglected to mention that I dispensed with Ockham's crap in favor of Russell's criterion in the thread, "Before sliding down the bannister..."

I did so purposely, knowing that someone would bring up Ockham on this thread. You will gain a deeper understanding of Ockham's deficiencies by studying that thread.

Thank you.
Greylorn
I agree that Ockham has been misunderstood. But I think he's got a point here: why posit the existence of two entities to do the job of one?

Ockham's point is really just this: if somebody says, "IC died of cancer and being run over by a car and old age," we have three explanations for one phenomenon. Ockham just wants to point out that choosing one of them would be more plausible than choosing three at once. And that seems obviously true. For while it is remotely possible that all three killed me at precisely the same instant, it's not normal to think the more complicated explanation is likely to be right.

uwot
Posts: 4394
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: The Wrong God

Post by uwot » Fri Mar 15, 2019 8:27 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:32 pm
I respect your efforts of expression in your book, but disagree with the Big Bang theory on logical grounds.
Which version of the Big Bang theory do you think is illogical? All the evidence suggests that the universe is expanding. If that is the case, then it follows that it used to be smaller, but where do you draw the line and say the universe was this big and complex when it started? Bertrand Russell made the point that there is nothing illogical about the proposition that the universe came into being five minutes ago, complete with the holes in his socks. Logic is about the structure of arguments, it simply doesn't apply to the premises.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:32 pm
I believe it has to be political because of how the Steady State was treated unusually.
It is true that Fred Hoyle, who coined the phrase, objected to the 'Big Bang Theory' because it implied a 'moment of creation', and was first proposed by a Catholic priest. But what specific action against steady state theory are you referring to?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:32 pm
The INTERPRETATION of those who maintain the meaning of the CMBR, for instance as an 'empirical' closure to the Steady State theory, is causally 'weak' (via induction and other poor logic linking these) while the Big Bang is NOT allowed to be challenged even on strong deductive grounds.
It is no different to any scientific hypothesis in that regard. Deduction has its place in science, but it is completely subordinate to evidence.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:32 pm
I can't present my own proofs anywhere without them being successfully deleted or hidden.
So present them here and I personally guarantee that they will not be deleted or hidden.

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

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Logik » Fri Mar 15, 2019 8:56 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 1:56 pm
Logik wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 5:40 am
When you pre-suppose an arrow you have already scored an own goal in terms of infinite regress.
Of course! That's my point. We can't just presuppose something existing prior to the BB, if the BB is to be taken for an origin explanation.
You are so confused I don't even know how to unconfuse you. You have already set yourself up for failure by insisting on, asking and looking for an "origin" explanation.

How, when and where did the origin originate? Rinse repeat - infinite regress!
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 1:56 pm
But if we can't presuppose anything prior to the BB, then we would have to believe the BB was an uncaused event. But what is and "uncaused" event? How does that idea even make sense?
An uncaused event is synonymous with ORIGIN. The very fucking thing you are looking for! It doesn't matter if it's the BB story or if a God farted and we appeared.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 1:56 pm
So now somebody's got to save the BB explanation. Right now, as we stand, if there was a BB, it wasn't the causal event of the origin of the cosmos.
You really need to make up your mind. Do you want an origin-story or not?

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1409
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Scott Mayers » Fri Mar 15, 2019 9:29 pm

uwot wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 8:27 pm
Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:32 pm
I respect your efforts of expression in your book, but disagree with the Big Bang theory on logical grounds.
Which version of the Big Bang theory do you think is illogical? All the evidence suggests that the universe is expanding. If that is the case, then it follows that it used to be smaller, but where do you draw the line and say the universe was this big and complex when it started? Bertrand Russell made the point that there is nothing illogical about the proposition that the universe came into being five minutes ago, complete with the holes in his socks. Logic is about the structure of arguments, it simply doesn't apply to the premises.
The expanding universe is still part of the Steady State theory. It is what initially suggested it in contrast to that Big Bang, an "approach" that could never be reached. Funny that some have reinvented this point back INTO the Big Bang when it was a Steady State concept. But it is also the first point to which the theory cannot be 'falsified'.

I recognize the function of validity versus soundness to logic. Logic is a 'machine' though and still just as real if you have exhausted all options in a given fixed set for inputs. [Like that the Universe is either 'originated' in Absolutely Nothing, Something (absolute or relative] or Absolutely infinite.]
uwot wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 8:27 pm
Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:32 pm
I believe it has to be political because of how the Steady State was treated unusually.
It is true that Fred Hoyle, who coined the phrase, objected to the 'Big Bang Theory' because it implied a 'moment of creation', and was first proposed by a Catholic priest. But what specific action against steady state theory are you referring to?
It begins on the assumption that time as well as space should be defaulted to appear relatively the same [Perfect Cosmological principle]. That is, given we trust our senses, and all we have initially to investigate reality with 'empirically', we can't allow interpretations to go beyond our capacity or it is not science.

Time also moves with space or the given speed of light would have to have different 'speeds' through time.

v = d/t

You cannot presume that a 0/0 = v let alone an infinite instance of size to the Universe from a singularity. This suffices in two logical ways along with our 'empirical' experience: What should be interpreted at best is that as we look deeper into space, light must travel at faster than local speeds BY OUR PERSPECTIVE, to maintain 'c' as a maximum speed limit. That for every distance per unit time going back also, if there really was a real singularity, it that measure of distance AND time has to be in sync such that the further we look in space, as the apparent velocity increases, it must be interpreted to do so along with a 'stretched' time of that space. You should still not be able to reach that singularity.

Proof that this is being hidden 'politically' is to hold strong to an "age of the Universe". I know some have also added to BB "the age of the observable universe". This along with instantaneous expansion from zero space but fixed time should again close off any arguments supporting the BB. But it didn't. Note too that inflation theory was added only in the 1980s. Also, the space would AT LEAST REQUIRE exponential acceleration yet only gets conveniently noticed in 1999. [It was already not ruled out by Steady State]

uwot wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 8:27 pm
Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:32 pm
The INTERPRETATION of those who maintain the meaning of the CMBR, for instance as an 'empirical' closure to the Steady State theory, is causally 'weak' (via induction and other poor logic linking these) while the Big Bang is NOT allowed to be challenged even on strong deductive grounds.
It is no different to any scientific hypothesis in that regard. Deduction has its place in science, but it is completely subordinate to evidence.
My point is about the interpretation. The excuse that treats the appearance of a phenomena or radiation at some great distance to be NOT a function of Steady State's theory can't dislodge it as it is claimed. There are other possibilities. Just because some proponents 'predicted' a hot origin doesn't assure this phenomena is equivalent to such.

I also have to point out that objects further out SHOULD be brighter and look different (as quasars) for the point above and so should appear to indicate a difference of the appearance of them.
uwot wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 8:27 pm
Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:32 pm
I can't present my own proofs anywhere without them being successfully deleted or hidden.
So present them here and I personally guarantee that they will not be deleted or hidden.
Thank you. I am. I have introduced parts of it here before already. But my point was about some science forums. (online, that is.)

I'm going to expand on it in a thread I just opened point by point. The Universe's Wall. If I can establish agreement bit by bit then I might be able to demonstrate this both logically and empirically. Little in the way of new observations are required, ONLY interpretation.

As to logic, besides the example about one such apriori that can be used above, I expanded upon that before here I believe under some title, like "How 'many' facts are there in Totality". If it wasn't here, I'll reopen a thread as this will be required as well.
Last edited by Scott Mayers on Fri Mar 15, 2019 9:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1409
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Scott Mayers » Fri Mar 15, 2019 9:41 pm

P.S. "Steady State" is not "Static Universe" (with no expansion).

Steady State also suggested that given matter has to be both 'created and destroyed'. While Einstein that energy is transferable. Conservation can still hold. It would just mean that the density of space everywhere is equal. Much of space would not be 'felt' (invisible) to energy but it stands to reason it should contain energy at every point or we would not be able to see through some points. This also can imply the possibility of a logical space with points there that don't 'exist yet for not being able to see through it nor hold matter or other forms of energy. [this would be what gravity is: it would create a "shadow", a push, not a pull, and so space need not require warping!]

Note that this 'dark energy' and 'dark matter' (both energy forms) can mean that the expansion of space IS this and so accounts for what can be used to 'create' (or 'manifest' other forms).

uwot
Posts: 4394
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: The Wrong God

Post by uwot » Fri Mar 15, 2019 10:45 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 9:29 pm
The expanding universe is still part of the Steady State theory. It is what initially suggested it in contrast to that Big Bang, an "approach" that could never be reached. Funny that some have reinvented this point back INTO the Big Bang when it was a Steady State concept. But it is also the first point to which the theory cannot be 'falsified'.
I'm going to struggle with this until I am clear about what you mean by "Steady State theory". As I understand it, the theory was proposed by Fred Hoyle as an alternative to the expansion of a 'primeval atom' proposed by Georges Lemaître. If anything was 'politically motivated' it was Hoyle's reaction to what he dismissed as 'the Big Bang theory', which was Hoyle's own term, because as an atheist, he was uncomfortable with the implication that there was a time when there wasn't a universe, and then there was. That Lemaître, a Catholic priest, suggested there was a moment of creation didn't sit comfortably with Hoyle's atheism. Hoyle's 'Steady State' came after the Big Bang theory, so I'm not sure that your idea that any point was reinvented back into the Big Bang is tenable.

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1409
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Scott Mayers » Fri Mar 15, 2019 10:59 pm

uwot wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 10:45 pm
Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 9:29 pm
The expanding universe is still part of the Steady State theory. It is what initially suggested it in contrast to that Big Bang, an "approach" that could never be reached. Funny that some have reinvented this point back INTO the Big Bang when it was a Steady State concept. But it is also the first point to which the theory cannot be 'falsified'.
I'm going to struggle with this until I am clear about what you mean by "Steady State theory". As I understand it, the theory was proposed by Fred Hoyle as an alternative to the expansion of a 'primeval atom' proposed by Georges Lemaître. If anything was 'politically motivated' it was Hoyle's reaction to what he dismissed as 'the Big Bang theory', which was Hoyle's own term, because as an atheist, he was uncomfortable with the implication that there was a time when there wasn't a universe, and then there was. That Lemaître, a Catholic priest, suggested there was a moment of creation didn't sit comfortably with Hoyle's atheism. Hoyle's 'Steady State' came after the Big Bang theory, so I'm not sure that your idea that any point was reinvented back into the Big Bang is tenable.
There really isn't too much remaining of the Steady State theory that I can sufficiently find to be sure. See the Wikipedia page, for instance.

The theory was inspired by a Twilight Zone episode that 'cycled' back to different beginnings, ...in part. The origin concept requires a kind of 'wall' and why I have opened three related threads on it. But the idea wasn't merely about an atheistic version but a question of ANY essence, be it God or other. That is, if an origin, relative or absolute could exist, these are 'null' points or nodes. The idea from the movie likely suggested to them something about not excluding ANY possibilities rather than bias. As such, the multiple worlds may suggest why we are not so SPECIAL and 'could' mean either a wall with continuity beyond it OR the appearance of one such that the closer you go to its origin, the smaller and infinitesimal space can present that singularity as an apparition that holds ANYWHEN just as with ANYWHERE.

Check out those other threads to see better what I mean. I want to take on both the 'empirical' minimal capacity we have with the logical in thought experiments. AND do so by exhausting all possibilities in a given domain of space, time, and energy (or matter).

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

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Logik » Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:00 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 9:29 pm
Time also moves with space or the given speed of light would have to have different 'speeds' through time.

v = d/t

You cannot presume that a 0/0 = v let alone an infinite instance of size to the Universe from a singularity. This suffices in two logical ways along with our 'empirical' experience: What should be interpreted at best is that as we look deeper into space, light must travel at faster than local speeds BY OUR PERSPECTIVE, to maintain 'c' as a maximum speed limit.
General relativity does a good job at covering inertial vs non-inertial reference frames.

The this concept of "the observer" just screws up all of our science ;)

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1409
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Scott Mayers » Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:07 pm

P.S. I also related to your book and (other linked thread above) to HOW you think similar as I do illustratively.
The relevant threads are:
Bricks in the Universe's Wall,
Another Brick for a wall...and origin of time and space,
and
The Bricks in Space and Time

This covers the time and space periods of past, present, and future; smallest space, here, and largest space.

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1409
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Scott Mayers » Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:09 pm

Logik wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:00 pm
Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 9:29 pm
Time also moves with space or the given speed of light would have to have different 'speeds' through time.

v = d/t

You cannot presume that a 0/0 = v let alone an infinite instance of size to the Universe from a singularity. This suffices in two logical ways along with our 'empirical' experience: What should be interpreted at best is that as we look deeper into space, light must travel at faster than local speeds BY OUR PERSPECTIVE, to maintain 'c' as a maximum speed limit.
General relativity does a good job at covering inertial vs non-inertial reference frames.

The this concept of "the observer" just screws up all of our science ;)
Well I can rationalize the conflict with less confusion, I assure you.

EDIT: and now I see my threads being buried FAST!! :roll:
Last edited by Scott Mayers on Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Logik » Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:12 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:09 pm
Well I can rationalize the conflict with less confusion, I assure you.
Naturally. So can all other 8 billion people.

Humans are rather good at brushing all contingencies under the carpet. Out of sight - out of mind ;)

Rorty calls it "final vocabulary". The set of beliefs we tend to be comfortable with whose contingencies we happily ignore.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6413
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Immanuel Can » Sat Mar 16, 2019 12:09 am

Logik wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 8:56 pm
How, when and where did the origin originate? Rinse repeat - infinite regress!
Impossible. Infinite regress of causes is both mathematically and logically impossible. We know that much.

So the causal chain had to have a start point.

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1409
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Scott Mayers » Sat Mar 16, 2019 12:16 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 12:09 am
Logik wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 8:56 pm
How, when and where did the origin originate? Rinse repeat - infinite regress!
Impossible. Infinite regress of causes is both mathematically and logically impossible. We know that much.

So the causal chain had to have a start point.
You've never studied Calculus! :lol:

That is all about 'limits' to zero, infinities or unit approaches. These are not only mathematically valid, reality can only point to that direction and you can't assert the literal point of singularity, just the approach to it.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6413
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Immanuel Can » Sat Mar 16, 2019 1:04 am

Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 12:16 am
You've never studied Calculus! :lol:

That is all about 'limits' to zero, infinities or unit approaches.
Actually, it has nothing whatsoever to do with that. We're talking about causal chains, not zero points or Zeno's paradox.

A causal chain is a chain of events in which an event (call it "event X") is "caused" by an earlier event (call it X-1). In a causal chain, by definition, X cannot happen until after X-1, or it's not a causal situation at all. X-1 is the sine qua non of X...or, as we say, its "cause."

But if X-1 is also a "caused" event (which it is, in a causal chain), then it cannot happen until X-2 has already happened. But X-2 cannot happen until after X-3...and so on, ad infinitum.

What this means is that if the causal chain is infinite, X never happens. In fact, neither does X-1 or X-2, or X-3, because NONE of them can happen until some other event happens first...and the backward chain is infinite, which means that THERE IS NO FIRST EVENT.

Get it now? And actual infinity of regressed causes is mathematically and logically impossible. It cannot have happened, by its own definition. Without a first-cause event, no causal chain can ever commence.

There's many more arguments to support this, but I refer you to the work of David Hilbert on this.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests