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 » Wed Mar 13, 2019 5:11 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:00 am
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 3:37 am
Yet the universe in which we live is, at the level of basic physics, a cause-effect place. Two things, each with opposite forces, must interact before a physical event can take place. How does a single entity, in the absence of opposing forces, create such a universe?
If this is your premise, Greylorn, then you would have to also believe that the creation-event was subject to natural laws, such as cause and effect. And while one can agree that this is how the universe functions NOW, it begs the key question, it seems to me. And you raise that question in your very next sentence:
I simply propose that our cause/effect universe could only have arisen as the consequence of two opposing forces.
If your real question is, "How could cause/effect have arisen?" then you can't posit cause/effect as a necessary precondition. If you posit cause/effect as a pre-existing condition, one in effect prior to and governing the creation event, then you no longer are offering an explanation for the "arising" of cause/effect.

But I think you have to pick one of those two horses, so to speak, and logically ride it. If cause/effect is something that "arose" as a result of something else, then it's by definition not itself the First Cause, and it it is not necessary any longer to suppose "opposing forces" are necessary, because clearly something can then create, even prior to the "arising" of cause/effect. If it didn't "arise," but rather was prior to the creation, then you've got no explanation for how cause/effect "arose" at all...you would have to say it didn't...and it would itself be the First Cause.

But traditionally, the First Cause explanation (whether we take the materialist or the monotheistic view) has to be an uncaused entity...because to suppose a cause prior to it would create an infinite regress -- and that is one thing, maybe the only thing, about which materialists and monotheists are in complete agreement. Being uncaused, it cannot itself be a product of cause/effect. Therefore, it does not need two entities in order to get going...and if it did, then we'd have an infinite regress again, because then the two beings would be contingent not necessary beings, each incomplete without the other, and thus not an Uncaused Cause, and not an answer to the question of how creation can get going. We'd have to keep searching further, to find that answer.

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.
Written like a true monotheist, but a particularly intelligent one. That's a refreshing departure from the customary bullshit. I'd like to continue this conversation with you, and believe that I can address the excellent points you've made by offering more details about the specifics of an alternative theory.

I'd like to figure out in advance how much you already know about concepts that will be applicable to our conversation, if we manage to have one. Do you know the Three Laws of Thermodynamics, or have a sense of them? Do you understand the concept of entropy? And if so, can you please briefly express your understanding?

Few people understand these concepts because they show up in basic physics, not in pop-sci. Whether you do or not is unimportant to me; I'm just trying to establish a conversational platform.

Thank you.
Greylorn

Belinda
Posts: 2808
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Belinda » Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:28 am

As quoted by Immanuel Can, Greylorn Ell wrote:

I simply propose that our cause/effect universe could only have arisen as the consequence of two opposing forces.
I agree. My preference is to think of this is as Yin and Yang. The Way (Taoism)resembles God in its ineffable quality. Unlike some versions of God the Way is not punitive.
Another way to express the quote above is I believe, " this is a relative world". Or, as Taoists would have it, a world of changes.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6465
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Mar 13, 2019 1:01 pm

Greylorn Ell wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 5:11 am
I.C.
Written like a true monotheist, but a particularly intelligent one.
Thank you. You're very gracious.
I'd like to continue this conversation with you, and believe that I can address the excellent points you've made by offering more details about the specifics of an alternative theory.
That would be good.
I'd like to figure out in advance how much you already know about concepts that will be applicable to our conversation, if we manage to have one. Do you know the Three Laws of Thermodynamics, or have a sense of them? Do you understand the concept of entropy? And if so, can you please briefly express your understanding?
Yes, I suppose I do have some grasp of that. Entropy is the rate at which the universe (and things in it) are redistributing energy towards the null-energy point (heat death).

But this is relevant to the very question I was raising, which you raised yourself inadvertently in your last message: do natural laws (such as, say, gravity, attraction/repulsion, entropy, or thermodynamic laws) pre-exist and condition the creation of the universe, or are they expressions of it. Because when we decide that, we have what we need to evaluate the idea of the necessity of either mono or dual First Cause explanations.

So I wonder, which do you think it is: first, the laws then the Creation, or all the laws coming into being AT the Creation?
Few people understand these concepts because they show up in basic physics, not in pop-sci. Whether you do or not is unimportant to me; I'm just trying to establish a conversational platform.


Fair enough. I look forward to hearing what you think, G.

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

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Scott Mayers » Wed Mar 13, 2019 1:19 pm

Greylorn Ell wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 3:37 am

Scott,
Actually, my concerns come as much from the philosophical level as from the technical/implementation level. Atomic physics is goofy, but that is the consequence of other problems that would be silly to try to explain on this forum. My issue is with cosmology.

It is not a function of any scientific paradigms that I know of--- rather, those paradigms are a function of an erroneous cosmology.

I've been working up to a point where I might explain that, so I'll give it a shot here.

The current silly cosmology is functionally identical to the religious notion that the universe was created by a single omnipotent entity. One thing at the beginning containing all the knowledge necessary to create a universe, and ultimately quasi-intelligent life.

Yet the universe in which we live is, at the level of basic physics, a cause-effect place. Two things, each with opposite forces, must interact before a physical event can take place. How does a single entity, in the absence of opposing forces, create such a universe?

I simply propose that our cause/effect universe could only have arisen as the consequence of two opposing forces.

Of course there's more to it.

Greylorn
Yes, I agree on your point. I think it is political because on logical grounds alone, the Big Bang theory is based upon the very 'singularity' concept that requires knowing something prior to it with empirical justification or has to fall back to a 'Steady State' type model. Many today have cheated by placing a question mark in the gap between that singularity, added inflation theory, among many other suspect behaviors. It HAS to be political and I believe it is about preserving a minimal religious question or doubt that science is not permitted to touch. A Steady State model can potentially remove any need for even a Deistic god. When governments or other organizations support science, it cannot do so without caution to insulting religion as an institute itself.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6465
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Mar 13, 2019 1:34 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 1:19 pm
A Steady State model can potentially remove any need for even a Deistic god. When governments or other organizations support science, it cannot do so without caution to insulting religion as an institute itself.
You are correct: a steady-state model, if proved true, would cast doubt on the necessity of God for creation. And then whether He exists or not would become a more-or-less moot point, because he'd be even more remote and uninvolved than the "god" of the Deists. He might still exist, but we'd have to ask, "For what, so far as we are concerned?" Fair enough.

But question, then, is not "What is somebody's motivation for resisting the steady-state model," since that's merely ad hominem. (It begs the question, because even if their motives were all bad, they could still be right.) The question can only be, "Is the steady-state model of the universe rationally and scientifically sustainable?"

I would argue it's not; and because of mathematics and science, not by way of any agenda I might have as a Theist.

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

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Scott Mayers » Wed Mar 13, 2019 3:14 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 1:34 pm
Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 1:19 pm
A Steady State model can potentially remove any need for even a Deistic god. When governments or other organizations support science, it cannot do so without caution to insulting religion as an institute itself.
You are correct: a steady-state model, if proved true, would cast doubt on the necessity of God for creation. And then whether He exists or not would become a more-or-less moot point, because he'd be even more remote and uninvolved than the "god" of the Deists. He might still exist, but we'd have to ask, "For what, so far as we are concerned?" Fair enough.

But question, then, is not "What is somebody's motivation for resisting the steady-state model," since that's merely ad hominem. (It begs the question, because even if their motives were all bad, they could still be right.) The question can only be, "Is the steady-state model of the universe rationally and scientifically sustainable?"

I would argue it's not; and because of mathematics and science, not by way of any agenda I might have as a Theist.
Unfortunately, if I am correct about what the OP is asserting, the LOGIC alone suffices to remove the Big Bang theory and with priority to any discounting of its alternative Steady State model. It IS political because of this very factor. When the supposed 'final nail to the coffin' of the Steady State theory was based on a mere interpretation of the Cosmic Background Radiation as 'supporting' the Big Bang model with the added assertion that the Steady State model simply had no explanation for it, this KIND of reasoning suffices to raise suspicion.

Given we have the evidence that space expands, we have only one of two possible general classes of theories to explain the observation as trusted: (1) Those theories interpreting a actual Singularity in space-time or (2) Those theories expressing only the appearance such that the apparent 'singularity' is an approaching limit via our perspective.

The Big Bang model falls in the first type (contrary to how many today re-interpret this by stealing some factors of the second class types). The second class are those, such as a Steady State model that treats both components of space and time to require converging IN SYNC with any 'origins'.

For the first class, you require a presumption that both space and time begin at that point literally. But for that to be true requires at least either space beyond that point to exist OR time beyond that point to exist, or both, which then simply defaults to assuming an infinite universe. For either options, this is non-observable in principle. Thus the theories of type-1 are non-scientific for violating the rule of empirical evidence of its existence. At that point alone, the Big Bang model is both logically AND scientifically invalidated at the get go.

For the Steady State types, "steady" refers to the presumption of time and space to remain 'steady' with respect to each other via observable standards. It initiates the principle that all things in time and space have the same physics held steady. We at least cannot speak of altered physics unless we abandon faith in our local sense of observations. If, for instance, I cannot see things go faster than the speed of light locally, than even IF physics at other times of the past had such realities, we cannot borrow from what we cannot observe or it is not science we are practicing.

Since time and space are in sync with one another, any appearance of it converging is identical to the problem of perception of parallel lines converging to a point at a distance. Thus the logic doesn't rule out Steady State theory AND allows for both the apparent point to have space and time distinctly before OR after, should only space or time distinctly 'ends' there.

Thus, the Big Bang theory HAS to be political.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6465
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:44 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 3:14 pm
Unfortunately, if I am correct about what the OP is asserting, the LOGIC alone suffices to remove the Big Bang theory and with priority to any discounting of its alternative Steady State model. It IS political because of this very factor.
I suggest it doesn't. Even if right, the BB theory is not really an answer to the question of final causes. It allows a prior question: "What was the cause of the BB?" This puts us on an infinite-regress pattern of causes.

We can simplify the field very easily. There are only two options: either the universe itself had a cause, or it had none. If it's the former, time is linear. If it's the latter, only a cyclical model of time will eliminate the original singularity.

So the problem simplifies as: "Is time linear or cyclical?"
When the supposed 'final nail to the coffin' of the Steady State theory was based on a mere interpretation of the Cosmic Background Radiation as 'supporting' the Big Bang model with the added assertion that the Steady State model simply had no explanation for it, this KIND of reasoning suffices to raise suspicion.


I'm not sure why. An infinite-cyclical model does not accord with observable science -- like, as you say, the Red Shift Effect (or even basic entropy). All proposed models for an infinite universe are merely mathematical-conceptual proposals of empirically-unverifiable character. Thus the rejection of the cyclical models seems very reasonable to me. I don't think we need to suppose any great and dark conspiracy behind that.
Given we have the evidence that space expands,
That's another "given" that argues against any circular model.
...we have only one of two possible general classes of theories to explain the observation as trusted: (1) Those theories interpreting a actual Singularity in space-time or (2) Those theories expressing only the appearance such that the apparent 'singularity' is an approaching limit via our perspective.
You'll have to explain that second one to me. I'm not sure I'm understanding you there.
The Big Bang model falls in the first type (contrary to how many today re-interpret this by stealing some factors of the second class types). The second class are those, such as a Steady State model that treats both components of space and time to require converging IN SYNC with any 'origins'.

For the first class, you require a presumption that both space and time begin at that point literally.
Yes, all linear models would require a start-point.
But for that to be true requires at least either space beyond that point to exist OR time beyond that point to exist, or both, which then simply defaults to assuming an infinite universe.

Well I think, no, actually. If "space" and "time" had any origin, it was simultaneous, and at the moment of the start of the universe, along with "matter." For this would be the way it would work: "matter" (i.e. substances of at least two different kinds) would appear, and at the same time the distance ("space") between those (at least) two distinct particles, and also an interval between the two (i.e. "time") The whole triad would appear at precisely the same instant: and there would be no possibility of speaking of "matter," let alone "space" or "time" having existed prior to that Singularity.
For either options, this is non-observable in principle.
And "in fact," as well. There were neither human observers nor instruments at that moment. So we are thrown on the strategy of projecting backward from present facts, or we're all in the dark.
Thus the theories of type-1 are non-scientific for violating the rule of empirical evidence of its existence. At that point alone, the Big Bang model is both logically AND scientifically invalidated at the get go.
Well, as I say, the BB is not the Singularity. They have to be distinct events, since even BB theorists believe there were entities like hydrogen, carbon and quark-gluon plasma floating around in a previously-existing universe, so that the BB had some substance with which to work. Nobody actually thinks the BB catalyzed or "invented" itself.

The BB had to happen much later than the Singularity. And about that, there's no rational dispute. So even if we dismiss the BB, that does not help us eliminate the necessity of the Singularity.
For the Steady State types, "steady" refers to the presumption of time and space to remain 'steady' with respect to each other via observable standards. It initiates the principle that all things in time and space have the same physics held steady.
You'll have to parse that out a bit for me in detail. Certain matter and energy haven't "stayed steady" in any observable way. Time hasn't "stayed steady" either. And entropy...well, the one thing that's NOT is "steady," except relatively, at the rate the decline happens.
We at least cannot speak of altered physics unless we abandon faith in our local sense of observations. If, for instance, I cannot see things go faster than the speed of light locally, than even IF physics at other times of the past had such realities, we cannot borrow from what we cannot observe or it is not science we are practicing.
Okay, but you need to recognize that this is entirely suppositional, not proved. IF we assume that what we see now is the only way things could ever possibly be, then your further hypothesis might be safe. But what actual reason have we for thinking that the way this universe is is the only way a really-existing thing could ever be? What's our empirical proof that the empirical is all there is and has ever been? (You see the circularity of that, I'm sure.)
Since time and space are in sync with one another,
Well, yes, but only because they are interdependent concepts, not because they are (anthropomorphically or otherwise) "working together."
...any appearance of it converging is identical to the problem of perception of parallel lines converging to a point at a distance. Thus the logic doesn't rule out Steady State theory AND allows for both the apparent point to have space and time distinctly before OR after, should only space or time distinctly 'ends' there.
You've lost me there. Can you help me out? I don't get that reasoning yet.
Thus, the Big Bang theory HAS to be political.
Why is that the necessary conclusion? As I say, the BB isn't a description of ultimate origins -- the Singularity concept is, and in a linear timescale. So I can't see what "political" implications it has for anyone to back the BB as if it were the final answer. And I really don't think anybody (at least, not anybody who understands the issues) is backing it that way. But you may know different people than I do.

However, I don't think it HAS to be political at all. It could well be that whoever is backing it is doing so because they're a) misunderstanding it, b) not knowing any alternatives, c) listening to somebody else who told them to believe it, or d) just confused. I doubt there's any co-ordinated political effort to foist a BB-Singularity confusion on the general public, even if that may happen sometimes.

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

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Logik » Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:51 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:44 pm
So the problem simplifies as: "Is time linear or cyclical?"
That is a false dichotomy. Even IF "time is cyclical" a choice of direction still remains.

Time could just as well be an illusion of our current physical manifestation/limitations. There is no law in physics which mandates the direction/arrow of time.

There be interesting questions to follow if (when?) we attain T-Symmetry ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-symmetry ).

If the 2nd "law" of thermodynamics turns out to not be an actual law - physics will get a WHOLE lot more interesting.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6465
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:56 pm

Logik wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:51 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:44 pm
So the problem simplifies as: "Is time linear or cyclical?"
That is a false dichotomy. Even IF "time is cyclical" a choice of direction still remains.
Nope. "Cyclical" means "circular." That means it goes "'round and 'round." It has no "direction" but it's own tail.

You're thinking of a "spiral," which is a curved-linear form. So ultimately, it's just linear, since it fails to touch its own origin point again. If we make the model return to origin, then it's just cyclical. But it's always either one or the other. It's a genuine dichotomy.

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

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Logik » Wed Mar 13, 2019 5:01 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:56 pm
Nope. "Cyclical" means "circular." That means it goes "'round and 'round." It has no "direction" but it's own tail.
You understand the difference between clockwise and anti-clock-wise, yes?

You understand the difference with going WITH the flow of time and against the flow of time. Yes?

Entropy vs negentropy.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:56 pm
You're thinking of a "spiral," which is a curved-linear form. So ultimately, it's just linear, since it fails to touch its own origin point again. If we make the model return to origin, then it's just cyclical. But it's always either one or the other. It's a genuine dichotomy.
It really isn't a dichotomy.

If time is infinite, then it's a torus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torus (and I am over-simplifying so we don't get into spheres or multi-dimensional objects).

Which way does it go?

You are pre-supposing 2nd law of thermodynamics as unfalsifiable.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6465
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Mar 13, 2019 5:13 pm

Logik wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 5:01 pm
If time is infinite...
It isn't. What we know as "time" is contingent: it doesn't exist without "matter" and "space" also existing.

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

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Logik » Wed Mar 13, 2019 5:17 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 5:13 pm
Logik wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 5:01 pm
If time is infinite...
It isn't. What we know as "time" is contingent: it doesn't exist without "matter" and "space" also existing.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:56 pm
Nope. "Cyclical" means "circular." That means it goes "'round and 'round." It has no "direction" but it's own tail.
1. To speak of time and "space" is to take a GR not a QM perspective ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_time )
2. Anything that goes "round and round" is a closed Infinite loop.
3. Both GR and QM pre-suppose the arrow of time. There's no reason to.

Looks like you and Atla will get along just fine though...

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6465
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Mar 13, 2019 5:29 pm

Logik wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 5:17 pm
3. Both GR and QM pre-suppose the arrow of time. There's no reason to.
Well, except every empirical measurement we have, and all coherent conceptions of regression of causes. Not inconsiderable.

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

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Logik » Wed Mar 13, 2019 5:32 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 5:29 pm
Well, except every empirical measurement we have, and all coherent conceptions of regression of causes. Not inconsiderable.
Well, DUH! Because "empirical" means "experience". And we EXPERIENCE time in the way that we do.
The pre-supposition is buried deep into the scientific method. The very meaning of 'prediction" pre-supposes arrow of time!

Hence - you aren't going to get any "empirical results" to the contrary until we have some physical object which can attain T-Symmetry that we can use as a measurement apparatus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_crystal

Such is the curse of relativism. All scientific measurements are relative to the observer. The observer is trapped in time.
Till we invent a yardstick that isn't.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6465
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Mar 13, 2019 5:40 pm

Logik wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 5:32 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 5:29 pm
Well, except every empirical measurement we have, and all coherent conceptions of regression of causes. Not inconsiderable.
Well, DUH! Because "empirical" means "experience".
Not just "experience." It's experience as disciplined by the Scientific Method, not casual experience.

But as I already said earlier, there were no instruments or observers at the Singularity. So all of us are projecting backward, based on two things: current scientific knowledge, plus logical conceptual coherence. And though those tools are manifestly not infallible, they're the best we've got.

They're certainly a lot better than gratuitous theorizing.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests