Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Persecution of Atheists (Page 6)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 10 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10   
Author Topic: Persecution of Atheists
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If supernatural means something that exceeds the bounds of known science, then the Big Bang posits a supernatural event.
"Big Bang" is a term of convenience used to describe what we do know about the creation of the universe. The term "Big Bang", incidentally was coined by Frank Hoyle, advocate of the Steady State theory, when he derisively referred to this competing theory as "this big bang idea." (There's some of that borrowing, for ya)

In the areas where the bounds of known science are exceeded, we have the null hypothesis, not supernaturalism.

Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
'derivativity'

fun to say. groovy.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
quote:
If supernatural means something that exceeds the bounds of known science, then the Big Bang posits a supernatural event.
"Big Bang" is a term of convenience used to describe what we do know about the creation of the universe. The term "Big Bang", incidentally was coined by Frank Hoyle, advocate of the Steady State theory, when he derisively referred to this competing theory as "this big bang idea." (There's some of that borrowing, for ya)

In the areas where the bounds of known science are exceeded, we have the null hypothesis, not supernaturalism.

[Big Grin]

Tomato, To-mah-to. Look, every little group has some sort of protective semantic device to say that it's OK when we do X but not when others do it. It's still starbelly sneeching to use those little devices to label one's own group "rational" and other groups "irrational."

It's also not a very rational use of time.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by hobsen:
Thanks for the quoted beliefs of the Heaven's Gate cult, MattP. They clearly arose as an offshoot of Christianity.

No. There's nothing there to suggest a belief that Jesus Christ paid for their sins. That's been the core Christian belief for 2000 years.

Claiming Jesus on some other basis -- hell, there are plenty of nonChristian groups that do that -- some Buddhists, Hindus, even some Jews, claim Jesus as some kind of important teacher. Even a number of Atheists claim Jesus as one of their own.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KnightEnder:
Pete, scientists think that Whales will be the first beings contacted if aliens ever show up because they have the most complexed communication. Dolphins second. But we all know that white mice run the Earth. [Smile]

Douglass is great. Did you see the recent Disney movie of HGG? My kids loved it.

quote:
To me all being an atheist means is I don't "believe" a supreme being exists. I don't "believe" one doesn't exist either. I don't know. However I see no evidence that one does so I operate on that basis.
Given what you know, I think that's a reasonable belief.

But what Dawkins would have us believe is that it's the *only* reasonable belief, and that individuals who consider personal rather than emperical evidence are irrational.

quote:
To some people that makes me an agnostic, to some an atheist, and here in Texas it makes me a Devil-worshipper.
You don't need the average Texan's approval to be a good person, and I don't need Mr. Dawkins' approval to be rational.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Tomato, To-mah-to. Look, every little group has some sort of protective semantic device to say that it's OK when we do X but not when others do it. It's still starbelly sneeching to use those little devices to label one's own group "rational" and other groups "irrational."
I don't understand what you are referring to here. The point I was making was that science is OK with "I don't know" when it doesn't know. There a number of observed phenomena that support the theory of a dramatic, explosive event at the beginning of the universe. We call that postulated event the "Big Bang" because it's a succinct label for this extrapolation of observable data.

What is the "protective semantic device" that you are referring to?

Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If one defines "supernatural" as "something that exceeds the bounds of known science," but then, to protect his own beliefs, adds a caveat "except if it's a null hypothesis," then that's a protective semantic device.

Another example of protective semantics would be statists that define terrorism as "attacks on a civillian population in violation of humanitarian norms, for PR purposes, EXCEPT when committed by a legitimate state government."

Or nihilists that define terrorism as "attacks on a civillian population in violation of humanitarian norms, for PR purposes, EXCEPT when committed by 'freedom fighters.'"

I'm fine with the Big Bang. My point here is that Dawkins is gerrymandering terms in order to play starbelly sneetches.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks Carlotta. [Smile]


I don't think that an atheist can be religious.

atheist one who believes that there is no deity

religious 1 : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity <a religious person> <religious attitudes>
2 : of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances <joined a religious order>
3 a : scrupulously and conscientiously faithful b : FERVENT, ZEALOUS

I guess by that definition that I'm not an atheist. I don't believe anything! Ain't that a kick in the head? [Wink]

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If one defines "supernatural" as "something that exceeds the bounds of known science,"
If one defined it that way then anything you cannot presently answer becomes supernatural. I don't think that's a very useful definition.

I've always understood supernatural to refer to events unexplainable by science, rather than events that have just not yet been explained. It's a substantially different conclusion than "I don't know."

[ February 27, 2007, 03:58 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]

Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"If supernatural means something that exceeds the bounds of known science, then the Big Bang posits a supernatural event."

No it doesn't. It posits an event for which there is evidence, and it posits an event which makes predictions that have been verified by observation, and that is falsifiable. I'm not sure how one could say that the big bang is something that exceeds the bounds of known science unless one irrationally restricts what science is in order to score points with the ignorant.

[ February 27, 2007, 04:00 PM: Message edited by: Everard ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm not sure how one could say that the big bang is something that exceeds the bounds of known science unless one irrationally restricts what science is in order to score points with the ignorant.
I'm guessing that Pete was thinking about that first itsy-bitsy chunk of time where physics as we understand it breaks down and where concepts like "before" start to lose meaning. That in that area of "I don't know" lies the supernaturality that science is unwilling to acknowledge.
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What precedes the Big Bang is a matter of conjecture that is as open to raw religious wondering as well as extrapolation from the last known scientific principles (when last we saw our heroes, they had traveled back int time through the Big Bang).

Technically, I suppose before the big bang would be best called ante-natural, since the laws of nature effectively vanish into unkowability at that point just before they are believed (with considerable evidentiary justification) to have commenced.

Wha the BIg Bang does (that is, DID) is subject to the laws of science. Why it did what it did is wide open. Todays prevailing religions already have some established opinions on the matter. Todays prevailing cosmological physicists are mostly forming theirs even as we speak, using coy concepts like "negative vacuum".

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If one defines "supernatural" as "something that exceeds the bounds of known science," but then, to protect his own beliefs, adds a caveat "except if it's a null hypothesis..."
No one has defined "supernatural" as "something that exceeds the bounds of known science" here except YOU. In fact, I quite specifically said that this was not how it was generally defined.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"In fact, I quite specifically said that this was not how it was generally defined."

Except when trying to say that one is better than religious people.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
quote:
I'm not sure how one could say that the big bang is something that exceeds the bounds of known science unless one irrationally restricts what science is in order to score points with the ignorant.
I'm guessing that Pete was thinking about that first itsy-bitsy chunk of time where physics as we understand it breaks down and where concepts like "before" start to lose meaning. That in that area of "I don't know" lies the supernaturality that science is unwilling to acknowledge.
Bravo, Matt.

Ev, I don't see what's so "irrational" about constricting science to deal with the universe that we can actually perceive and measure in some reproducible way.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I was googling for pix of my most recent Hot Babe of Science, Maty Neu (well, I was) and found this quote by Marie Curie, as babaliciously hot a form of rhetoric to read as her heavenly person is to view:

"It is human nature to believe that the phenomena we know are the only ones that exist, and whenever some chance discovery extends the limits of our knowledge, we are filled with amazement," Marie Curie wrote when she pondered the lack of knowledge about radioactivity in Century Magazine, January 1904. "We cannot become accustomed to the idea that we live in a world that is revealed to us only in a restricted portion of its manifestations; how numerous and varied may be the phenomena which we pass without a suspicion of their existence until the day when a fortunate hazard reveals them."

Here's Mary.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete at Home wrote,
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by hobsen:
Thanks for the quoted beliefs of the Heaven's Gate cult, MattP. They clearly arose as an offshoot of Christianity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No. There's nothing there to suggest a belief that Jesus Christ paid for their sins. That's been the core Christian belief for 2000 years.

While anyone is free to make his own assessment of what is a core Christian belief, the doctrine of the atonement has certainly not been universal among sects arising from Christianity. The Quaker historian Howard Brinton remarked that teaching was only introduced into the Society of Friends as a borrowed Puritan doctrine in the 19th century. As he put it, early Quakers "found cleansing from the working of the Light, and saw no need for the Blood." And saying the Society of Friends did not arise from Christianity is as ludicrous as claiming the same about Mormons. Perhaps Mormons reject what most Christians regard as core Christian beliefs, like affirming the Nicene Creed; but the LDS Church clearly originated as an offshoot of Christianity.

Without going beyond my knowledge either in history or theology, the Heaven's Gate cult said it was Jesus who had first taught their doctrines, not the Buddha or Mohammed. The members of the cult had been raised in a largely Christian society. Perhaps they reinterpreted many traditional Christian teachings, but they certainly found their inspiration in Christianity and not elsewhere. This differs from Hindus or Buddhists who may accept Jesus as a holy man as recognized by their traditions.

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In addition to whgat Hobsen says, I note that REAL Xtians are really Jews. REAL Jews, that is.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm positive the "negative vacuum" theory is correct. [Smile]

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seriously, the areas of existence beyond our comphrehension or ability to detect 'might be' the spiritual plain that religion claims exists. But it's their claim that they "know" that it exists even though none of us can percieve it in any way is what is so infuriating. Talk about claiming that your are superior to others!

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"The Quaker historian Howard Brinton remarked that teaching was only introduced into the Society of Friends as a borrowed Puritan doctrine in the 19th century. As he put it, early Quakers "found cleansing from the working of the Light, and saw no need for the Blood."

In any event, modern Quakers accept the atonement. You've presented one historian's opinion, and the "light" wording is ambiguous. Did the light doctrine actually deny that salvation from sin occurred through Jesus?

Nicene Creed's not even in the Bible. While anyone is free to make his own assessment of what is a core Christian belief, I think that a confessed non-Christian's definition can be safely disgregarded, especially when the proposed redefinition would turn Christianity into a convenient garbage dump for suicidal cults.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

Except when trying to say that one is better than religious people.

I believe Dawkins has asserted that he is more rational than religious people. I'm surprised that religious people would be offended by this, as their epistemology is not reliant on rationalism.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
While anyone is free to make his own assessment of what is a core Christian belief, I think that a confessed non-Christian's definition can be safely disgregarded
You do realize that rejecting the definition of a term based on the fact that the definer of the term believes it does not describe him may result in the use of a definition that does describe him, thus removing said justification for rejecting his definition. [Cool]
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
MattP, I refuse to try to follow that logic. But it is amusing.

Howard Brinton published the classic Quaker history Friends for 300 Years in 1952. That discussed among other things the largest division among Friends, which occurred after the revivals of the 1800s caused Quakers in the Middle West to adopt both a paid clergy and evangelical Christian beliefs. Quakers in England and New England did not change, and Pennsylvania Quakers divided about equally. Both groups remain part of the Society of Friends; and the former typically reject the doctrine of the atonement, which they consider to be as untrue to Quaker tradition as a reliance on paid clergy. But this hardly matters, as Quakers make up a very small proportion of Christians.

More to the point, the belief among Christians that Jesus Christ paid for their sins is true for Mormons and most Protestants; but it has never been characteristic of the Roman Catholics and Orthodox who make up the largest number of Christians. These have different theories of the atonement, of which there are at least half a dozen. Wikipedia discusses these in detail:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement

Asserting that a doctrine held by only a minority of Christians even today has been at the core of Christianity for 2000 years appears a misreading of history. And the majority of Christians would probably assert that acceptance of the Nicene Creed is essential for Christian orthodoxy. But whether a group has orthodox beliefs has nothing to do with whether it has descended from Christianity, as did Heaven's Gate.

[ February 28, 2007, 01:11 AM: Message edited by: hobsen ]

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
quote:
While anyone is free to make his own assessment of what is a core Christian belief, I think that a confessed non-Christian's definition can be safely disgregarded
You do realize that rejecting the definition of a term based on the fact that the definer of the term believes it does not describe him may result in the use of a definition that does describe him, thus removing said justification for rejecting his definition. [Cool]
Not an issue under this set of facts,
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The linked Catholic view that you cite is a version of the atonement, i.e. that Jesus paid the price of sin (albeit to the Catholics Original Sin) enabling people to be saved. You'd have to show me the precise Quaker views to persuade me that they don't fit within a broad understanding of the atonement.

Ah, I did find this:

quote:
The leading to lay down all sense of authoritative theology (notions thereof) results in broad tolerance within the Society for earnest expressions of "the light within", even if that light rejects theism itself. Many Quakers are particularly disinclined to argue about such things. Among people who consider themselves to be Friends will be found people who also consider themselves to be fundamentalist Christian, universalist, Jewish, Buddhist. There are also nontheists among Quakers, and others who may pointedly reject all such labeling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaker

Sounds like a Quaker may or may not be a Christian, depending on where they believe that the light has led them. The article makes it sound like some modern Quakers themselves reject the "Christian" classification.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think since the Bible was printed into English I'm pretty capable of defining what the book says is a Christian. Now how other people might not interprete the book literally but I can still define what it means to be a Christian. The fact that our two understandings of what it means to be a Christian might still be different just goes to show you how subjective and open to interpretation the Book is. Like looking at a cloud and seeing ships or dolphins.

KE

[ February 28, 2007, 02:40 AM: Message edited by: KnightEnder ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I think since the Bible was printed into English I'm pretty capable of defining what the book says is a Christian."

Sure, that's a valid methodology. By bible standards, would you say that Heaven's Gate is a "Christian" religion?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I'm guessing that Pete was thinking about that first itsy-bitsy chunk of time where physics as we understand it breaks down and where concepts like "before" start to lose meaning. That in that area of "I don't know" lies the supernaturality that science is unwilling to acknowledge."

He seems to have confirmed that this is the peice of big bang theory that he is talking about, but what happened at that very instant is not big bang theory. What caused the big bang, and what happened, for the first 10^-40 or so seconds of the universe, are not yet understood (although we have some good hypotheses about what caused the big bang). But saying that the big bang is "supernatural" because its not known science, doesn't follow. If you want to say "The mechanism that caused the big bang is not known science," then fine... but the big bang itself is verifiable, falsifiable, and predictive.

By Pete's logic, gravity is also not known science.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Omega M.
Member
Member # 1392

 - posted      Profile for Omega M.     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kenmeer livermaile:

I was googling for pix of my most recent Hot Babe of Science, Mary Neu

Not the most flattering picture. One who I find much more attractive is Tammy Kolda (for the second photo, scroll down about halfway).
Posts: 1966 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
caladbolg1125
Member
Member # 3666

 - posted      Profile for caladbolg1125   Email caladbolg1125   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
The linked Catholic view that you cite is a version of the atonement, i.e. that Jesus paid the price of sin (albeit to the Catholics Original Sin) enabling people to be saved. You'd have to show me the precise Quaker views to persuade me that they don't fit within a broad understanding of the atonement.

Ah, I did find this:

quote:
The leading to lay down all sense of authoritative theology (notions thereof) results in broad tolerance within the Society for earnest expressions of "the light within", even if that light rejects theism itself. Many Quakers are particularly disinclined to argue about such things. Among people who consider themselves to be Friends will be found people who also consider themselves to be fundamentalist Christian, universalist, Jewish, Buddhist. There are also nontheists among Quakers, and others who may pointedly reject all such labeling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaker

Sounds like a Quaker may or may not be a Christian, depending on where they believe that the light has led them. The article makes it sound like some modern Quakers themselves reject the "Christian" classification.

I suppose. My grandmother is Quaker and I've been to her church a few times in my life. I never saw anything to suggest this though. According to what I saw, Quakers are Christians. They accept Jesus as their savior and whatnot. The key difference and the reason for the derogatory name 'Quaker' (It's actually Society of Friends) is that they felt a direct connection with god and were said to 'quake' in his presence. In a Quaker service, when one feels compelled to speak one stands up and speaks. Its a very respectful proceeding, one person at a time and no interupting. There is a pastor who leads the service nowadays and few church officials. It's a very fascinating aspect of Christianity and they tend to be more open-minded than a lot of other Christians.

If there are any specific questions about the Society of Friends I'll try to answer them.

Wikipedia is not always reliable and a lot of this may just be what one or a few people think and don't necessarilly represent the whole of a group.

[ February 28, 2007, 10:44 AM: Message edited by: caladbolg1125 ]

Posts: 615 | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Society of Friends today is divided into I think 83 Yearly Meetings, sometimes simply geographically and sometimes based on differences in beliefs and practices. The most obvious difference in practice is whether the meetings have pastors, as described by caladbolg1125, or whether they do not. And each Yearly Meeting, and in some cases perhaps each congregation, manages its own affairs, although beliefs and practices are often copied from others. So what caladbolg1125 says is undeniably true, but only for certain groups. And some Christian denominations go even farther in being strictly congregational, with no authority higher than an individual congregation, although these may cooperate in affairs important to the denomination as a whole. In that case every congregation could in theory impose different requirements for belief and membership, so one should not expect consistency.

[ February 28, 2007, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: hobsen ]

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"They accept Jesus as their savior and whatnot."

That would make them Christian, by any standard that I take seriously. I used the term "atonement," but if that's not the term that they used, I don't see that bit of semantics as a big deal, when the underlying substance is the same.
---------------------
everard: "By Pete's logic, gravity is also not known science."
[LOL]

I'm sorry you're having a hard time understanding my logic, everard. The phenomenon of gravity is observable and measurable. The Big Bang is not. Good hell, man, you've had physics. You should be able to grasp this stuff.

But I'm not surprised that you biffed the reading comprehension part of what I said. I did not say that the Big Bang was not science. I was using the Big Bang to show the idiocy of Dawkins definition of rational.

[ February 28, 2007, 03:53 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"The phenomenon of gravity is observable and measurable. The Big Bang is not."

Wrong twice. A phenomenon we call gravity is adduced by a precise pairing of mysterious, invisible effect (that still has no known cause) with equations predicting this effect.

Same with the Big Bang. From COBE to red shift to computerized models, the prteponderance of evidence points to a constant expansion from a singular point many billions of years ago.

There are holes in the theory, of course. It is plugged with things like 'dark matter', but then, our understanding of gravity is likewise challenged by this.

"If supernatural means something that exceeds the bounds of known science, then the Big Bang posits a supernatural event."

The universe exceeds the boundaries of known science. My inner murmurings exceed the bounds of known science. Your favorite secret exceeds the bounds of known science.

Placing a sock puppet over these phenomena, giving it a white beard and robe, calling it Yahweh, and beseeching it to save one and reveal the divine mysteries an it please God, that is the form of spuernaturalism that gets Dawkins lather foamy.

As for Dawkins' use of the word delusion: there is ample evidence for persons being deluded regarding God but no evidence of anyone being right about whether or not god even exists. There are no reproducible experiements to date that isolate a divine being as the agent of anything.

But then, there are ample folks deluded regarding the Wonders of Science. Scientism is become as bad in its way as religiosity.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
INcidentally, here's some of the sweetest, most easily understood, extrapolative ruminations of a home-brewed Theory of Everything I've encountered. It's not brief, but its cleanly written for the most part:

ORDER (mind & matter) arose from interactions within disorder giving rise to self-dependent, separated, cybernetic systems, which, in turn, learned to take full advantage of matter's properties after billions of years interacting with each other, to the point they evolved into human brains, for the only purpose of experiencing/perceiving/measuring existence a bit better (from a 4D perspective), so they can continue to improve in their methods to use information to their advantage, as a tool against entropy or disorder. Why? because all thermodynamic systems tend to MOVE towards thermal equilibrium, and in doing so they have to interact forming physical, geometrical, relationships which are preserved in matter and are accessible by this cybernetic systems (including brains), when needed, as they evolve towards thermal efficiency.

Take music for example... it isn't periodic and yet is a great example of order and harmony, whose meaning and beauty can only be perceived as a whole. Like thoughts or ideas, if I try to explain an idea in writing that takes 10 lines and you only read three words you won't get the concept I am try to convey. The idea is an ordered whole which must be perceived as such.

Take a look at waves as an example of order, thanks to wave superposition you may have one simple wave which may be contained as a whole in another more complex wave which may also be contained as a whole in an even more complex wave... to infinite complexity.

Process or activity within hyperspace does not depend on linear time.

Information is created and preserved in matter even thou the medium itself does not move.

The components, the ones generating this information, are all floating_in and interacting_with space, as particles, molecules, galaxies... brains... all of which continuously exchange information as they continuously emit and absorb electromagnetic radiation as spatially separated systems. EMR is the tool which Nature has successfully been using since the beginning of time to overcome space-like intervals between objects in order to evolve as a whole.

And what are inertia and momentum but a resistance to change in the rate of space/information flow?

Mass comes from the tension or 'informational drag' created by a system as it moves within the chaotic medium.

While a particle is moving at a constant speed and all the geometrical parameters are set, it won't experience any inertial forces, but as it accelerates and the relationships CHANGE it needs to keep adjusting to its new energy/space consumption settings. That's why relativistic effects are so real. When accelerated in relation to other particles, length shortens, time slows down and mass grows (space flow tension) within the particle to balance energy usage in momentum space and maintain its dependence and relation to spacetime in accordance to energy/information conservation laws.

People talk about gravitational non-linearities and what are they but radial information flow? As space from hyperspace is converted to spacetime and matter by a self-creative process which is driven by LOGIC and the laws of thermodynamics.

Gravity, momentum and inertia are caused by the tension in information flow created by 'process time'. That's why we only have mass in spacetime... after particles are fully formed.

Mass is a result of 'aether drag', a resistance to change in space flow rate, into and from the particle, as the particle moves thru space/medium, and this is what relates it to angular momentum.

All those who wanted to detect aether drag had to do was take a direct measurement of either gravity, momentum or inertia and that would be the amount of aether drag.

If you immerse in water a bullet shaped object (one foot in diameter) and then accelerate it to supersonic speeds, this projectile will inexplicably pull with a body of water attached to its rear, never allowing the formation of a void as the theory predicts, so they invented 'bow drag' to explain this phenomenon and derive the drag coefficient they were looking for.

It's like Timothy Boyer's piston, if you were to pull it with high acceleration, the force resisting you would be higher than what Newton's second law predicts. Russians have obtained fields of 25 million oersteds generated from the void with a similar method. They used explosives to pull the piston.

This anti-void tension force may easily be what fuels eternal particle spin, tornado spin, and this is its connection to angular momentum.

It's a 100% elastic medium, so motion (or information propagation) *at these level* is instantaneous, this property is what makes possible phenomena like momentum, inertia and even gravity, facilitated by the holographic properties of a 100% elastic medium and the instantaneous information propagation properties of momentum space. This is why there can't be displacement without replacement. This is where this 'anti-void force' comes from, as it is the aether's nature not to allow separation (or tearing of the space fabric) as it needs to maintain its wholeness for stuff like momentum, inertia and non-local (or spacetime independent) communications to be possible.


Mass is equivalent to process...

Mass simply refers to the amount of information processing of all the energetic relationships that exist between matter and space, when a particle is at rest this spatial relationships stay constant and there is no informational lag created space/information flow within the particle, as the particle is accelerated the energetic relations between the particle and space keep changing causing this space/information flow tension we call inertia.

Gravity is caused by the space/information drag caused by its radial flow towards the center of all matter as space/information crystallizes from hyperspace into spacetime, moment to moment, as the Universe's wave function continues to develop forward in time.

Each object that moves (and they all move) in space must follow the laws of energy conservation. But how else could the Universe know how much energy is being used by some galaxy 5 billion light years away if it isn't thru hyperspace... momentum space... a 100% elastic non-material medium from which all matter and space emerges as a product of active information.

According to present day theory the total energy in this Universe must be a constant, and each of its parts must know how much energy it is using in relation to the whole Universe.

Matter is aware of its surroundings, but this doesn't mean it can think (unless it had previously being formed into a brain).

These internal oversight can only happen in hyperspace.

Holistic awareness is a secondary function of matter which enabled Nature to evolve.

Interactions within the system (brain) depend on more than the information it gets thru its five senses, there is an interaction occurring at a deeper level between the system and its environment. Thoughts are formed very much in the same manner particles are, and just like particle systems depend on EMR so does our mind. Processes forming ideas are very much like the processes that form matter. Mind and matter both depend on the magic of superposition, non-locality and non-linear information processing, all phenomena which gives them the ability to self-organize into ever more efficient systems.

Consciousness, thanks to this function, is what enables us to think and exist in 4D, in a continuum unbounded from causality (or linear time). And that makes Bohm correct when he says state vector reduction occurs thanks to this 'wholeness in space' function of matter and consciousness is possible thanks a 'wholeness in time' function of matter, and it is this 'holistic awareness' function of Nature which Bohm mathematically represented as the quantum potential (Q).

Stapp's projection operator (P) stands for perception, but not for just human perception, but for all matter. According to Mach and others, any movement by any object within the Universe will instantaneously be sensed thru momentum space, and even though this hasn't been directly measured, it can be derived thru other phenomena... like inertia.

And that's what (P) ends up being, as a particle perceives other particles it completes the information exchange, realizing the spatial relationships between particles and space that is needed to collapse the wave packet in hyperspace and be crystallized into spacetime. Not an exclusively human ability since perception is a very old natural function of matter.

Information about a material system must be contained within the system, it doesn't come from anywhere else in space. The only external information being brought to the system by EM waves is the momentum and hence location of the particle in relation to the world. But the system must be comprised by a particle AND its particular inwardly flowing concentric space/information waves. So gravitational non-linearities may still be viewed as radial space/information flow. Information which is picked and organized by concentric waves as space is condensed into the particle/system. But the parts (not the information) to construct and maintain the system intact as it moves through the medium do come from the chaotic hyperspace.

So there is no ordered information in hyperspace, just randomly fluctuating quanta, which is ordered as a particle/wave system moves through it.

Hyperspace is filled with information bits, matter precursors, a pre-geometry made of non-material units of information which exist in chaos and are ordered by logic and activity into spacetime. But for natural reasons, i.e. energy conservation laws, everything that comes into spacetime must be perceived and energetically measured before it can materialize. There has to be a measuring device sensing the particle's location and momentum in relation with the rest of that inertial frame of reference before it can crystallize, as the information that constitutes it flows radially from hyperspace towards its centre in spacetime. But this measuring device isn't some external being, it is the Universe itself, each particle senses each other and their relation to space, building an information network filled with geometrical relationships (spacetime), which are in turn used as the future is built on the already existing information.

The big MISTERY was - why do I have to watch the cat in order to know whether it's alive or not? And the answer is that we are measuring devices, just like the rest of all matter. We are the best measuring device that ever emerged from all the information processing done in our neighborhood to this date.

Von Neumann was partly right when he said that the evolution of the Schrodinger wave could only depend on quantum mechanical 'observables' (implying that this information can only come from spacetime) yet including the observer (mind) as an efficacious operator (since the theory considers brains to be measuring instruments). The only reason human brains entered the equation was that as they observed and perceived light (EMR) coming from the particle, information about momentum and location, which is vital to maintain energy conservation laws, became known to the particle/system allowing it to complete the loop and continue to condense.

Bohm, Hiley and Penrose are also partly right when they claim particle complementarity is due to an indivisible process which originates in a common background, but the only necessary information being transferred from the aether to the particles is that concerning momentum and location in relation with that inertial frame and the rest of Universe. There is no need for some mega information storage system which must contain the history of the Universe, all the information needed for the evolution of the system in spacetime is contained by the system itself IN SPACETIME.

Quantum mechanical process is indeterminate going forwards or backwards. Reality (like thought), is about becoming, it IS process and this process is *totally dependent* on the uncertainty of the movement in quanta. Uncertainty is what causes activity, it is due to the natural indeterminism of quanta that the Universe exists, you take the uncertainty away and it will freeze.

All matter is accompanied by a real indeterminate wave movement governed by the laws of quantum mechanics, just as de Broglie described it.

Objective reality is a continuous self-maintained thermodynamically open process developing in a sea of discontinuities (background radiation). Even atoms are open thermodynamical systems, there is always energy/information/space being exchanged between matter and the environment. The same can be said about living biological systems they are open energy dissipating systems restricted by the laws of thermodynamics.

Schrodinger's equation develops in real uncertainty, quantum mechanical theory will never reach 100% accuracy because indeterminism is the NATURE of reality.

As Schrodinger's (wave-function) equation evolves the system will have some tendencies or propensities that will depend on the systems properties in spacetime. There will always be some preferred outcomes (where the wave peaks in the function) whose probabilities are going to be much higher than others which will not be so well related to the system.

Photons are carried by a matter-waves and move in a wavy indeterminate manner ruled by the Heisenberg principle of indeterminacy, that's where hbar came from, you take hbar away from the equations and reality freezes up!

Uncertainty is inherent to evolutive process, if you don't believe in the indeterminism of Nature then you will have to reject Darwin and substitute evolution by creationism. If everything was already known why do we keep having process? I mean the Sun is still shinning isn't it...

Information contained in photons, even though it may contained in each photon coming from a single source, has to be seen as ensembles ruled by the laws of probability, that is the current approach of Quantum Field Theory.

Some of the information about the environment (about the Universe) comes from this aether, as it rules the whole Universe, all at once, with just a few fundamental laws (constants). Thanks to the WHOLENESS of the aether this information can be transmitted instantaneously as wave-phase angle or slope, allowing at the same time all kinds of emergent informational systems to observe themselves in wholeness helping them to evolve.

How? If we allow for three different scales of reality it can be done, with the aether as the ETERNAL substrate for hyperspace and then spacetime.

When we rotate the plane of polarization in a beam of light the whole beam changes at once, so what kind of medium is this? Is it a particulated fluid, a super-elastic gel, or a hyper-solid?

See, the aether is non-dimensional, events occurring within the aether occur without motion, the manifestations we have in hyperspace (Television, cell phones, radio, virtual particles and all EMR), and the objective reduction of matter-waves into spacetime are ruled by laws coming from the aether, that's why I said Tachyons may be considered to be imaginary, as a tool to comprehend non-locality and instantaneous communication.

Everything is connected to the aether because everything is made from it. The aether is made from the same stuff Hawking's singularities are made, it is also the stuff from which wavefronts/shockwaves in EMR are made. It is fluid and yet INDIVISIBLE... you could stretch it and create huge volumes of 'space' WITHIN it but you can't divide it into two separate entities, the aether is ONE.

All the evidence points to a precipitation or condensation of space, but particles are still volumes of solid space filled by a 'false vacuum', in fact it can be argued that space density and pressure are greater on the outside than they are on the inside. Solid space is an effect caused by shockwaves created by the high speed spinning of fields, and fields are made from the same 'false vacuum' the whole Universe is filled with.

If we could conceive this medium to be a gel, to be made of this non-material (because neither time nor length apply to it) indivisible stuff that makes the points that make the lines that make the strings that make the quanta that makes the quarks... then we get hyperspace sharing the properties of both - the aether's non-locality, and spacetime's linear time, motion and information processing - finally we get spacetime, which contains the properties of all three scales or realms. What else could you ask for?

This three level reality coupled with a 'gel' aether model can explain non-locality, holistic awareness and evolution. It's a fluid, elastic, indivisible and eternal singularity which has inflated and stretched to what the Universe is today. It has no parts and no process within it - it IS the process. Motion, time, extension, order, size, beginning or ending are notions that do not apply, and yet everything is made from it, even space.

To us (spacetime scale) it seems as if it became a bunch of unrelated separated entities, but in reality it's all connected thru the all pervading aether, even desolated space regions are part of the one single process that started it all, it's all made of the same aether that gave birth to it. Everything that changes will experience inertial forces, simply because in reality there is only one process (the Uni-verse) from where a myriad of informational nodes (objects) evolved to become apparently separated systems. For any process to continue evolving there must be internal oversight as a whole, which is only possible if all the parts are interconnected, and that can be a huge problem when we are talking about a system the size of the Universe. We knew it had to be a non-local function, and this is only possible because of the ONENESS quality at the aether scale.

WITHIN the aether motion/information/momentum is reported instantaneously, distance doesn't apply, the aether has no parts, it is one. Within hyperspace, we have only EMR, where information propagation is limited by moving mass (process) to the speed of light. Within spacetime most things obey Newton's motion laws but everything is non-locally interconnected to everything else in its neighborghood and the rest of the Universe.
<end>

Pulled this from a comment thread on Kurzweil's AI website.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm sorry you're having a hard time understanding my logic, everard.
Shocker! (that he is) Since y'all speak different languages! [Smile]

Do my felonies and bad temper give me enough macho street cred to be a bit or wuss for a second? I can't believe you two guys who are two of my closest friends hate each other so much. I know you both and y'all--you are both great guys, deep down where it counts--you could be friends if you really tried, but at least 'friendly' if not friends. (I admit sometimes it's entertaining but I think in the long run it is bad for both of you.) Okay, back to being a "man". [Frown] Knock off all the bull****! [Wink]
KE

[ March 01, 2007, 10:42 AM: Message edited by: KnightEnder ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I'm sorry you're having a hard time understanding my logic, everard. The phenomenon of gravity is observable and measurable. The Big Bang is not. Good hell, man, you've had physics. You should be able to grasp this stuff."

As kenmeer pointed out, you're wrong. Having had physics, I have a fuller grasph of both gravity and the big bang then you do, and recognize that we can't observe EITHER, or even measure EITHER. We measure and observe the effects of both, and there are observerable and measurable predictions made by each theory.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ev, "I will not be ignored!" [Smile] (form Fatal Attraction, in case y'all missed the reference.)

But you can email or call me if you want.

KE

[ March 01, 2007, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: KnightEnder ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hey, kenmeer, I've read a few articles recently about the idea that the core building block of the universe is information -- that quantum mechanics is best explained by the fact that each photon can be said to have the capacity to carry one binary bit -- and agree that it's a very compelling worldview. I'm a bit concerned about the statement "information about the particle became 'known' to the particle," but otherwise it's as good a theory as any other. It'll be interesting to see where physicists go with that in the next few decades.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I liked it too. Don't care so much whether it's 'true' or not: I don't design circuits or rocket engines or time machines. But I DO enjoy natural philosophy that entertains and illuminates.

For something a guy (apparently) knocked if an evening's contribution to a speculative science forum as riddled by jeering hostilities as any Ornery debate on whom we should/shouldn't invade/nuke/generally despise, I think he did an amazing job.
"Scientism is become as bad in its way as religiosity."

For example, someone recently questioned my unquestioning belief in the life-prohibiting long-term effects of radioactive waste. (I think it was The Drake?) Scientism had taught me to believe without question that toxic radioactivew waste can easily render a place uninhbitable for aeons.

Further research, studying the actual science, teaches me this isn't so. It would take an enormous amount of spillage of just the right kind of nuke waste to create a biologically desolate landscape for more than, at most, a few decades.

But it CAN be done. Carbon-14 is tricky stuff. Same thing that makes it so good for dating fossils makes it bad for long-term genetics.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 10 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1