Cosmology

[desiresjab]

I picked up Milton A. Rothman's "Discovering the Natural Laws" in a used bookstore in Door County, Wisconsin, recently. He has two points he wants to make. First, he wants to show the empirical evidence for the laws of physics in order to justify those laws which is the main reason I'm reading the book. Second, he wants to discredit his own consciousness. He doesn't put the part about consciousness in those terms, but that's how I read it.

Anyway, he writes this about how the laws of physics have not changed (and I admit, for practical purposes, it is a useful assumption we might as well make):

"Thus we know, by direct evidence, that the laws which operate here and now are the same laws that existed early in the history of the universe. They have not changed in all the time that has elapsed since very soon after the beginning." (page 209)

Because of that beginning, we can't say "we know" the laws have not changed, or rather, that the universe is actually following the laws we think it is.

Whether or not the laws have ever changed is something I have to leave to the professional physicists, for no one else can ever settle it. If the laws have changed once they can probably change again.

One interesting notion is that each black hole contains a separate universe with all the features of our own--stars, planets, galaxies and black holes. Each of these black holes also contains another universe, and so on ad infinitum... Pairs of virtual particles can be caught exactly at the border of the black hole. One particle goes in, the other stays out, which is a readable phenomenon because it is happening en masse at the border. I am intrigued but not sure what it means or implies.

Something that I do understand is the notion that we are a simulation instead of an actual life form. This only requires one assumption, and maybe not even that--that all things are happening at once, past, present and future, but we are merely unable to experience them that way. The reason I say maybe not even that is because the numbers also suggest that it is likely the past which is the present to us must have already completed itself.

Either way, our descendants have powerful ancestor simulation software and the capability to run their simulations trillions upon trillions of times. With numbers like that and only one "real" reality, it is almost statistically impossible for us to be the original real beings, but rather a sophisticated simulation of them.

These similations will be (are) so familiar among our descendants, they will probably become a common school project at some point. The equivalent of a school girl to her own society may have created our universe. This would explain its imperfections better than any junk about free will et al. A Universal Simulator would perhaps be the size of a cell phone, and surely would allow some parameters to be adjusted by the student or scientist, or it would not be interesting enough.

[YesNo]

Whether or not the laws have ever changed is something I have to leave to the professional physicists, for no one else can ever settle it. If the laws have changed once they can probably change again.

I don't leave anything to them. They have to convince me.

One interesting notion is that each black hole contains a separate universe with all the features of our own--stars, planets, galaxies and black holes. Each of these black holes also contains another universe, and so on ad infinitum... Pairs of virtual particles can be caught exactly at the border of the black hole. One particle goes in, the other stays out, which is a readable phenomenon because it is happening en masse at the border. I am intrigued but not sure what it means or implies.

Is there any empirical evidence for that? Could you post a link?

Something that I do understand is the notion that we are a simulation instead of an actual life form. This only requires one assumption, and maybe not even that--that all things are happening at once, past, present and future, but we are merely unable to experience them that way. The reason I say maybe not even that is because the numbers also suggest that it is likely the past which is the present to us must have already completed itself.

Either way, our descendants have powerful ancestor simulation software and the capability to run their simulations trillions upon trillions of times. With numbers like that and only one "real" reality, it is almost statistically impossible for us to be the original real beings, but rather a sophisticated simulation of them.

These similations will be (are) so familiar among our descendants, they will probably become a common school project at some point. The equivalent of a school girl to her own society may have created our universe. This would explain its imperfections better than any junk about free will et al. A Universal Simulator would perhaps be the size of a cell phone, and surely would allow some parameters to be adjusted by the student or scientist, or it would not be interesting enough.

Any metaphors we come up with that we think could be true should be questioned. What is the metaphor telling us about ourselves? Why do we think this metaphor is credible in the 21st century?

[Dreamwoven]

Awesome stuff, though makes my head spin. *Withdraws from discussion*

[desiresjab]

I don't leave anything to them. They have to convince me.



Is there any empirical evidence for that? Could you post a link?



Any metaphors we come up with that we think could be true should be questioned. What is the metaphor telling us about ourselves? Why do we think this metaphor is credible in the 21st century?

These fellows come up with an interesting idea then spend the rest of their careers traveling around lecturing on one idea.

If I experience myself, if I become sentient, that means there is already a vastly greater chance I am a simulation rather than the real organic phenomenon. This, of course, was also true of the first originals, where applying the notion would have yeided an incorrect conclusion. If someone cannot admit the logical weight of a proposition, I begin to suspect their objectivity. Recall: The mark of an educated mind is the ability to entertain an idea without accepting it. I do not accept our simulated existence as a hardcore belief either. I accept simulation as a logical connundrum which forces itself upon us and is not easily, if at all, explained away.

Now what does it really take to entertain this idea of simulation rather than just repeating the words of the proposition? One immediately flys to probability. Unless there are many other universes, the values for some of our constants stand out glaringly, not as impossible, but as highly suspect.

You probably noticed that the supposition of an "original organism" or universe, is not necessary. The "makers" could come from a reality where space and time simply do not exist at all. Space and time could be invented concepts of the makers, who then set about creating imperfect realities where those things could exist as more than concepts.

A human should be able to locate within themselves an objection or two to any proposition. I do not present this idea as a truth, but as a "hey, look here" moment. Do I fail to accept this idea of our simulation as a truth because I can find a logical foothold against it, or simply because I do not like the idea itself. People hate ideas when they rub against the grain of what they already want to believe. I do not even know what it is I want to believe, but there could be something lurking back there I am not aware of.

<I don't leave anything to them. They have to convince me.>

That is leaving it to them, leaving it to them to convince you, which is no more than they had to do in the first place.

Along with yourself, I will continue to question about anything anyone throws up for consideration. So far, however, I do not see anyone dispatching the idea of simulation with viable refutations based on logic.

Anyone, send the idea away squalling like an injured dog, if you can, and we will move on.

[YesNo]

If I experience myself, if I become sentient, that means there is already a vastly greater chance I am a simulation rather than the real organic phenomenon. This, of course, was also true of the first originals, where applying the notion would have yeided an incorrect conclusion. If someone cannot admit the logical weight of a proposition, I begin to suspect their objectivity. Recall: The mark of an educated mind is the ability to entertain an idea without accepting it. I do not accept our simulated existence as a hardcore belief either. I accept simulation as a logical connundrum which forces itself upon us and is not easily, if at all, explained away.

Now what does it really take to entertain this idea of simulation rather than just repeating the words of the proposition? One immediately flys to probability. Unless there are many other universes, the values for some of our constants stand out glaringly, not as impossible, but as highly suspect.

You probably noticed that the supposition of an "original organism" or universe, is not necessary. The "makers" could come from a reality where space and time simply do not exist at all. Space and time could be invented concepts of the makers, who then set about creating imperfect realities where those things could exist as more than concepts.

A human should be able to locate within themselves an objection or two to any proposition. I do not present this idea as a truth, but as a "hey, look here" moment. Do I fail to accept this idea of our simulation as a truth because I can find a logical foothold against it, or simply because I do not like the idea itself. People hate ideas when they rub against the grain of what they already want to believe. I do not even know what it is I want to believe, but there could be something lurking back there I am not aware of.

One could say that any delusion is a simulation, perhaps a self-simulation, hiding what is really going on. One doesn't need computers to do this. Nor does it have to get technologically fancy. Lies are simulations of reality with the intent to delude others.

If the "makers" are outside space and time, you might as well call them "gods".

I agree that the "constants" suggest that there must have been something conscious picking out the right values. I don't think these physical "constants" are actually constant, but that is a side-issue.

If you are willing to entertain the simulation idea, then one possible simulation is that the universe is only 6000 years old and the simulation just makes it look older to delude us.

[desiresjab]

One could say that any delusion is a simulation, perhaps a self-simulation, hiding what is really going on. One doesn't need computers to do this. Nor does it have to get technologically fancy. Lies are simulations of reality with the intent to delude others.

If the "makers" are outside space and time, you might as well call them "gods".

I agree that the "constants" suggest that there must have been something conscious picking out the right values. I don't think these physical "constants" are actually constant, but that is a side-issue.

If you are willing to entertain the simulation idea, then one possible simulation is that the universe is only 6000 years old and the simulation just makes it look older to delude us.

I am glad you picked up on that last idea. It would make the ultra conservative Christians right by accident. Biblical chronology wins by accident! Can such a deceptive god really be benevolent? If the bible is right about chronology, it must be wrong about god. Would a benevolent god lead us on such a goose chase as science, which its "truth" would make of science?

Oh, wait. The Jew god told us knowledge was all bull, didn't he? He told us the only thing worth doing was polishing his nards, didn't he? That's why you can't like this god, or ever agree with him.

Most Logical Summary: we ourselves or the entire universe were made by less than perfect gods. There is no reason for a perfect being to create children he cannot protect fully from the evil one he knows we are no match for on average. If he were perfect he could protect us and he would.

And of course, what forking reason was so important he had to create us in the first place, not only make us but make us spiritually helpless? Because he had to test us? Manufacturers test light bulbs that way--large scale statistics. A manufacturer only needs to do this if defects are possible.

Because he had to give us free will? Beings made right do not need free will. Make them right in the first place, instead of blaming their defects on the consumer.

He needs us pure before we join him? Make us that way, you are perfect.

It all points in one direction. The maker of this universe was one powerful sombitzen, but not all powerful. The maker of this universe, if any, may indeed have an enemy nearly as powerful as itself. It would not need us for its war, if it were all powerful. If there is a god, I would say he has implemented a military draft. Again, he would not need to do that if he were perfect.

But--Jesus crawlers scream--god needs to whip the devil once and for all, and the devil would not have been able to damage other perfect beings. Of course that is no more than an admission god is using us as bait to draw the evil one out of his hidey-hole so he can be slain. Does that seem sufficiently all powerful to you to be perfect, or vice versa?

The all powerful could have no worthy enemy on any front. Any other stance is blocked by the definition.

Conclusion: The god of all religions is an infinite, powerful liar, or a finite, powerful liar.

[YesNo]

I am glad you picked up on that last idea. It would make the ultra conservative Christians right by accident. Biblical chronology wins by accident! Can such a deceptive god really be benevolent? If the bible is right about chronology, it must be wrong about god. Would a benevolent god lead us on such a goose chase as science, which its "truth" would make of science?

It would make them right by "design", not "accident". Don't forget that by claiming the universe is a computer simulation, you are also saying that science is a goose chase.

I'm a general panentheist, but I'm not a member of any specific religion. I don't think "design" is a good way to describe what a theist's God does to create and maintain the universe. That would be more appropriate to a deist's view of god. The problem with "design" is that it is too mechanistic. It is too deterministic. If anything, considering that the universe had a beginning and considering the discovery of quantum indeterminacy, we need to look at more organic metaphors for the universe. It makes more sense to see the universe as an organism than as a machine some deist's god designed and then wound up and set in motion.

Oh, wait. The Jew god told us knowledge was all bull, didn't he? He told us the only thing worth doing was polishing his nards, didn't he? That's why you can't like this god, or ever agree with him.

What does it mean to polish someone's nards? I did look the phrase up in the search engine, but nothing came up.

When you say "Jew god", is this a rhetorical appeal to antisemitism? I don't think the dominant Christian culture is as antisemitic as it used to be. If you could get the Muslims involved somehow, that might still have a rhetorical appeal.

Most Logical Summary: we ourselves or the entire universe were made by less than perfect gods. There is no reason for a perfect being to create children he cannot protect fully from the evil one he knows we are no match for on average. If he were perfect he could protect us and he would.

And of course, what forking reason was so important he had to create us in the first place, not only make us but make us spiritually helpless? Because he had to test us? Manufacturers test light bulbs that way--large scale statistics. A manufacturer only needs to do this if defects are possible.

Because he had to give us free will? Beings made right do not need free will. Make them right in the first place, instead of blaming their defects on the consumer.

He needs us pure before we join him? Make us that way, you are perfect.

I read this recently in Joseph Campbell and Bill Moyer's "The Power of Myth" (page 3--I didn't get very far): "...the only way you can describe a human being truly is by describing his imperfections. The perfect human being is uninteresting..."

My suggestion is to throw away the mechanistic or manufacturing metaphors and think more in terms of biology and organisms.

It all points in one direction. The maker of this universe was one powerful sombitzen, but not all powerful. The maker of this universe, if any, may indeed have an enemy nearly as powerful as itself. It would not need us for its war, if it were all powerful. If there is a god, I would say he has implemented a military draft. Again, he would not need to do that if he were perfect.

That's an interesting idea. What's a "sombitzen"? I did try to search for the word.

But--Jesus crawlers scream--god needs to whip the devil once and for all, and the devil would not have been able to damage other perfect beings. Of course that is no more than an admission god is using us as bait to draw the evil one out of his hidey-hole so he can be slain. Does that seem sufficiently all powerful to you to be perfect, or vice versa?

Another interesting idea for a story.

The all powerful could have no worthy enemy on any front. Any other stance is blocked by the definition.

Conclusion: The god of all religions is an infinite, powerful liar, or a finite, powerful liar.

Let's get back to simulations.

People use simulations to test theories since direct observations are not always possible. But just because one can create a simulation that does not mean that reality is a computer simulation. That would be the same as saying that because we can make plastic flowers that flowers are made of plastic. Furthermore the consciousness within the universe cannot be generated from an algorithm that a human can follow. That is how I read John Searle's Chinese Room Argument against artificial intelligence.

Ultimately, I think the confusion comes down to thinking the model is reality. The model is just a way to help us understand and exploit some part of what we experience.

[desiresjab]

It would make them right by "design", not "accident". Don't forget that by claiming the universe is a computer simulation, you are also saying that science is a goose chase.

I'm a general panentheist, but I'm not a member of any specific religion. I don't think "design" is a good way to describe what a theist's God does to create and maintain the universe. That would be more appropriate to a deist's view of god. The problem with "design" is that it is too mechanistic. It is too deterministic. If anything, considering that the universe had a beginning and considering the discovery of quantum indeterminacy, we need to look at more organic metaphors for the universe. It makes more sense to see the universe as an organism than as a machine some deist's god designed and then wound up and set in motion.



What does it mean to polish someone's nards? I did look the phrase up in the search engine, but nothing came up.

When you say "Jew god", is this a rhetorical appeal to antisemitism? I don't think the dominant Christian culture is as antisemitic as it used to be. If you could get the Muslims involved somehow, that might still have a rhetorical appeal.



I read this recently in Joseph Campbell and Bill Moyer's "The Power of Myth" (page 3--I didn't get very far): "...the only way you can describe a human being truly is by describing his imperfections. The perfect human being is uninteresting..."

My suggestion is to throw away the mechanistic or manufacturing metaphors and think more in terms of biology and organisms.



That's an interesting idea. What's a "sombitzen"? I did try to search for the word.



Another interesting idea for a story.



Let's get back to simulations.

People use simulations to test theories since direct observations are not always possible. But just because one can create a simulation that does not mean that reality is a computer simulation. That would be the same as saying that because we can make plastic flowers that flowers are made of plastic. Furthermore the consciousness within the universe cannot be generated from an algorithm that a human can follow. That is how I read John Searle's Chinese Room Argument against artificial intelligence.

Ultimately, I think the confusion comes down to thinking the model is reality. The model is just a way to help us understand and exploit some part of what we experience.

In the end we have to use words to describe our thoughts. I don't see much difference between a mechanistic universe and an organic universe--that is mere window dressing to me. I guess people do that when they want to imply they think the universe evolves. All that really does is invoke the notion of change into the equation. What is infinite unfolding of emergent properties, if not evolution? Enfoldment means the potential for evolution to me, not the unpacking of particular properties on schedule. I do not consider a piece of metal slowly rusting as an example of evolution, though a change of state does occur. Which way evolution goes depends on which properties are already unfolded. Many lines of evolution did not unfold, which enabled us to be what we are. Those properties had only the quality of abstract potential. They were not "already there."

I hardly believe the universe is as simple as the 17th century watch paradigm. These days we prefer a more organic outlook. Yet there is also the information outlook--the universe is nothing but a big computer. It is interesting that our historical models for the universe always employ the most cutting edge technologies of their eras. Newton invented calculus, which was all about documenting change, yet the model of the universe which emerged out of his era was based on the regularity of a clock, the most sophisticated article of technology of his time, requiring far more moving parts than a telescope.

The heirs to mechanism today are those who postulate the universe is a computer or a hologram. Do we dare to guess what is next?

[desiresjab]

How people can hold hardcore beliefs based on so little, mystifies me. Some are in my own family. Perhaps a clue lies in the fact that anti-knowledge brainwashing is found throughout the Bible. How fantastic if increasing knowledge had only been the object of navigation in religions. But we got religions which are traditionally the declared enemies of earthly knowledge. In place of investigative knowledge, religion gave us faith and the belief there is a higher state of understanding they call enlightenment, salvation, wisdom, or some other manufactured name for a state of grace.

Those who turn their backs on blind faith for physics are on the holier path. Until such time that chanting or praying formulae by groups of scientists proves more effective than programming them into computers, faith mongers don't have a thing I believe I should pursue. They are on an ancient, worn out path that has never accomplished a thing that I can see and which, I believe, has thoroughly demonstrated its worthlessness in solving any problems whatsoever. Its cosmology is primitive and unsuitable for modern minds; its ethical systems are out of date, and kept up to date only by discarding large portions of the original and highlighting those parts that still may be relevant.

When churches and mosques are converted to museums instead of being demolished like giant Buddahs, we will be on the next track of our journey, unafraid to acknowledge our racial past and open to suggestions from ourselves.

If evidence turns up supporting any of the childish notions of religion, we can always go back. Even better reasons than religion for behaving ourselves are there for the taking.

One hundred years from now the world would be distinctly less religious, if a contemporary were transported forward.

Only more reasons for abandoning traditional religions will turn up in the evidence as we proceed.

[YesNo]

How people can hold hardcore beliefs based on so little, mystifies me. Some are in my own family. Perhaps a clue lies in the fact that anti-knowledge brainwashing is found throughout the Bible. How fantastic if increasing knowledge had only been the object of navigation in religions. But we got religions which are traditionally the declared enemies of earthly knowledge. In place of investigative knowledge, religion gave us faith and the belief there is a higher state of understanding they call enlightenment, salvation, wisdom, or some other manufactured name for a state of grace.

I've noticed that it's always other people's beliefs that are "hardcore" and "brainwashing".

Those who turn their backs on blind faith for physics are on the holier path. Until such time that chanting or praying formulae by groups of scientists proves more effective than programming them into computers, faith mongers don't have a thing I believe I should pursue. They are on an ancient, worn out path that has never accomplished a thing that I can see and which, I believe, has thoroughly demonstrated its worthlessness in solving any problems whatsoever. Its cosmology is primitive and unsuitable for modern minds; its ethical systems are out of date, and kept up to date only by discarding large portions of the original and highlighting those parts that still may be relevant.

I think prayer and chanting make the mind healthier. Have you ever seen the movie "Anger Management"?

When churches and mosques are converted to museums instead of being demolished like giant Buddahs, we will be on the next track of our journey, unafraid to acknowledge our racial past and open to suggestions from ourselves.

What I am hoping to see is atheists give up on anti-civil-libertarian, social construction fantasies involving the end of theism.

If evidence turns up supporting any of the childish notions of religion, we can always go back. Even better reasons than religion for behaving ourselves are there for the taking.

There is evidence already: (1) The universe had a beginning. (2) Quantum indeterminancy throws out the machine metaphors. (3) Psi phenomena have empirical evidence justifying its existence. (4) We actually are conscious: take a deep breath.

One hundred years from now the world would be distinctly less religious, if a contemporary were transported forward.

I think that has been an atheistic dream for centuries. So far it hasn't happened.

Only more reasons for abandoning traditional religions will turn up in the evidence as we proceed.

What "evidence" are you referring to? Perhaps the belief in that elusive evidence ever showing up is an example of hardcore brainwashing.

[desiresjab]

I've noticed that it's always other people's beliefs that are "hardcore" and "brainwashing".

Freedom of religion is necessary for that reason.

I think prayer and chanting make the mind healthier. Have you ever seen the movie "Anger Management"?

I have not seen anger management. I have no doubt there are marginal benefits from the activities you name. That is because the people employing them are investing effort. When humans invest effort they get results, whether its is from praying or Norman Vincent Peale. I suspect that any person diligently embarking on a Peale-inspired program of self improvement and relaxation would get the same positive results without resorting to the hocus pocus of religion or "eastern enlightenment."

Your normal MO is to now state that Norman Vincent Peale is only a belief system, too.

What I am hoping to see is atheists give up on anti-civil-libertarian, social construction fantasies involving the end of theism.

I have no idea what you are talking about with anti-civil-libertation... with atheists. That's all right. Don't try to educate me on that one. Since I am an agnostic, I do not cotton to proselytizing atheists. Should I enjoy proselytizing christians or moslems any more?

There is evidence already: (1) The universe had a beginning. (2) Quantum indeterminancy throws out the machine metaphors. (3) Psi phenomena have empirical evidence justifying its existence. (4) We actually are conscious: take a deep breath.

There is no evidence for religion in any of that, only to those who insist on interpretations fitting their predisposed agendas. I believe there is not a single instance of a psychic phenomenon in the history of mankind that stands up to the scrutiny of logic and scientific inspection. Name it if you have it. If you say the resurrectiuon of Jesus, we must be done here. There is only a theory that the universe had a beginning, my friend. This is evidently not the universe at all, but a tiny instance of it. There is another theory, and there goes god again.

I have nothing against more complex and relevant models of reality employing higher P/NP standards. Even machines can exceed our standards, though. There can be non-polynomial machines, perhaps. Would not a quantum computer itself be non-polynomial in its operations? At least it seems so. We do not know if any questions are truly hard, though. That is exactly what P/NP is trying to determine. One can have intuitive opinions, however. Mine is that some questions are truly hard.

I think that has been an atheistic dream for centuries. So far it hasn't happened.

This format is not allowing me to look back to see what you are replying to. I am quite unhappy with certain mechanics of this forum, such as its insistence on multiple log-ins just to make a post.

At any rate, religion is slowly disappearing. Donations to the collection plates have been falling steadily for more than a century. More significantly, the influence of the church in peoples' daily lives has declined almost out of existence. Almost no one allows church doctrine to decide their actions on any issue today, except as a last resort fallback or political position. A few hundred years ago the church ruled the daily lives of people in every detail. And no fair poll of our antecedents would have shown a mere 63% of them to be believers.

Of our 63% of professed believers, almost none of them do anything about it, or act in accordance with church doctrine when the going gets opportunistic. 99.9%+ of the 63% are lip servers only. Believe me, this is way down form medieval times. Please do not ask me how I know Russian peasants and fishwives were more sincere in their religious beliefs than Wall Street executives or rapping shoe clerks who might respond as believers.

Our own country started out Puritan, but it is far from those roots now. It has not broken them yet, because they are useful tools for political unity in the minds of politicians.

What "evidence" are you referring to? Perhaps the belief in that elusive evidence ever showing up is an example of hardcore brainwashing.

How do I know, please, what future evidence might look like? No one has ever proved very good at predictiing the future.

[YesNo]

Your normal MO is to now state that Norman Vincent Peale is only a belief system, too.

I have no problem with belief systems.

I have no idea what you are talking about with anti-civil-libertation... with atheists. That's all right. Don't try to educate me on that one. Since I am an agnostic, I do not cotton to proselytizing atheists. Should I enjoy proselytizing christians or moslems any more?

I am referring to things like the Khmer Rouge, Maoism and Naziism.

I believe there is not a single instance of a psychic phenomenon in the history of mankind that stands up to the scrutiny of logic and scientific inspection. Name it if you have it.

Check out Dean Radin's "Supernormal" or "Entangled Minds".

If you say the resurrectiuon of Jesus, we must be done here.

What strikes me about those resurrection accounts are the similarities to modern shared death experiences.

There is only a theory that the universe had a beginning, my friend. This is evidently not the universe at all, but a tiny instance of it. There is another theory, and there goes god again.

The only way atheists can remove God is if they can explain away our consciousness by reducing it to something non-conscious. That is why I said to take a deep breath. The evidence of your own awareness contradicts your atheism.

I have nothing against more complex and relevant models of reality employing higher P/NP standards. Even machines can exceed our standards, though. There can be non-polynomial machines, perhaps. Would not a quantum computer itself be non-polynomial in its operations? At least it seems so. We do not know if any questions are truly hard, though. That is exactly what P/NP is trying to determine. One can have intuitive opinions, however. Mine is that some questions are truly hard.

These concepts relate only to the speed at which algorithms can find a solution. However, John Searle's critique doesn't depend on the speed of computation nor whether you use a quantum computer. Consciousness cannot be generated by these algorithms.

At any rate, religion is slowly disappearing. Donations to the collection plates have been falling steadily for more than a century. More significantly, the influence of the church in peoples' daily lives has declined almost out of existence. Almost no one allows church doctrine to decide their actions on any issue today, except as a last resort fallback or political position. A few hundred years ago the church ruled the daily lives of people in every detail. And no fair poll of our antecedents would have shown a mere 63% of them to be believers.

Of our 63% of professed believers, almost none of them do anything about it, or act in accordance with church doctrine when the going gets opportunistic. 99.9%+ of the 63% are lip servers only. Believe me, this is way down form medieval times. Please do not ask me how I know Russian peasants and fishwives were more sincere in their religious beliefs than Wall Street executives or rapping shoe clerks who might respond as believers.

Our own country started out Puritan, but it is far from those roots now. It has not broken them yet, because they are useful tools for political unity in the minds of politicians.

Particular religions come and go, but the motivation for religion is rooted in our biology, not our culture. That is why atheistic (or "agnostic") efforts to legislate against, educate away or purge religious groups will ultimately fail. See Justin Barrett's "Born Believers: the science of children's religious belief" for a summary of the data supporting that position.

How do I know, please, what future evidence might look like? No one has ever proved very good at predictiing the future.

I am looking for current evidence from science, not science fiction, not wishful thinking, that you rely on to support your views.

[desiresjab]

I have no problem with belief systems.



I am referring to things like the Khmer Rouge, Maoism and Naziism.



Check out Dean Radin's "Supernormal" or "Entangled Minds".



What strikes me about those resurrection accounts are the similarities to modern shared death experiences.



The only way atheists can remove God is if they can explain away our consciousness by reducing it to something non-conscious. That is why I said to take a deep breath. The evidence of your own awareness contradicts your atheism.



These concepts relate only to the speed at which algorithms can find a solution. However, John Searle's critique doesn't depend on the speed of computation nor whether you use a quantum computer. Consciousness cannot be generated by these algorithms.



Particular religions come and go, but the motivation for religion is rooted in our biology, not our culture. That is why atheistic (or "agnostic") efforts to legislate against, educate away or purge religious groups will ultimately fail. See Justin Barrett's "Born Believers: the science of children's religious belief" for a summary of the data supporting that position.



I am looking for current evidence from science, not science fiction, not wishful thinking, that you rely on to support your views.

You are the one who asked me about future evidence, my boy, like I can see into the distant future. I cannot name possible future evidence, so that makes you right on a whole host of things apparently.

You keep making statements, such as our own consciousnesss proves the existence of Gog. Tsk, tsk...I don't think so. Yes, in your mind it does exactly that, but not in anyone else's. A dog's consciousness must also prove the existence of Gog.

To me in these deep matters everything is an open question, but you have settled on a belief in Jesus which you now must find justification for in every facet of any new discovery. Everything must be reinterpreted in terms of Jesus being real and mystical. What you are getting at are your own preconceptions, but you interpret them to support your own dearly held beliefs about Jesus, not even seeing that they come from yourself and not a body of reliable evidence.

There is no good reason yet for me to state positively that the universe even had a beginning or did not, that there is a gog or there is not, or that Jesus is my saviour. Instead of multiverse, how about one big universe which we are either all of or not all of? No one can state for sure that what we call the universe is anything more than a local anomaly in a bigger picture.

If you want to get touchy about Jesus, that is up to you. But expect me to call it as I see it, friend. You are all touchy about Jesus, but the powers of Jesus are merely a theory, too. Truthfully, Jesus has not proven himself as a theory. But heck, maybe he will be back yet. I mean, the aether came back, in a way, with dark energy pervading all of space instead, so there is still hope for Jesus to come back under another interpretation, I guess.

Jesus, Jehovah, Allah, Brahama--these are concepts to let go of as they slip into the stream of history, not embrace and cherish. You can believe this: Jesus and the rest of them are on their way out for good. They will not be any more important to a space-faring race than Zeus is to us now. This is an easy extrapolation. That is the way it is in every science fiction novel, and those novels are the real prophecies of our civilization.

Biblical prophecies did a hellaciously poor job. Other than the return of the Jews to Israel--a biased, self-fulfillied phenomenon brought about by the powers of the west--they got nothing right. There is no Icarus in the bible presaging human flight. What a dead book for knowledge and understanding the bible is! The book of the dead. The bible gives a value to pi of 3. What an insight for an all powerful gog! God only missed it by a little. Believers claim the bible is the very word of god. Why didn't god say 3 1/7, then, since it is closer? Apparently God had not learned his fractions yet.

I have no problem with anyone believing in a very deep, vague God which is the underlying order of the universe as we know it, something like that. When they start getting specific with Jesus or Mohammad and little kid mythologies, then I consider them basket cases. Childhood's End by Arthur C. Clarke has it all in the title. Traditional religions and gods are not worthy of us. We are now better than or as good as the gods of our so called holy books. We have been told we are not worthy of god, but it is these gods who are not worthy of us.

You really want to be one with a tyrant like Jehovah, eh? Not me. My hope is for an afterlife with no gods at all.

[desiresjab]

I believe the influence of religion on mankind has been slightly positive or neutral, when summed up. Only a civilization devoid of religion based on both pure reasoning and humanitarian ideals, could have possibly done better.

Religion has been a weight for a while. Religion is almost down exclusively to its political usefulness. I feel we do not need religion anymore. It is holding us back by infecting too many people with nonsensical beliefs. All we need are the best humanitarian principles our race has come up with. Some of those are found in religions, and many are not.

This cannot be legislated effectively. You cannot force people not to believe something. We simply have to outgrow the delusions of our caveman infancy. The danger is in replacing religious authority with that of a police state to dictate right and wrong. Our best humanitarian ideals must always be the guide of our institutions. That is a very difficult state to maintain.

When our current religions are in believability to our descendants as Zeus is to us, I think we will have advanced sufficiently to show that we can be survivors without religion.

[desiresjab]

This is fascinating. Back to basics.

http://www.bookpump.com/bwp/pdf-b/9424134b.pdf