The (few blocks from) Ground Zero Mosque

[Dendro Dave]

Originally Posted by Ed

Hi Dave,

I see a multitude of possible responses to the answer to 1...
we could look at shifts of energy to more stable states such as those described by Gibbs (ΔG)...
we could look at the possibility of animating spirit such as seen in animism
we could also look at your possibility of magic (or a technology so advanced it seems to be magic).. at our discussion level we can't seperate them (we really can't seperate them from the second either)..

Yep, it seems though even with Gibbs if we work it out far enough there is a point of failure where you are still left asking "well where did the potential energy come from, or why/how did it shift...In the end if you want an answer you have to invoke something akin/functionally equivalent to magic though even then I'm not sure you cover the fundamental "why"...There the answer seems to be basically to do something, to use the "magic" for some purpose...yet there we can only speculate as to that purpose, Unless magic (or whatever word you choose) itself is the purpose and also contains the meaning.

[Dendro Dave]

Originally Posted by markbudde

Can you clarify what you mean by breathing life into equations? I'm not quite sure I understand.

Hmm I have the concept but its difficult to phrase. I'll try... Um I guess it might be helpful to view energy and matter and as parts of a machine, actually perhaps we can just use the example of the PC...Why does your computer work? I mean on a fundamental level beyond the current laws of physics that only describe HOW it works. Why does energy/matter carry a charge and/or spin (this may not be fundamental enough), why does there need to be energy and matter, and by extension the PC...where did it come from, perhaps more importantly how did it get here. Why is there anything for the equations to describe? Why must it be those equations? Grrr I don't think most of that really touches the fundamental level I'm trying to get to. Why is there something rather then nothing, and how can there be one and the other, or can there only be one or the other.

Are there 2 places or is there only one (I mean the absolute must fundamental idea of "place" possible to conceive and then one step beyond)...actually what I mean by "fire" includes the something one step beyond the must fundamental ideas of place, existence and non existence, something, nothing, one, many, truth, being, non being...the list goes on and on. We are talking about what fundamentally makes the real...real, and the unreal unreal and the dynamic interplay between both, or that they are really one. I mean how do we resolve the paradox, what is the answer that contains all questions and the question that contains all answers. This is the end of logic and reason....and where the fire is found, but I have idea how to describe what it actually is beyond it being the truth of being, the Objective truth of being...and non being. Perhaps the Objective truth of paradox, or what seems to be paradox from our perpective.

By "fire" I mean that which is the question and the answer that contains all the who, what, where, when and why...and the complete perfect Objective truth and context of it all...and the meaning and the purpose.

So to answer your question, I'm not sure...did any of that rambling help you form some idea of what I may have meant? If so I'm afraid that may be the best any of us can do with words.

[markbudde]

Originally Posted by Dendro Dave

Hmm I have the concept but its difficult to phrase. I'll try... Um I guess it might be helpful to view energy and matter and as parts of a machine, actually perhaps we can just use the example of the PC...Why does your computer work? I mean on a fundamental level beyond the current laws of physics that only describe HOW it works. Why does energy/matter carry a charge and/or spin (this may not be fundamental enough), why does there need to be energy and matter, and by extension the PC...where did it come from, perhaps more importantly how did it get here. Why is there anything for the equations to describe? Why must it be those equations? Grrr I don't think most of that really touches the fundamental level I'm trying to get to. Why is there something rather then nothing, and how can there be one and the other, or can there only be one or the other.

Are there 2 places or is there only one (I mean the absolute must fundamental idea of "place" possible to conceive and then one step beyond)...actually what I mean by "fire" includes the something one step beyond the must fundamental ideas of place, existence and non existence, something, nothing, one, many, truth, being, non being...the list goes on and on. We are talking about what fundamentally makes the real...real, and the unreal unreal and the dynamic interplay between both, or that they are really one. I mean how do we resolve the paradox, what is the answer that contains all questions and the question that contains all answers. This is the end of logic and reason....and where the fire is found, but I have idea how to describe what it actually is beyond it being the truth of being, the Objective truth of being...and non being. Perhaps the Objective truth of paradox, or what seems to be paradox from our perpective.

By "fire" I mean that which is the question and the answer that contains all the who, what, where, when and why...and the complete perfect Objective truth and context of it all...and the meaning and the purpose.

So to answer your question, I'm not sure...did any of that rambling help you form some idea of what I may have meant? If so I'm afraid that may be the best any of us can do with words.

In my opinion, the two biggest questions in science are
1) What is the nature of the universe. How does it exist and in what context. From this, what is the nature of time, the physical laws...
2) What is the basis for consciousness. I know I have it, but I can't really know if anyone else does. How can we measure/describe it.

Science has no answers for either of these questions, but almost everyone has an opinion on them. Here is my opinion on question 1, but keep in mind that I don't really have any idea, this is just a working model.

I would guess that nothing "breathes life into the equations". The nature of the equations is that because they exist, so do all answers to them. For instance, what is the answer to x-y=0? The answer is x=1, y=1 or x=99, y=99. Both of these answers exist just by the nature of the equation. Likewise, I suspect that they same is true for the laws of the universe. Furthermore, I suspect that the laws of the universe aren't laws as we would think of them, but are instead equations as well, with each solution "being" a separate universe. All solutions exist for all equations, always. The current laws of the universe exist to us due to the anthropic principle. What do you think?

[Dendro Dave]

Originally Posted by markbudde

In my opinion, the two biggest questions in science are
1) What is the nature of the universe. How does it exist and in what context. From this, what is the nature of time, the physical laws...
2) What is the basis for consciousness. I know I have it, but I can't really know if anyone else does. How can we measure/describe it.

Science has no answers for either of these questions, but almost everyone has an opinion on them. Here is my opinion on question 1, but keep in mind that I don't really have any idea, this is just a working model.

I would guess that nothing "breathes life into the equations". The nature of the equations is that because they exist, so do all answers to them. For instance, what is the answer to x-y=0? The answer is x=1, y=1 or x=99, y=99. Both of these answers exist just by the nature of the equation. Likewise, I suspect that they same is true for the laws of the universe. Furthermore, I suspect that the laws of the universe aren't laws as we would think of them, but are instead equations as well, with each solution "being" a separate universe. All solutions exist for all equations, always. The current laws of the universe exist to us due to the anthropic principle. What do you think?

As for question 1, I'm not sure IMO if that is a question for science, or solely for science. I don't know If it is capable of answering that. As for time I think it is most likely some type of illusion, real in that it is perceived but relative and subjective. A perceptual illusion generated by an inability to perceive the whole of reality at one moment (But there are really no such things as moments, its just the best word I can think of). We see what appears to an unfolding and a sequence of events, but really it just is what it all is. It isn't unfolding, If it is it is only in that our perception of it is unfolding, probably though the collapsing of wave functions. But the uncollapsed functions are a "real" mathmatically as the collapsed ones if I remember my reading correctly.

2. I think it is "Magic" or something functionally equivalent. Think about it...The whole of reality we perceive is just energy, even matter is really just a form of energy...so everything happening is just energy pushing or interacting with energy. The physical processes we observe seem to be an effect similar to setting off a chain of dominoes or watching ripples cross a pond but a force is needed to start this in motion, some type of energy and/or will (a consciousness?).

Whatever this is creates reality and manipulates it, as we manipulate reality by lifting a cup to take a drink, just setting off a dynamic interplay of energy into motion through thought. Also an even more striking and perhaps "Magical" example would be how we can cause physical sensation in a person just by being or doing. For instance If you've ever felt aroused by a girl without her touching you, essentially especially if she is making an effort she has altered your reality, you might even go so far as to say created a new aspect of it at least temporarily through conscious effort or an accident of simply being what she is, or by you putting your perception of that being into a new context. The laws of physics may limited our ability at any given moment to do this in to overt or direct of a way, essentially putting limits on the use of "magic" or the way in which it is used but this makes a certain kind of sense from my perspective. If such things were possible especially without an extremely deep understanding and level of knowledge the world would be far more dangerous then it is. Even as it is the things we do simply be manipulating patterns of energy and through them perceptions are rather incredible. We fly, we blow stuff up, we send and receive sensory output and input over vast distances etc..etc..

To call these things something other then magic is simply to argue semantics IMO, especially if when viewed in such away there is a sense of awe and wonder. A very natural side effect of magic. When viewed this way even simple stage magic is in a sense real magic because you create at least a questioning of reality, the realization in the person that there is something they don't know or fully understand and you are bringing this to the for-front of their consciousness.

The implication of this is at least for a moment you have fundamentally altered their perception of reality and you did so intentionally...If this doesn't qualify as real magic and the use of real magic then my god what does? Call it magic, consciousness, a miracle, the fire, use whatever word you like but the implication is whatever it is in very real effect it is functionally equivalent to the general notion of what "magic" is IMO. If it isn't "fantastic" enough for someone to qualify they are really just drawing an arbitrary subjective line because even shooting fireballs from your finger tips is really no different on a fundamental level then breathing its just something you don't see every day, so while it may serve as a very blatant example of magic it is essentially the same as the more mundane expressions we see of it in everyday life...it would just be such an extreme example especially if we were sure that it wasn't done through the more normal roundabout ways we manipulate matter and energy with thought and will that it would seem to be "supernatural"...Just as any sufficiently advanced technology would seem to be "magic". At least that is how I see things

I agree essentially that all answers exist for all equations always...I wonder if it takes an act of will, or maybe call it magic or a miracle to transcend that. Or perhaps the system is so designed that there are wave functions waiting to be collapsed for all of us when we reach a certain level of knowledge and understanding (just enough of each at the same time, and the right time), that in that state being as we are we essentially can't help but to collapse this wave function and a new aspect previously only hinted at is revealed...perhaps one that contains an Objective truth or at least a deeper level of "fact". It would only be objective from our point of view, it would still remain subjective from others. It would be 2 things at once and it would be in all places at all times...it would be paradox and at it's heart would be what we call "truth". IMO

[earthfrog]

Originally Posted by markbudde

In my opinion, the two biggest questions in science are
1) What is the nature of the universe. How does it exist and in what context. From this, what is the nature of time, the physical laws...
2) What is the basis for consciousness. I know I have it, but I can't really know if anyone else does. How can we measure/describe it.

Science has no answers for either of these questions, but almost everyone has an opinion on them. Here is my opinion on question 1, but keep in mind that I don't really have any idea, this is just a working model.

I would guess that nothing "breathes life into the equations". The nature of the equations is that because they exist, so do all answers to them. For instance, what is the answer to x-y=0? The answer is x=1, y=1 or x=99, y=99. Both of these answers exist just by the nature of the equation. Likewise, I suspect that they same is true for the laws of the universe. Furthermore, I suspect that the laws of the universe aren't laws as we would think of them, but are instead equations as well, with each solution "being" a separate universe. All solutions exist for all equations, always. The current laws of the universe exist to us due to the anthropic principle. What do you think?

After this I looked, and there before me was a door standing open in heaven. And the voice I had first heard speaking to me like a trumpet said, "Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this." At once I was in the Spirit, and there before me was a throne in heaven with someone sitting on it. And the one who sat there had the appearance of jasper and carnelian. A rainbow, resembling an emerald, encircled the throne. Surrounding the throne were twenty-four other thrones, and seated on them were twenty-four elders. They were dressed in white and had crowns of gold on their heads. From the throne came flashes of lightning, rumblings and peals of thunder. Before the throne, seven lamps were blazing. These are the seven spirits of God. Also before the throne there was what looked like a sea of glass, clear as crystal. In the center, around the throne, were four living creatures, and they were covered with eyes, in front and in back. The first living creature was like a lion, the second was like an ox, the third had a face like a man, the fourth was like a flying eagle. Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under his wings. Day and night they never stop saying: "HOLY, HOLY, HOLY IS THE LORD GOD ALMIGHTY, WHO WAS, AND IS, AND IS TO COME." Whenever the living creatures give glory, honor and thanks to him who sits on the throne and who lives for ever and ever, the twenty-four elders fall down before him who sits on the throne, and worship him who lives for ever and ever. They lay their crowns before the throne and say: "You are worthy, our LORD and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being."

Many of the principles on which science and physics are built were put forth by Isaac Newton, a Christian.
They exist because God created the universe with a stable and measureable structure, with laws and principles. Those same principles are part of our everyday lives, even while we are not aware of it. The 'equations' are just our extrapolation of those laws, unseen by most.

[Dendro Dave]

Originally Posted by earthfrog

After this I looked, and there before me was a door standing open in heaven. And the voice I had first heard speaking to me like a trumpet said, "Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this." At once I was in the Spirit, and there before me was a throne in heaven with someone sitting on it. And the one who sat there had the appearance of jasper and carnelian. A rainbow, resembling an emerald, encircled the throne. Surrounding the throne were twenty-four other thrones, and seated on them were twenty-four elders. They were dressed in white and had crowns of gold on their heads. From the throne came flashes of lightning, rumblings and peals of thunder. Before the throne, seven lamps were blazing. These are the seven spirits of God. Also before the throne there was what looked like a sea of glass, clear as crystal. In the center, around the throne, were four living creatures, and they were covered with eyes, in front and in back. The first living creature was like a lion, the second was like an ox, the third had a face like a man, the fourth was like a flying eagle. Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under his wings. Day and night they never stop saying: "HOLY, HOLY, HOLY IS THE LORD GOD ALMIGHTY, WHO WAS, AND IS, AND IS TO COME." Whenever the living creatures give glory, honor and thanks to him who sits on the throne and who lives for ever and ever, the twenty-four elders fall down before him who sits on the throne, and worship him who lives for ever and ever. They lay their crowns before the throne and say: "You are worthy, our LORD and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being."

Many of the principles on which science and physics are built were put forth by Isaac Newton, a Christian.
They exist because God created the universe with a stable and measureable structure, with laws and principles. Those same principles are part of our everyday lives, even while we are not aware of it. The 'equations' are just our extrapolation of those laws, unseen by most.

Math is logic in pure form...the principles of math are the principles of logic, yet you shield your faith from what in your own words god used as part of the foundation for creation. You really don't see at least the potential for error in that?

[earthfrog]

Originally Posted by Dendro Dave

Math is logic in pure form...the principles of math are the principles of logic, yet you shield your faith from what in your own words god used as part of the foundation for creation. You really don't see at least the potential for error in that?

Science is also many times a mixture of assumptions yet to be proven and facts. If I have evidence to believe that there are proofs in what I believe, and yet they are not allowable to even be tested, what good is it that I share them? What benefit is it for anyone? I think many creation-oriented folks share this melancholy sentiment.
What is error except that which is proven to be error? What is truth? What is reality, subjectivity---is it all relative to the one who thinks it, or is there a constant? There can be no governing laws or equations without constants, just as there can be no true morality without truth.
Therefore, I see what you are saying, but it does not seem to provide a basis for error IF one believes in a perfect God who knows how to create things so they can thrive, grow and adapt without falling to their death at the first harmful mutation in their genetic lineage...

(Unrelated, but I appreciated watching this in lieu of recent discussion---enjoy)

YouTube - Stan gets kicked for controversy

YouTube - Stan gets kicked for controversy

[Ed]

Originally Posted by earthfrog

Science is also many times a mixture of assumptions yet to be proven and facts. If I have evidence to believe that there are proofs in what I believe, and yet they are not allowable to even be tested, what good is it that I share them?

When dealing with science as to "mixture of assumptions", those "assumptions" to be accepted have to be the best fit for the current data (a classic example is the geocentric vesus the heliocentric universe models based on the available data) and the results for it have to be reproducable. Under the geocentric model for example the sun always rose in the east and always set in the west. It never rose in the west or set in the east so the data was reproducable. Then with telescopes we could observe that the earth was actually orbiting the sun and again, the earth never changed direction in the orbit... The data was reproducable.
When dealing with a religious experience, these on analysis are not reproducable and do not fit the best available data as alternative possibilities cannot be objectively ruled out. Those are hard to scale benchmarks when dealing with a personal belief structure as the results cannot be replicated, they may not fit the best results (placebo effects are an example).
There has actually been a logic/philosophical argument about why these claims are typically poorly recieved (and it does build on my comment above) that were originally posited by a 18th century philosopher.. For a modern take on it see Hume on Miracles: Interpretation and Criticism - Taylor - 2007 - Philosophy Compass - Wiley Online Library

Ed

[Ed]

Originally Posted by Dendro Dave

Yep, it seems though even with Gibbs if we work it out far enough there is a point of failure where you are still left asking "well where did the potential energy come from, or why/how did it shift...In the end if you want an answer you have to invoke something akin/functionally equivalent to magic though even then I'm not sure you cover the fundamental "why"...There the answer seems to be basically to do something, to use the "magic" for some purpose...yet there we can only speculate as to that purpose, Unless magic (or whatever word you choose) itself is the purpose and also contains the meaning.

Hi Dave,

Well Gibbs does do a good job of taking us out to the Big Bang.. as there are a lot of inherent changes in energy from the various types of reactions (chemical, kinetic, nuclear, van der waals, etc).

It all depends on the point at which you want to start.

Ed

[Dendro Dave]

Originally Posted by earthfrog

Science is also many times a mixture of assumptions yet to be proven and facts. If I have evidence to believe that there are proofs in what I believe, and yet they are not allowable to even be tested, what good is it that I share them? What benefit is it for anyone? I think many creation-oriented folks share this melancholy sentiment.
What is error except that which is proven to be error? What is truth? What is reality, subjectivity---is it all relative to the one who thinks it, or is there a constant? There can be no governing laws or equations without constants, just as there can be no true morality without truth.
Therefore, I see what you are saying, but it does not seem to provide a basis for error IF one believes in a perfect God who knows how to create things so they can thrive, grow and adapt without falling to their death at the first harmful mutation in their genetic lineage...

(Unrelated, but I appreciated watching this in lieu of recent discussion---enjoy)

YouTube - Stan gets kicked for controversy

Let me but the basic Idea and/or argument another way...

Lets say you have a truth, or something you feel, or believe is truth even have faith that is a truth. First IMO it is possible to be deluded into thinking you have faith. You seem to have the opinion that I in fact may be deluded to think I ever had faith so lets use that if it is the case since it would be pretty good evidence for my opinion that false faith or a belief so strong is possible that people mistake it for faith (having not experience the real thing).

So first off assuming you admit those possibilities it seems to me it is worth testing our belief or faith to be as sure as possible that it is in fact the real deal. Now lets say we have 2 basic methods that have been shown to be highly effective in all other areas of life testing what might be truth to find out if it is valid or at least highly likely to be, to know as best we can if the conclusions we reach are in fact the right ones and that what we have is what we wanted. Lets say these 2 things are Logic/reason, personal experience, I actually feel like there should at least be 3 but I just woke up and for some reason the 3rd escapes me at the moment. 2 is good though, 2 is all I need to communicate the basic idea or make the argument.

Ok so we have our 2 method for determining if something is valid, or at least to make the best determination possible. What I have been saying all along is that you seem to be only using 1 method in regards to your faith. You have at least 2 that are useful but you are only willing to use 1 it seems. So its logical to infer that if you have 2 good methods but only use 1 you aren't doing the best you can to validate your faith experience to the best of your ability. Now the question is why? If it is real faith it should be able to stand against both...If it doesn't then that just shows you were wrong and while that may be painful in many ways now you are free to find the real thing. It also seems logical to infer that if you have 2 good methods and your only willing to use one when it comes to faith you must have a reason. Maybe you feel in the case of faith the 1 is all you need...but whats the harm in using both? Why not both?
The most likely reasons I can think of would be, you're just lazy and don't want to bother with it, You don't really care if your faith is valid as long as you enjoy it (Which is kinda understandable, some delusions can be rather nice)...though the implication there is you don't really care if you give god what god wants or if you feel gods "real" love as long as what you do feel seems good enough and your happy. Basically a stance of "screw god, I'm good to go. Got what I needed and I just don't care enough if god gets what god needs to risk loosing what I do have." Lastly and this may be connected to the second, but lastly Fear just basic fear that your faith will fail in the face of logic and reason.

I suppose actually one more might be for some reason you may feel god may feel it is a sin or wrong to try to validate faith with reason and logic, though really in a sense you've already employed reason in the context of your personal experience possibly logic also some to think about it but only a limited informal way. Well if thats the case then whats the harm in taking it further, why would god allow that and not a more formal version? Also you yourself have put forth the idea that god included this things as an aspect of creation for our benefit, so what possibly reason would god have for now saying they were off limits. I can't really prove it but it seems unreasonable for god to say "I god give logic and reason to you all for the benefit of all...but don't you dare point it in my direction!!"....or something to that effect.

So again IMO you have 2 method and you are failing to expose your faith to one or at least to a more rigorous version of one. That begs the question what possible reason could you have for that beyond the ones I have outlined, that seem like rather poor excuses from my point of view. Even if your faith is self proving (maybe thats number 3) whats the harm in testing it further? Just a waste of time? Seems with something as important as faith, it might be irresponsible not to perhaps waste a little time on its behalf...Just my opinion though. IMO the error is you aren't using all the tools at your disposal, to the best of your abilities in regards to faith. Here you seem to set a lower standard then else where (IMO).

BTW I would argue there can be true morality or at least functionally equivalent "ethics" even without the divine...Most of what is said to be "moral" is also highly practical. It keeps us safe while ideally allowing for most freedoms except those that harm others and allows us to live with each other since we have a set of rules that govern behavior and its is practical that our behavior was governed because even if we were free to do what we wanted so would everyone else and they could very easily get pissed and come kill us just as easily as we could get pissed and go kill them. In effect it means we don't have to be the biggest baddest smartest dog in the pack to still have a pack and keep living. This is very useful thinking even if god did not exist and we weren't concerned with any punishments or rewards in the after life, IMO. Being good for the sake of yourself and others even if it is just on a practical level seems to have at least as much value to me as just being good because you are afraid of punishment by god...perhaps even more value, IMO.