Revelation is starting to make some sense..

deltastrike · Jan 27, 2013

Well, let's dig into this...

Quote from Fractals 'R Us:

Here's an example of how "science" works. Philosophers do all their thinking based on the idea that assumptions have to be proven. So they cannot bring a Bible into an argument. They scratch their heads, pull their beards, etc... for a generation or two and come out with the statement: "You can't prove the existence of God".. and that is easy to remember and easy to repeat so people get a lot of exposure to that idea. But then God gives us some prophecy that describes some events in the future as proof that He is outside of time and able to communicate to us. That fits with my love of Occam/simplicity, because, deep down, I'm no intellectual powerhouse, I was raised with Popular Science magazines, and I have a love for "what works" so I go with that.

First of all, that's not how science works. In the scientific field generally there is a hypothesis, from a scientist, proposed based on previous knowledge/facts. In most cases the hypothesis is an extrapolation of what's known, and scientists use experimentation to prove their hypothesis one way or the other. Scientists actually welcome negative outcomes as information is obtained regardless.

As for your love of Occam/simplicity...I really don't think you should base your entire thinking system on it. Occam's Razor is a logical tool, and logic itself is an element of critical thinking. If you disregard the rest of those elements, you're not fully investigating your assumptions.

Not to mention, if you truely used Occam's Razor to investigate your own beliefs I don't think you would even make it past the bible. I'm not even talking about the content of the bible, just the bible itself. It's a text that has been translated and retranslated ad nausium, not to mention revised and re-revised to suit the beliefs/needs of whoever was in power at the time. If you were to apply Occam/simplicity here, the simplest assumption would be that the bible, at least in its current form, is not true. In fact, it should lead you to believe the Koran more than the bible as the Koran has not been altered.

Quote from Fractals 'R Us:

The rest of the story is that our great intellects take that "can't prove existence of God" thingy and parlay it into a prevailing worldview. In the discussion of origins they will, 100% of the time, present the debate as "Science vs Religion" which very strongly implies that they have proof and the religious people don't. They have proof when they stick to their science but everything they are saying about origins is not science, it's conjecture. They will buy into circular reasoning to prove their ideas and discard evidence that doesn't fit. A perfect example is the idea that the Geologic Column is calibrated by the Strata.. and somewhere else in the books it will say "the Strata is calibrated by the Geologic Column". When you examine those statements side by side you realize that nothing at all is calibrated! Not only that, the Strata and the Column can be wildly at odds with each other to an extent that makes a reasoning individual say "this stuff isn't working for me, I'm going to study engineering" or something like that.. These wonderful scientists will stick with that "fantasy calibration" though, boy are they loyal to their ideas.. they throw out all readings that don't fit the fantasy calibration. People have examined records of readings and found that about 70% of them are discarded because they don't fit the fantasy calibration.

The "proof" you speak of is proof of why things happen or have certain properties. It's not aimed at god or religion about 99.9% of the time, it's to seek understanding of the universe around us. If it happens to disprove your beliefs...well I guess that's your problem.

The whole geologic column point is a complete red herring. Do some simple research on the subject.

Quote from Fractals 'R Us:

So what do I care if these people are weird assholes clinging to some ideas that are patently absurd? What do I care if they've successfully promoted that idiocy to the point where it's the prevailing world view? Personally I'm not terribly bothered by it, I'm Libertarian, think what you want, choose what path you like, "see 'ya at the finish line and I better not have to carry your sorry ass", that's pretty much my outlook on things.. I do like to explain this all from time to time however because it's just what a civilized person does. If the sign says "bridge out ahead" I don't tell people "it'll be ok, go for it". I tell them "the bridge is out, you might want to take that into consideration".

Like you said, to each his own...

jem · Jan 27, 2013

Wide Tailz · Jan 27, 2013

Quote from Fractals 'R Us:

I was listening to a late-night radio interview. Some guy was talking about Revelation. He tied the event called "Wormwood" to Chernobyl

Religious "leaders" have been calling for the end of the world since 999AD.

Every one of them has been wrong.

Source: Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds

In other words, "There is nothing done that has not already been done, and there is nothing new under the sun"

"No man knows the day or the hour, not even the Son, only the Father knows"

deltastrike · Jan 27, 2013

Quote from jem:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/WhGdVMBk6Zo?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I believe Penrose's statement about fine tuning is base on the "Penrose figure", which is his calculation of a single probability and ignores the relative probability density of various scenarious. Although I will say it is interesting that a self-acclaimed atheist makes the claim of fine tuning...

Quote from jem:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/mlD-CJPGt1A?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> [/B]

As for Dawkins, I think you may be misunderstanding his point. In the multiverse explanation he was referring to how every "bubble"is fine tuned, meaning each bubble has its own properties. Some bubbles pop almost instantly, some contain constants with the ability to support life. These constants are "fine tuned" at the point of emergence of each bubble based on its initial properties prior to expansion from the "foam".

jem · Jan 27, 2013

Quote from deltastrike:

I believe Penrose's statement about fine tuning is base on the "Penrose figure", which is his calculation of a single probability and ignores the relative probability density of various scenarious. Although I will say it is interesting that a self-acclaimed atheist makes the claim of fine tuning...

As for Dawkins, I think you may be misunderstanding his point. In the multiverse explanation he was referring to how every "bubble"is fine tuned, meaning each bubble has its own properties. Some bubbles pop almost instantly, some contain constants with the ability to support life. These constants are "fine tuned" at the point of emergence of each bubble based on its initial properties prior to expansion from the "foam".

a. penrose...

in no way is penrose ignoring probability density

http://www.ws5.com/Penrose/

b. dawkins

actually what he is saying that it appears the only universe we know is amazingly fine tuned. (starting at 1 min 24 seconds)

What are the explanations...

1. a Creator did it (dawkins does not like this answer) starting at 2 mins 55 seconds
2. we live in an unseen untested un proven multi verse (dawkins seems to endorse this answer)
3. someday there will be a theory of everything which may show it was random luck or not. (in a later video weinberg seemingly dismisses this assertion by Dawkins -- but other scientists may be holding out for this... although it may not rule out a creator)
4. a few scientists still hold out there is no fine tuning (but the number is dwindling rapidly... )

I can give you links to other nobel prize types explaining the same thing if you wish.. and also a link to the founder of string theory Susskind.

---
and we have updates
with the finding of the higgs boson we even have this..

c.
http://www.economist.com/node/21558248

"The constant gardener

One problem is that, as it stands, the model requires its 20 or so constants to be exactly what they are to an uncomfortable 32 decimal places. Insert different values and the upshot is nonsensical predictions, like phenomena occurring with a likelihood of more than 100%.

Nature could, of course, turn out to be this fastidious. But physicists have learned to take the need for such fine-tuning, as the precision fiddling is known in the argot, as a sign that something important is missing from their picture of the world."

futurecurrents · Jan 27, 2013

There is a very simple reason that the universe appears fine tuned so that certain constants fit with others. It was all one and is still all one.

stu · Jan 28, 2013

Quote from deltastrike:

I believe Penrose's statement about fine tuning is base on the "Penrose figure", which is his calculation of a single probability and ignores the relative probability density of various scenarious
[...]

I see Jem is still of the mind that when the tired old confused nonsense he keeps pushing has been refuted and debunked a hundred times in a hundred threads, the best thing to do is just repeat it all yet again in another one.
The insanity of reiterating the same bs and expecting different results.

Undeniably obvious , although obviously not to him is, if the universe were any different, then the universe would be different and it would, or would not, be possible to observe it.

Quote from Fractals 'R Us:

I always use Occam's Razor in my thinking, the argument with the least assumptions is more likely correct.

you can go even fewer and assume that you are making up the entire universe as you go along. Don't laugh, there are whole schools of thought devoted to that principle that are thriving in the third millennium..

Those schools of thought devoted to assume that principle, will constantly be frustrated then by the very same Occam's Razor you say you always use in your thinking.
Unlike ideas about making up the entire universe as you go along, the axiom Existence Exists has the fewest assumptions ie., non at all.

bigarrow · Jan 28, 2013

Jem you were wrong with the simple math and interpretation of the presidential polls, don't you think you could be wrong on this too, just a chance you could be wrong?

futurecurrents · Jan 28, 2013

Quote from stu:

I see Jem is still of the mind that when the tired old confused nonsense he keeps pushing has been refuted and debunked a hundred times in a hundred threads, the best thing to do is just repeat it all yet again in another one.
The insanity of reiterating the same bs and expecting different results.

+1 I might pay attention to what he is saying but after seeing how he argues about AGW the same way I know it's pointless. Just an incredibly dogmatic closed mind. So much so I wonder whether he even believes it himself or simply likes to argue from an untenable position.

stu · Jan 28, 2013

I suggest it's because for some reason Jem so enthusiastically promotes the wacky interpretations creationists and some other general extremists like to concoct, he's obliged to maintainin the only arguments he has. Absurd ones.
Then compounding the nonsense by repeating it ad infinitum as if doing so will make what he says any less ridiculous.