This is a placeholder post on notes/quotes related to the Establishment Clause and the Separation of Church and State:
Thomas Jefferson's 'Notes on the State of Virginia' where it talks about Religion (which you can get free online):
http://books.google.com/books?id=-KlbAAAAQAAJ&vq=religion&dq=thomas%20jefferson%20notes%20on%20the%20state%20of%20virginia&pg=PA261#v=onepage&q&f=false
Jefferson wrote in 1802 on the CHURCH AND STATE, Wall of separation: Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions. I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof thus building a wall of separation between Church and State R. to A. Danbury Baptists viii, 113. (1802)
http://books.google.com/books?id=icGh3NxREIIC&pg=PA142&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&sig=ACfU3U0HMqsni0U4HXihV0iPjm6BPFqKNg&ci=61%2C493%2C464%2C293&edge=0
William F. Jamieson writing in 1873 'The clergy a source of danger to the American republic':
Notwithstanding the Constitution affirms that no "religious test" should exist, its framers were still fearful that some loop-hole remained through which danger of a religious character might come to the nation. Hence, at the very first session, of the first Congress, the first amendment to the constitution was made:
"Congress shall make 'no law respecting an establishment of religion, of prohibiting the free exercise thereof," etc.
With what jealous care did the Fathers of this Republic guard against the interference of religionists with the affairs of the State? With what solicitude did they lay the foundations of this Nation? They were aware of the despotic power of Religion, whenever, and wherever, it assumed control of human affairs. They apprehended danger to the Republic by the ever meddlesome clergy. They feared the very calamity that has come upon us—religious dictation in civil affairs. Is it not suggestive that the first amendment^ to the Constitution of our country should be on the subject of religion 1 The clergy never accepted the situation, and throughout our whole history have labored to inculcate opinions at variance with the principle of Self-Rule. In order to get the reins of government in their own hands they propose to blot out this first amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances," and put the following, which I copy from the aforementioned pamphlet, in its place: "The free exercise of the Bible-revealed Christian religion, the observance of the Christian Sabbath, and everything requisite to the promotion of gospel Christianity, without denominational preference, shall be congressionally sustained and supported; and the freedom of the press and of speech, unless in matters of obscenity and profanity, shall not be abridged, or the rights of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Let that principle be carried out, and freedom of speech and of the press would be at an end in this country, as they are in nearly all lands in the old world where Christianity and other equally despotic systems of religion bear rule.
The author of the pamphlet entitled, "Christian Amendments of the Constitution of the United States" reports Dr. Bushnell as saying, "From the Atheistic error in our prime conceptions of government has arisen the Atheistic habit of separating politics from religion." But that sagacious and noble Statesman, Thomas Jefferson, rejoiced that religion and the state were completely divorced in the new nation.
Lief H. Carter's 'An introduction to constitutional interpretation: cases in law and religion' (1991), which contains an entire chapter on this subject.
And, further, ask yourself how a Nation who had declared man was "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" could then enshrine into law the slavery and utter possession of one man by another. One is an ideal, the other is the reality. This Nation has failed AGAIN, and AGAIN, and AGAIN, and AGAIN, to uphold the ideals upon which it was founded. That is no excuse for failing to right those wrongs.
There have been MANY instances were the government has been involved in the establishment of Religion - but those past transgressions are no excuse for continuing them into the future.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Festivus 2011: Airing of Grievances: Christianity Edition
I was posting on another issue elsewhere and I ended up listing my primary 'beef' with Christianity from a political viewpoint.
These are some of the major areas where I see Christian beliefs causing real emotional and physical harm in the US.
- Violent and Hateful Christian Identity movements, pro-slavery Christians, KKK, etc
- Christians attacking Women's Rights (on nearly every front but predominately their reproductive rights to their own bodies)
- Christians attacking gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, queer, and other Rights (including their RIGHT to marry and enjoy the SAME SECULAR benefits heterosexual couples do; also their right not to suffer hateful discrimination)
- Christians attacking science and pushing absolute nonsense like I.D. which is nothing more than Biblical Creationism; this includes stem cell research, evolution, abiogenesis research, research funding in general.
- Christians attacking the separation of church and state (and yes I know EXACTLY those words aren't in the constitution, they are the EFFECT of the establishment clause and Jefferson made this extremely clear in his writing - this amended EXISTS because Christians were KILLING EACH OTHER over their religious squabbles, forcing religion OUT of a matter of state proved vastly superior).
- Christians LITERALLY brainwashing their children by sending them to these absolutely horrific 'Christian' camps where the kids are subjected to tortuous levels of emotional abuse that cause the children to break down emotionally and force them to 'accept Jesus and confess that they are sinners' (a horrible thing to force upon a child, FORCING them to believe that they are irredeemable sinners who aren't worthy of life except by Grace - it is just inexcusable - Child Abuse of the worst sort, willful and intentional.
- Christians who believe God wants them to war with other nations or justify their war, hatred or prejudice on God/Christianity/Bible
- Christians who attack sex education and birth control, which directly results in increased unwanted pregnancies, abortions, STDs, and numerous other health and social problems.
These are some of the major areas where I see Christian beliefs causing real emotional and physical harm in the US.
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Religion, useless or lifebelt?
RE: The Evolution of the God Gene
This is a false dichotomy and, in fact, Daniel Dennett has repeatedly spoken about how well-adapted Religion is for the human mind. Hitchen's speaks of religion as man's early attempts at Science and Philosophy, which it almost certainly was. FACTS never pose any problem for those who care about the truth. In fact, I have studied ancient, animistic, and shamanistic religions for some time because I am deeply interested in this process myself. I also think that these insights can be beneficial to modern humans - our desire to experience the Awe of the cosmos is a drive we share very much in common with all ancient people.
Religion also was and is celebration, community, politics, control, and a consolation to suffering. It plays the role of many different things, to different people, at different times. But this article commits the fallacy of composition when it attributes the beneficial attributes to the Religion and not the component parts, such as philosophy and science. Those are the elements that gave our ancestors a leg up. It was their study of the cycles of nature that enabled them to better predict the future and develop agriculture & cultivation, animal husbandry, navigation, weaponry, fire, and some measure of control over their environment. They simply tied everything together with a celebration of Nature.
The article also incorrectly assumes that all things produced by evolution are automatically and eternally beneficial when this is clearly not the case. Changes that increased survival at one point can be the very change that results in the extinction of a population at a later date. One example, far too many religious people these days are seeking a culmination into the end times - this was not a feature of ancient religions which were based more around the cycles of Nature.
It is this feature that concerns atheists today. We want to keep the community, ethics building, comforting, charitable, philosophical and scientific components and dump the no longer useful parts, which have millions clinging to false and demonstrably harmful beliefs (that condoms CAUSE AIDS, that gay people are evil, that women are not equal to men, etc).
For atheists, it is not a particularly welcome thought that religion evolved because it conferred essential benefits on early human societies and their successors. If religion is a lifebelt, it is hard to portray it as useless.
This is a false dichotomy and, in fact, Daniel Dennett has repeatedly spoken about how well-adapted Religion is for the human mind. Hitchen's speaks of religion as man's early attempts at Science and Philosophy, which it almost certainly was. FACTS never pose any problem for those who care about the truth. In fact, I have studied ancient, animistic, and shamanistic religions for some time because I am deeply interested in this process myself. I also think that these insights can be beneficial to modern humans - our desire to experience the Awe of the cosmos is a drive we share very much in common with all ancient people.
Religion also was and is celebration, community, politics, control, and a consolation to suffering. It plays the role of many different things, to different people, at different times. But this article commits the fallacy of composition when it attributes the beneficial attributes to the Religion and not the component parts, such as philosophy and science. Those are the elements that gave our ancestors a leg up. It was their study of the cycles of nature that enabled them to better predict the future and develop agriculture & cultivation, animal husbandry, navigation, weaponry, fire, and some measure of control over their environment. They simply tied everything together with a celebration of Nature.
The article also incorrectly assumes that all things produced by evolution are automatically and eternally beneficial when this is clearly not the case. Changes that increased survival at one point can be the very change that results in the extinction of a population at a later date. One example, far too many religious people these days are seeking a culmination into the end times - this was not a feature of ancient religions which were based more around the cycles of Nature.
It is this feature that concerns atheists today. We want to keep the community, ethics building, comforting, charitable, philosophical and scientific components and dump the no longer useful parts, which have millions clinging to false and demonstrably harmful beliefs (that condoms CAUSE AIDS, that gay people are evil, that women are not equal to men, etc).
Friday, December 9, 2011
Finely-Tuned, an inconsistent claim on Christianity
William Lane Craig (and other Christian apologists) often present a Fine-Tuning argument which basically alledges that the universe is so incredibly fine-tuned for life that the only way to explain this is to appeal to a God-creator of the Universe.
Never mind that actual physicists, such as Victor J. Stenger, strongly disagree with this assessment, in A Case Against the Fine-Tuning of the Cosmos.
But as we know from Genesis 9:12-13, it is claimed that God establishes the Rainbow as a sign of his covenant:
But, as we have discovered through modern science, the rainbow is intimately tied to the precise laws of physics at the Quantum level that produce the precise refraction and reflection properties of water droplets which produce a Rainbow. So, for God to have established the Rainbow in the age of Noah as a sign of his covenant with the Earth, the laws of physics would necessarily have had to have been substantially different prior to this event. And since life existed prior to this time, on Christianity, the laws of physics we observe today cannot be so Finely-Tuned as life apparently existed in a world in which water droplets had neither refraction nor reflection, the propagation of photons must have been profoundly different than we find today.
So this claim is internally inconsistent (or must resort to Special Pleading), as well as failing to be established as factual as Stenger, et al. have shown. And furthermore, until we have a well established final theory of Everything, such claims are extremely tenuous at best because they extrapolate WELL beyond the realms in which current theory has actually been tested.
This is the intellectual equivalent of someone in 1850 observing how well Newton's Law of Gravity fits the observations (in the energy realm in which it had been tested to that point) and concluding from that, that Nature was non-relativistic. Nor today can we assume that the premises of Relativity are PROVEN by the success of the Theory when there are unknowns (how to integrate the theory with the Quantum, and what happens at extremes of energy that are inaccessible to us). These extrapolations from the Theory serve as TESTS of the theory; to misinterpret them commits a very grievous error.
Craig is hiding his semantic game behind numerous implicit premises that are not at all sound assumptions.
Never mind that actual physicists, such as Victor J. Stenger, strongly disagree with this assessment, in A Case Against the Fine-Tuning of the Cosmos.
But as we know from Genesis 9:12-13, it is claimed that God establishes the Rainbow as a sign of his covenant:
And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant that I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations: I have set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth.
But, as we have discovered through modern science, the rainbow is intimately tied to the precise laws of physics at the Quantum level that produce the precise refraction and reflection properties of water droplets which produce a Rainbow. So, for God to have established the Rainbow in the age of Noah as a sign of his covenant with the Earth, the laws of physics would necessarily have had to have been substantially different prior to this event. And since life existed prior to this time, on Christianity, the laws of physics we observe today cannot be so Finely-Tuned as life apparently existed in a world in which water droplets had neither refraction nor reflection, the propagation of photons must have been profoundly different than we find today.
So this claim is internally inconsistent (or must resort to Special Pleading), as well as failing to be established as factual as Stenger, et al. have shown. And furthermore, until we have a well established final theory of Everything, such claims are extremely tenuous at best because they extrapolate WELL beyond the realms in which current theory has actually been tested.
This is the intellectual equivalent of someone in 1850 observing how well Newton's Law of Gravity fits the observations (in the energy realm in which it had been tested to that point) and concluding from that, that Nature was non-relativistic. Nor today can we assume that the premises of Relativity are PROVEN by the success of the Theory when there are unknowns (how to integrate the theory with the Quantum, and what happens at extremes of energy that are inaccessible to us). These extrapolations from the Theory serve as TESTS of the theory; to misinterpret them commits a very grievous error.
Craig is hiding his semantic game behind numerous implicit premises that are not at all sound assumptions.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Separate but Equal, Together but Apart
I posted this as a comment on the following blog... it's still "awaiting moderation" so I'm going to toss it up here for safe-keeping. Feel free to join in the fray :)
Re: http://potluckbloggers.wordpress.com/2011/12/07/obamas-america-a-place-divided/
Most all want fair and free elections – the issue is not the mere requirement to show ID, it is how it can be used as a tool of disenfranchisement and you KNOW this is the issue being debated but you choose to ignore the facts and instead resort to fallacious and emotional appeals.
I mean honestly, terrorism means we have to show ID to vote??? Your argument is completely without merit, it’s not logical in the slightest. All you’ve done is strewn a few facts here and there and pasted them together with random talking points.
And your facts are extremely skewed and biased; I challenge you to post these facts in comparison (if you can produce RELIABLE sources for data post 2007 that’s fine with me, but I don’t believe that such exists, even the CDC has not finalized 2009 data).
(1) number of US deaths from Domestic terrorism (non-islamic), 2001-2007
(2) number of US deaths from auto / slip&fall accidents, 2001-2007
(3) number of US deaths from Tylenol, 2001-2007
(4) number of US deaths from heart / cancer / Tobacco / alcohol, 2001-2007
(5) number of US deaths from Islamic terrorism, domestic and foreign, 2001-2007
(6) total US deaths, 2001-2007
(7) percent of US morality attributable to Islamic terrorism, domestic and foreign
I want to know just exactly how severe this “Islamic threat” is here in the US, so give me ALL the data and let’s see where it stacks up.
[and I'm not suggesting we ignore it either, the point is that you and others distort the facts all out of proportion -- you ask me to give up constitutional rights on a threat that is smaller than that presented by Staircases, Bathtubs, and pain relievers]
You can pretend to minimize what you believe the effect of such a Bill will be in the US but you CANNOT deny that this has been exactly a tool of disenfranchisement used in the past – the concern is very real. What you failed to do is justify a belief that this cannot and will not be used as such a tool in the US. And you would have to make this case in light of clear evidence that people ARE trying to disenfranchise voters (on BOTH sides to be fair).
The charge is not that YOU personally are a racist, but there are those who are pushing for these policy changes who ARE doing so purely out of prejudice and hatred.
“and if we just leave it alone it will make the proper corrections” — a lovely denial of the plain facts of history.
And if you seriously think Obama is a socialist then you need to get a dictionary… not ONCE has he proposed that the means of production be turned over to the government. Regulation and social support systems are NOT, in and of themselves, socialism. You are guilty of the slippery slope fallacy here.
“democrats are racists too” — lol you are joking right? Prejudice is hardly a unique property of Republicans. OF COURSE democrats are racists too. Democrats used to be THE racists, the Republican party practically began because of the racism of Democrats who were pro-slavery (predominately southern Christians who used their Bible as a justification for slavery).
And Abraham Lincoln is a personal hero of mine. The Republican party of the time FREED the slaves. But that all changed over time and by the election of 1912 there was nothing left of the Grand Old Party. A mass exodus occured electing Thomas Woodrow Wilson as the 28th president of the United States. From that date forward the Democrats have greatly diversified and adopted more liberal and progressive policies. And it is exactly this effort AGAINST prejudice that appears in the Democrat movement that has pushed the Religious Right over to the Republican party.
So yeah, there is still a LOT of racism and prejudice everywhere – but it cannot be denied that a heavy concentration currently lies with the Religious Right in the Republican party. They are practically frothing at the mouth over the idea that two people of the same sex might get the same civil rights as two people of opposite sex. Why are they so preoccupied with the sexual activities of others?
Where do you see this level of open hatred anywhere else? It’s not ALL republicans to be sure.
Re: http://potluckbloggers.wordpress.com/2011/12/07/obamas-america-a-place-divided/
“We need to stand together to solve our problems. / Is it election day yet?”Your vision of “standing together” is interesting. What it seems you mean from these words is that everyone needs to believe as you do and if they don’t, they must be marginalized by voting them out. Can you even see the hypocrisy in these two statements?
Most all want fair and free elections – the issue is not the mere requirement to show ID, it is how it can be used as a tool of disenfranchisement and you KNOW this is the issue being debated but you choose to ignore the facts and instead resort to fallacious and emotional appeals.
I mean honestly, terrorism means we have to show ID to vote??? Your argument is completely without merit, it’s not logical in the slightest. All you’ve done is strewn a few facts here and there and pasted them together with random talking points.
And your facts are extremely skewed and biased; I challenge you to post these facts in comparison (if you can produce RELIABLE sources for data post 2007 that’s fine with me, but I don’t believe that such exists, even the CDC has not finalized 2009 data).
(1) number of US deaths from Domestic terrorism (non-islamic), 2001-2007
(2) number of US deaths from auto / slip&fall accidents, 2001-2007
(3) number of US deaths from Tylenol, 2001-2007
(4) number of US deaths from heart / cancer / Tobacco / alcohol, 2001-2007
(5) number of US deaths from Islamic terrorism, domestic and foreign, 2001-2007
(6) total US deaths, 2001-2007
(7) percent of US morality attributable to Islamic terrorism, domestic and foreign
I want to know just exactly how severe this “Islamic threat” is here in the US, so give me ALL the data and let’s see where it stacks up.
[and I'm not suggesting we ignore it either, the point is that you and others distort the facts all out of proportion -- you ask me to give up constitutional rights on a threat that is smaller than that presented by Staircases, Bathtubs, and pain relievers]
You can pretend to minimize what you believe the effect of such a Bill will be in the US but you CANNOT deny that this has been exactly a tool of disenfranchisement used in the past – the concern is very real. What you failed to do is justify a belief that this cannot and will not be used as such a tool in the US. And you would have to make this case in light of clear evidence that people ARE trying to disenfranchise voters (on BOTH sides to be fair).
The charge is not that YOU personally are a racist, but there are those who are pushing for these policy changes who ARE doing so purely out of prejudice and hatred.
“and if we just leave it alone it will make the proper corrections” — a lovely denial of the plain facts of history.
And if you seriously think Obama is a socialist then you need to get a dictionary… not ONCE has he proposed that the means of production be turned over to the government. Regulation and social support systems are NOT, in and of themselves, socialism. You are guilty of the slippery slope fallacy here.
“democrats are racists too” — lol you are joking right? Prejudice is hardly a unique property of Republicans. OF COURSE democrats are racists too. Democrats used to be THE racists, the Republican party practically began because of the racism of Democrats who were pro-slavery (predominately southern Christians who used their Bible as a justification for slavery).
And Abraham Lincoln is a personal hero of mine. The Republican party of the time FREED the slaves. But that all changed over time and by the election of 1912 there was nothing left of the Grand Old Party. A mass exodus occured electing Thomas Woodrow Wilson as the 28th president of the United States. From that date forward the Democrats have greatly diversified and adopted more liberal and progressive policies. And it is exactly this effort AGAINST prejudice that appears in the Democrat movement that has pushed the Religious Right over to the Republican party.
So yeah, there is still a LOT of racism and prejudice everywhere – but it cannot be denied that a heavy concentration currently lies with the Religious Right in the Republican party. They are practically frothing at the mouth over the idea that two people of the same sex might get the same civil rights as two people of opposite sex. Why are they so preoccupied with the sexual activities of others?
Where do you see this level of open hatred anywhere else? It’s not ALL republicans to be sure.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Naytheism?
Nay:
adverb. not only that but also
noun. denial or refusal
I've decided that I don't like the traditional terms agnostic (because it has been co-opted and distorted from the original) nor atheist (because it is too variant in meaning; it is too narrow - it doesn't really define a positive position).
I've been looking around for a new term for some time and I think I like Naytheist (used in Dogland by Will Shetterly), so I'm going to try it on for a while. Consider it a joke or social experiment; I don't know.
Urban Dictionary, that paragon of authoritative definitions, defines 'naytheist' as "someone who claims no affliation with any religion. this does not preclude the belief in god" but screw them; consider this a hostile take-over.
At a high-level my Naytheism is not just a rejection of theism, but a positive belief in the utility of empirical data combined with a metaphysically conservative epistemology.
In more detail, a Naytheist:
(1) Does not hold a positive belief in the ontological existence of any God (creator, pantheistic or otherwise) or metaphysically dualistic concept (soul/spirit), on the principle of parsimony.
And not only that, but also...
(2) Holds a positive belief that ontological propositions are best held to be true based on methodological naturalism (empirical observations, tests, replication, and verification).
And not only that, but also...
(3) Rejects prejudicial belief systems as demonstrably divisive (including Religion, Nationalism, Tribalism, Ethnic prejudice, Colonialism, Caste, or any prejudicial ideology).
Got any other very broadly held positions? post a comment
Before you suggest The Golden Rule please note that the underlying principle of the Golden Rule is to "love thy neighbor as thyself" - and I believe that avoiding prejudice is a more objective way to accomplish that goal.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Kalam
Kalam
First, let's look at this article on Time: Hypertime -- why we need 2 dimensions of time and Physics with Two Time-like Dimensions
The question is not, is THIS specific case true or not. The point is that we cannot eliminate such possibilities because we LACK knowledge. Can you demonstrate conclusively that Time is a single-dimensional and linear property of the Cosmos having all and only those properties that would support the Kalam argument?
So, WHAT is Time? What causes "Time"? What do we really know about Time and Simultaneity?
It HAS been demonstrated that there is a Relativity of simultaneity.
How are these issues accounted for in the Kalam when it draws conclusions that would be deeply dependent on such facts? It seems to very much gloss over everything technical and its supporters like to quote scientists who make statements favorable to their position but those opinions are not yet facts.
So what they present as a 'simple' premise is actually a complex series of premises with dozens if not hundreds of presumptions.
Time is still very much a deep mystery so right off the bat we're dealing with an argument that depends on our ignorance rather than our knowledge and instead presumes to insert our common sense notions of Time in place of actual understanding. Nor can we conceive of what it means to "exist outside of time" or be immaterial. You can't just assume something CAN be immaterial, you have to PROVE it (or at least demonstrate it to a reasonable level of satisfaction).
This same 'common sense' notion failed spectacularly in both the case of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity and we know for a fact that the current Standard Model is incomplete. How much more evidence of the limits of our knowledge do we need?
If you are measuring the spin orientation of electrons in a Graphene matrix then the Standard Model is the best model we have at present. Theories are only accurate within the Realms in which they have been tested. Extrapolations are proposed TESTS of the Theory, not scientific fact. There are at least 20-30 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE of phenomena yet to explore below where we can currently probe. If we thought the Standard Model explained it all we wouldn't be building LHC's to try to probe these domains.
Hypotheses about M-branes, colliding universes, multiverses, Many Worlds, String, Spin Loops, etc abound - they remain hypotheses because we have NO empirical data that can point the way forward. Funny thing that empirical data, eh?
So any premise based on these notions which exceeds the realms in which we have tested these theories is patently absurd. We might excuse Kalam for he wrote at a time when we had a profound lack of knowledge about these realms, but that is no longer an excuse. We are aware of where our ignorance lies. M-Theory sits on VASTLY firmer ground than Kalam.
It seems a nasty little bit of word play, nothing more.
Hume wrote:
Statements like "Either matter is created or it is eternal or self-generating. There are no other alternatives" are false dichotomies (trichotomies?). YOU DON'T KNOW is the only honest and intelligible thing we can say.
Let me give you an example that illuminates a KEY issue this person is missing. We exist INSIDE the Cosmos, we can only see it from the INSIDE. We have no (known) way to access a deeper mode of viewing and understanding our Cosmos (which could provide limits on how much we're able to actually know about it). How bad is this "inside view"? Imagine that you actually existed inside a computer simulation - you would have access ONLY to the sensory data the computer provided you. You could "see" atoms pushed around by forces exactly like the forces we observe. But beyond the reality of your senses and instruments you would know NOTHING about the computer upon which the simulation was running. Much would be hidden from you. mass-energy would be an illusion, not what it seemed to actually be. The conservation laws would be a mere consequence of circumstance. Your entire understanding of the universe could be shifted, but you would never be able to know it. We're limited to describing the observed forces.
So you cannot honestly say that these are the ONLY options, they are the only options YOU can think of. You don't have to imagine that the universe actually IS a computer to understand that there could be a deeper level of understand that isn't 'visible' from the inside. This is not solipsism either - it is a discussion about the limits of our knowledge.
One last point (for now), Kalam also contains a very serious equivocation fallacy on the nature of 'begins to exist'. The things that 'begin to exist' in our experience do not necessarily 'being to exist' in the same sense that spacetime itself would. All we observe is the shifting of already existing patterns. So we're speaking about TWO very different levels of phenomena.
We do not know what the implication of quantum virtual particles are on this question. In some senses they MAY just be further shifting of existing spacetime. But we have absolutely ZERO knowledge about what would happen outside of a spacetime so we cannot say much about it. What we do know is that universe APPEARS to have ZERO total energy - which could indicate that the origin of spacetime was something LIKE a quantum fluctuation that was sufficiently large to leave behind the universe due to some asymmetry in the laws of physics outside our spacetime.
Kalam hides behind a very classical view of causation and time that is not strongly supported by the physics and there are a large number of implicit assumptions that are highly questionable and unresolved. And though it pretends to rest on 'simple empirical observations' it extrapolates far far far beyond any reasonable expectation of their applicability.
Ockham would not be amused.
(Also posted by me as comment on DebateGod)
First, let's look at this article on Time: Hypertime -- why we need 2 dimensions of time and Physics with Two Time-like Dimensions
The question is not, is THIS specific case true or not. The point is that we cannot eliminate such possibilities because we LACK knowledge. Can you demonstrate conclusively that Time is a single-dimensional and linear property of the Cosmos having all and only those properties that would support the Kalam argument?
So, WHAT is Time? What causes "Time"? What do we really know about Time and Simultaneity?
It HAS been demonstrated that there is a Relativity of simultaneity.
How are these issues accounted for in the Kalam when it draws conclusions that would be deeply dependent on such facts? It seems to very much gloss over everything technical and its supporters like to quote scientists who make statements favorable to their position but those opinions are not yet facts.
So what they present as a 'simple' premise is actually a complex series of premises with dozens if not hundreds of presumptions.
Time is still very much a deep mystery so right off the bat we're dealing with an argument that depends on our ignorance rather than our knowledge and instead presumes to insert our common sense notions of Time in place of actual understanding. Nor can we conceive of what it means to "exist outside of time" or be immaterial. You can't just assume something CAN be immaterial, you have to PROVE it (or at least demonstrate it to a reasonable level of satisfaction).
This same 'common sense' notion failed spectacularly in both the case of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity and we know for a fact that the current Standard Model is incomplete. How much more evidence of the limits of our knowledge do we need?
If you are measuring the spin orientation of electrons in a Graphene matrix then the Standard Model is the best model we have at present. Theories are only accurate within the Realms in which they have been tested. Extrapolations are proposed TESTS of the Theory, not scientific fact. There are at least 20-30 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE of phenomena yet to explore below where we can currently probe. If we thought the Standard Model explained it all we wouldn't be building LHC's to try to probe these domains.
Hypotheses about M-branes, colliding universes, multiverses, Many Worlds, String, Spin Loops, etc abound - they remain hypotheses because we have NO empirical data that can point the way forward. Funny thing that empirical data, eh?
So any premise based on these notions which exceeds the realms in which we have tested these theories is patently absurd. We might excuse Kalam for he wrote at a time when we had a profound lack of knowledge about these realms, but that is no longer an excuse. We are aware of where our ignorance lies. M-Theory sits on VASTLY firmer ground than Kalam.
It seems a nasty little bit of word play, nothing more.
Hume wrote:
[T]here is an evident absurdity in pretending to demonstrate a matter of fact, or to prove it by any arguments a priori. Nothing is demonstrable, unless the contrary implies a contradiction. Nothing, that is distinctly conceivable, implies a contradiction. Whatever we conceive as existent, we can also conceive as non-existent. There is no being, therefore, whose non-existence implies a contradiction. Consequently there is no being, whose existence is demonstrable.
Statements like "Either matter is created or it is eternal or self-generating. There are no other alternatives" are false dichotomies (trichotomies?). YOU DON'T KNOW is the only honest and intelligible thing we can say.
Let me give you an example that illuminates a KEY issue this person is missing. We exist INSIDE the Cosmos, we can only see it from the INSIDE. We have no (known) way to access a deeper mode of viewing and understanding our Cosmos (which could provide limits on how much we're able to actually know about it). How bad is this "inside view"? Imagine that you actually existed inside a computer simulation - you would have access ONLY to the sensory data the computer provided you. You could "see" atoms pushed around by forces exactly like the forces we observe. But beyond the reality of your senses and instruments you would know NOTHING about the computer upon which the simulation was running. Much would be hidden from you. mass-energy would be an illusion, not what it seemed to actually be. The conservation laws would be a mere consequence of circumstance. Your entire understanding of the universe could be shifted, but you would never be able to know it. We're limited to describing the observed forces.
So you cannot honestly say that these are the ONLY options, they are the only options YOU can think of. You don't have to imagine that the universe actually IS a computer to understand that there could be a deeper level of understand that isn't 'visible' from the inside. This is not solipsism either - it is a discussion about the limits of our knowledge.
One last point (for now), Kalam also contains a very serious equivocation fallacy on the nature of 'begins to exist'. The things that 'begin to exist' in our experience do not necessarily 'being to exist' in the same sense that spacetime itself would. All we observe is the shifting of already existing patterns. So we're speaking about TWO very different levels of phenomena.
We do not know what the implication of quantum virtual particles are on this question. In some senses they MAY just be further shifting of existing spacetime. But we have absolutely ZERO knowledge about what would happen outside of a spacetime so we cannot say much about it. What we do know is that universe APPEARS to have ZERO total energy - which could indicate that the origin of spacetime was something LIKE a quantum fluctuation that was sufficiently large to leave behind the universe due to some asymmetry in the laws of physics outside our spacetime.
Kalam hides behind a very classical view of causation and time that is not strongly supported by the physics and there are a large number of implicit assumptions that are highly questionable and unresolved. And though it pretends to rest on 'simple empirical observations' it extrapolates far far far beyond any reasonable expectation of their applicability.
Ockham would not be amused.
(Also posted by me as comment on DebateGod)
No Evidence? (bad science, bad!)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/4312355/Charles-Darwins-tree-of-life-is-wrong-and-misleading-claim-scientists.html
I found this article because it was being cited as "proof that Evolution is false" so I wanted to give my usual rant about poor science journalism.
Really? So... I didn't come from my parents? That doesn't constitute a certain amount of evidence?
Any genius can tell that where it takes two to tango then it's not a LITERAL and STRICT tree, but to say there is "No evidence" is rather absurd.
Are there additional complexities? Sure, we know more about things like lateral/horizontal gene transfer, retroviral changes, epigenetics and all sorts of things but those don't change the fundamental observation that things come from their parents in critically important ways.
This is a more accurate statement but even then, there is no denying the inheritance. The 'tree' doesn't go away here, it just is filled in with more details.
I get what they are saying but this nonsense is incredibly misleading. It sounds like they are perhaps pandering for publicity. [one of the evils produced by poorly funded science]
Why can't they just say "the tree of life is growing more complex with X, Y, and Z additions"? And we've KNOWN this for over 80 years!! "First discovered in 1928 by Frederick Griffith, lateral gene transfer is the process by which bacteria can pass genetic material laterally." Why are they acting like this is a revolution?
The article should have begun: "Since 1928, when Frederick Griffith discovered lateral gene transfer in bacteria, scientists have known that..." Do you feel the difference in tone and level of accuracy about reality that makes? But this wasn't mentioned AT ALL. Instead, this article basically lies (perhaps out of ignorance or lack of time) but certainly omits many extremely relevant facts. And these are supposedly quotes from competent biologists? I wonder if their views are being fairly and accurately represented but some of the quotes seem difficult to take out of context. Perhaps there are language barriers?
And on the flip-side of that Gonorrhea has picked up human DNA (and that’s just the beginning) also points out that some of the gene transfer studies may have actually been contaminated (and also discusses the role false contamination has played in some studies).
Here are a whole bunch of studies on gene transfer. So clearly science isn't ignoring this although it may be underestimated how important of a role it could play - and being a Human could also mean more than just your genes; we also rely on the bacteria that inhabit our body (symbiotic on many levels).
This statement pulls the article out the frying pan a little bit - but I still think it's very misleading:
Anyway, we learn more, our knowledge grows -- this is a good thing.
I found this article because it was being cited as "proof that Evolution is false" so I wanted to give my usual rant about poor science journalism.
Dr Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, said: "For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life. We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality."
Really? So... I didn't come from my parents? That doesn't constitute a certain amount of evidence?
Any genius can tell that where it takes two to tango then it's not a LITERAL and STRICT tree, but to say there is "No evidence" is rather absurd.
Are there additional complexities? Sure, we know more about things like lateral/horizontal gene transfer, retroviral changes, epigenetics and all sorts of things but those don't change the fundamental observation that things come from their parents in critically important ways.
Dr Bapteste said: "The tree of life was useful. It helped us to understand evolution was real. But now we know more about evolution it's time to move on."
This is a more accurate statement but even then, there is no denying the inheritance. The 'tree' doesn't go away here, it just is filled in with more details.
I get what they are saying but this nonsense is incredibly misleading. It sounds like they are perhaps pandering for publicity. [one of the evils produced by poorly funded science]
Why can't they just say "the tree of life is growing more complex with X, Y, and Z additions"? And we've KNOWN this for over 80 years!! "First discovered in 1928 by Frederick Griffith, lateral gene transfer is the process by which bacteria can pass genetic material laterally." Why are they acting like this is a revolution?
The article should have begun: "Since 1928, when Frederick Griffith discovered lateral gene transfer in bacteria, scientists have known that..." Do you feel the difference in tone and level of accuracy about reality that makes? But this wasn't mentioned AT ALL. Instead, this article basically lies (perhaps out of ignorance or lack of time) but certainly omits many extremely relevant facts. And these are supposedly quotes from competent biologists? I wonder if their views are being fairly and accurately represented but some of the quotes seem difficult to take out of context. Perhaps there are language barriers?
And on the flip-side of that Gonorrhea has picked up human DNA (and that’s just the beginning) also points out that some of the gene transfer studies may have actually been contaminated (and also discusses the role false contamination has played in some studies).
Here are a whole bunch of studies on gene transfer. So clearly science isn't ignoring this although it may be underestimated how important of a role it could play - and being a Human could also mean more than just your genes; we also rely on the bacteria that inhabit our body (symbiotic on many levels).
This statement pulls the article out the frying pan a little bit - but I still think it's very misleading:
Both he and co-researcher Dr Ford Doolittle stressed that downgrading the tree of life doesn't mean the theory of evolution is wrong just that evolution is not as tidy as we would like to believe.
Anyway, we learn more, our knowledge grows -- this is a good thing.
Monday, November 28, 2011
Check my math but...
One of the primary reasons people took slaves was to work. Why would they do that? Because the cheap, extracted labor of others produces enormous wealth for the individuals who control the labor market. Obtaining and keeping slaves entailed certain costs but they were minuscule compared to the wealth produced by each individual.
Obvious right? [even as it is equally ethically despicable]
So why isn't it equally obvious that when you work for substantially less than your VALUE you are an economic slave [I mean this in no way to take away from the horrors and abuses of physical slavery], you have simply outsourced the cost of obtaining and keeping slaves as a nominal fee now paid to you.
My point here is that we have to fight to ensure that our labor is not undervalued.
Meanwhile, corporations are posting a continuous stream of record profits: http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/corporate-profits-q3-2011-21
If corporations are sitting on ~1.8 trillion dollars, that would fund 25 million jobs at $72,000/year - the vast majority of which would flow Right Back into the economy, fueling economic growth, boosting the flagging GDP, remove dependence for millions on social support structures (unemployment, health care) thus lowering the social burden. But we seem to be taking every possible action to ensure the exact opposite processes are engaged.
Are they just fearful, stupid, or evil?
What I'm absolutely certain of is that the GOP have blockaded the recovery of the economy every step of the way. The stimulus was a clear win for economic policy, now what is holding us back is partly the fear-mongering of the GOP combined with their refusal to allow anything even remotely resembling sane policy to pass the Congress.
Obvious right? [even as it is equally ethically despicable]
So why isn't it equally obvious that when you work for substantially less than your VALUE you are an economic slave [I mean this in no way to take away from the horrors and abuses of physical slavery], you have simply outsourced the cost of obtaining and keeping slaves as a nominal fee now paid to you.
My point here is that we have to fight to ensure that our labor is not undervalued.
Meanwhile, corporations are posting a continuous stream of record profits: http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/corporate-profits-q3-2011-21
If corporations are sitting on ~1.8 trillion dollars, that would fund 25 million jobs at $72,000/year - the vast majority of which would flow Right Back into the economy, fueling economic growth, boosting the flagging GDP, remove dependence for millions on social support structures (unemployment, health care) thus lowering the social burden. But we seem to be taking every possible action to ensure the exact opposite processes are engaged.
Are they just fearful, stupid, or evil?
What I'm absolutely certain of is that the GOP have blockaded the recovery of the economy every step of the way. The stimulus was a clear win for economic policy, now what is holding us back is partly the fear-mongering of the GOP combined with their refusal to allow anything even remotely resembling sane policy to pass the Congress.
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Illogical Cosmology
Why can't we just argue God into existence based on Logic?
Let's take an example of something we know at least a little bit about the universe, the properties of quantum mechanics and relativity.
Can you form a LOGICAL argument, completely absent ANY premise grounded in empirical findings, that supports the conclusion that the universe will have either of these rather surprising properties?
I sincerely doubt that you can for the reason I stated, conclusions must be based on facts, not on logical propositions which merely alledge facts.
When we propose that we can, through pure reason and logic, conjure what are rightly factual premises that demand supporting evidence out of our conclusions we make a grievous error from the very beginning.
And neither can a LOGICAL argument, in the absence of facts, discern the origin of the cosmos. For any conclusion of LOGIC to be valid the premises have to be grounded in fact. Mathematics and logic themselves are grounded in an observation of the universe, not the other way around. 1 + 1 equals 2 based on observation, not arbitrary fancy. We then made further observations and (over a very long period of time) discerned a set of rules (axioms) that appear to be self-evident (which demands that they correlate with observation) from which all other conclusions follow. The same goes for the axioms of logic. If we adopt axioms which are directly contradictory to observed fact then we will reach absurd conclusions. Now sometimes we might 'try' out an axiom on a what-if basis and conclude that the results are entirely consistent with reality (what-if the square root of a negative number is a valid concept? well that allows us to use mathematical notations that are isomorphic with observed reality so we conclude that it is a valid axiom).
There is a saying in computer programming that applies here: Garbage In - Garbage Out. If you feed Garbage In like "that which begins to exist", then you get Garbage Out. You have absolutely no observational knowledge about what "begins to exist" *really* means, you just assert it because it sounds nice. But you simply cannot extrapolate from our observations from WITHIN the construct of the Cosmos that mere rearrangements of things (mass-energy and spacetime) - which is what we are talking about when we say a pencil "begins to exist" - must necessarily follow the same rules as the origin or eternal existence of the mass-energy or spacetime itself. That is the equivocation at the heart of these arguments. These are entirely different categories of phenomena. You cannot assert based on any actual knowledge that mass-energy or spacetime (aka a universe) begins to exist in the same way that we observe mere rearrangements of pre-existing mass-energy and spacetime (aka a pencil). The more logical conclusion is that there is something deeper to the Cosmos in which these universes exist or come into existence that we have absolutely no knowledge about at this time.
You cannot even begin to talk about it because have no concepts to even begin to speak about such things.
Explain magnetism to me. Deeper. Why? Why? Why? How far down can you go? You think you understand it? I can assure you with some certainty that you do not understand it, you only pretend to understand it at some high level. Our very best physics only gives a mathematical description of the forces and force mediators. There is no physical description you can give that will account for magnetism and be accurate. It simply isn't known. We know even less about spacetime, it is extremely difficult to measure such things and our sciences are only just starting to scratch the surface. There are possibilities that describe MULTIPLE DIMENSIONS OF TIME. What does that even mean? How can you pretend to talk about the origin of the universe when you don't know what time is, you don't know if it's an independent thing or part and parcel, or even for certain if there is only one of them. Furthermore, Einstein destroyed even our notions of simultaneity within time - we can't even necessarily say two things happened "at the same time". In my reference frame A happened before B and in yours B before A.
And yet, you want to pretend to know enough to say that you know everything "came into existence" at the Big Bang? That isn't even what the Big Bang *actually* states. Prior to that there was possibly a singularity or something - we don't really know. We don't possess even the mathematical description that will account for this supposed singularity state. It's a handle we use to talk about this unknown state. We only posit it exists because we measure the universe as expanding today, and rolling time backwards the logical conclusions is that it was smaller and smaller as we go backwards in time. Now we do have a very accurate description of the physics of OUR universe - it's not perfect, we know that, but it IS accurate enough (based on measurements from things like the LHC, and the energies involved) to roll back the clock a very long ways. And then our present model of physics ceases to be applicable - but that only happens when the "everything" that we know, was in a tiny microscopic little bubble of spacetime and at least near infinite energy and density. Before that? We Don't Know. And on our ignorance it's entirely UNreasonable to conclude that it magically all popped into existence due to the will of some being who wants to watch us Masturbate and send us to eternal punishment if we get about it too often. That is an absolutely, fatous, insane leap of illogic.
We Don't know that spacetime or mass-engery was created, as I've already argued. There are some hints that it wasn't per se. One such hint is that if you take the totality of energy that we can measure in the universe today, it sums to JUST ABOUT Zero (and the error bars of that measurement allows for a Zero value). Now just imagine, what if the total energy of the universe turns out to actually BE Zero? If that's true then there is one phenomena that we observe today that might be relevant to the discussion and that is the Quantum foam of virtual particles that we MEASURE as necessarily existing for the measurements of QM to work out properly. These virtual particles necessarily sum to Zero total energy and they burst briefly into "existence", leaving only their fingerprints on the Quantum field and then ultimately annihilating and ceasing to exist (for lack of our deeper understand and the words to express it).
You might read this and shrug it off but it is a rather astonishing result, possibly the most astonishing in all of human history.
There is no theoretical limit to the size of these fluctuations but QM theory does presume that the greater the energy of the event the shorter the duration. That generally holds true (this result is built-into the equation of QM field theory) but there is a possible loop hole. If there are certain types of symmetry violations that are possible (and we're just today beginning to reach the energy levels required to measure them) then a fluctuation of unimaginably large proportions could leave behind a tiny remnant, a "new universe" that explodes "into existence", ripping spacetime itself out of the quantum plenum (as it were) and then expanding, at least in the case of our universe, as per modern inflationary Big Bang cosmology has been able to discern.
The scientific theories will stand or fall based on the strength of the evidence we discover going forward, either supporting them or rendering them untenable.
Ultimately, the only thing I see these types of Cosmological arguments demonstrating is that we are limited by what we can measure of the universe from the inside. There is almost certainly a greater construct within which the entirety rests but I think it is unreasonable to assume that greater construct is outside of the universe rather than merely being that part of the universe that is inaccessible from the inside. Imagine a cellular automata executing on some hardware system, carrying out the instructions that form the laws for that 'universe'. Those laws might result in patterns that store and process information about their surroundings and those patterns might eventually discern the patterns that define the apparent 'laws of the universe' that act upon the cellular automata. But NOTHING is revealed that represents the instructions running the cellular automata itself, nor anything about the computer system upon which it is running. But the cellular automata is not external to nor independent from the totality of the system. It's just that from within the construct you CANNOT access the information that would be necessary to truly understand the whole - that is, you cannot jump up a level. No amount of logical reasoning from inside the cellular automata could deduce the proper conclusion.
The 'beings' existing inside this cellular automata could ponder the origin of their universe by presenting these SAME fallacious arguments, but they would be entirely wrong in their conclusions. They would be making arguments from ignorance about the very nature of their own universe.
So I PROFOUNDLY doubt that we can say anything at all meaningful about the kinds of beginnings necessary to say anything meaningful about the origins of either our Universe or the greater Cosmos as a whole [which does NOT mean we cannot say ANYTHING meaningful about the universe either, it means that we must use the strongest observable facts when we draw conclusions - and where we lack knowledge we can only postulate a vast array of possibilities which we then must test against reality, not just pretend that one of the more absurd of them is true]
The Cosmic Triangle: Assessing the State of the Universe
Because a small error in the beginning is a great one in the end ~ Aristotle
Let's take an example of something we know at least a little bit about the universe, the properties of quantum mechanics and relativity.
Can you form a LOGICAL argument, completely absent ANY premise grounded in empirical findings, that supports the conclusion that the universe will have either of these rather surprising properties?
I sincerely doubt that you can for the reason I stated, conclusions must be based on facts, not on logical propositions which merely alledge facts.
When we propose that we can, through pure reason and logic, conjure what are rightly factual premises that demand supporting evidence out of our conclusions we make a grievous error from the very beginning.
And neither can a LOGICAL argument, in the absence of facts, discern the origin of the cosmos. For any conclusion of LOGIC to be valid the premises have to be grounded in fact. Mathematics and logic themselves are grounded in an observation of the universe, not the other way around. 1 + 1 equals 2 based on observation, not arbitrary fancy. We then made further observations and (over a very long period of time) discerned a set of rules (axioms) that appear to be self-evident (which demands that they correlate with observation) from which all other conclusions follow. The same goes for the axioms of logic. If we adopt axioms which are directly contradictory to observed fact then we will reach absurd conclusions. Now sometimes we might 'try' out an axiom on a what-if basis and conclude that the results are entirely consistent with reality (what-if the square root of a negative number is a valid concept? well that allows us to use mathematical notations that are isomorphic with observed reality so we conclude that it is a valid axiom).
There is a saying in computer programming that applies here: Garbage In - Garbage Out. If you feed Garbage In like "that which begins to exist", then you get Garbage Out. You have absolutely no observational knowledge about what "begins to exist" *really* means, you just assert it because it sounds nice. But you simply cannot extrapolate from our observations from WITHIN the construct of the Cosmos that mere rearrangements of things (mass-energy and spacetime) - which is what we are talking about when we say a pencil "begins to exist" - must necessarily follow the same rules as the origin or eternal existence of the mass-energy or spacetime itself. That is the equivocation at the heart of these arguments. These are entirely different categories of phenomena. You cannot assert based on any actual knowledge that mass-energy or spacetime (aka a universe) begins to exist in the same way that we observe mere rearrangements of pre-existing mass-energy and spacetime (aka a pencil). The more logical conclusion is that there is something deeper to the Cosmos in which these universes exist or come into existence that we have absolutely no knowledge about at this time.
You cannot even begin to talk about it because have no concepts to even begin to speak about such things.
Explain magnetism to me. Deeper. Why? Why? Why? How far down can you go? You think you understand it? I can assure you with some certainty that you do not understand it, you only pretend to understand it at some high level. Our very best physics only gives a mathematical description of the forces and force mediators. There is no physical description you can give that will account for magnetism and be accurate. It simply isn't known. We know even less about spacetime, it is extremely difficult to measure such things and our sciences are only just starting to scratch the surface. There are possibilities that describe MULTIPLE DIMENSIONS OF TIME. What does that even mean? How can you pretend to talk about the origin of the universe when you don't know what time is, you don't know if it's an independent thing or part and parcel, or even for certain if there is only one of them. Furthermore, Einstein destroyed even our notions of simultaneity within time - we can't even necessarily say two things happened "at the same time". In my reference frame A happened before B and in yours B before A.
And yet, you want to pretend to know enough to say that you know everything "came into existence" at the Big Bang? That isn't even what the Big Bang *actually* states. Prior to that there was possibly a singularity or something - we don't really know. We don't possess even the mathematical description that will account for this supposed singularity state. It's a handle we use to talk about this unknown state. We only posit it exists because we measure the universe as expanding today, and rolling time backwards the logical conclusions is that it was smaller and smaller as we go backwards in time. Now we do have a very accurate description of the physics of OUR universe - it's not perfect, we know that, but it IS accurate enough (based on measurements from things like the LHC, and the energies involved) to roll back the clock a very long ways. And then our present model of physics ceases to be applicable - but that only happens when the "everything" that we know, was in a tiny microscopic little bubble of spacetime and at least near infinite energy and density. Before that? We Don't Know. And on our ignorance it's entirely UNreasonable to conclude that it magically all popped into existence due to the will of some being who wants to watch us Masturbate and send us to eternal punishment if we get about it too often. That is an absolutely, fatous, insane leap of illogic.
We Don't know that spacetime or mass-engery was created, as I've already argued. There are some hints that it wasn't per se. One such hint is that if you take the totality of energy that we can measure in the universe today, it sums to JUST ABOUT Zero (and the error bars of that measurement allows for a Zero value). Now just imagine, what if the total energy of the universe turns out to actually BE Zero? If that's true then there is one phenomena that we observe today that might be relevant to the discussion and that is the Quantum foam of virtual particles that we MEASURE as necessarily existing for the measurements of QM to work out properly. These virtual particles necessarily sum to Zero total energy and they burst briefly into "existence", leaving only their fingerprints on the Quantum field and then ultimately annihilating and ceasing to exist (for lack of our deeper understand and the words to express it).
You might read this and shrug it off but it is a rather astonishing result, possibly the most astonishing in all of human history.
There is no theoretical limit to the size of these fluctuations but QM theory does presume that the greater the energy of the event the shorter the duration. That generally holds true (this result is built-into the equation of QM field theory) but there is a possible loop hole. If there are certain types of symmetry violations that are possible (and we're just today beginning to reach the energy levels required to measure them) then a fluctuation of unimaginably large proportions could leave behind a tiny remnant, a "new universe" that explodes "into existence", ripping spacetime itself out of the quantum plenum (as it were) and then expanding, at least in the case of our universe, as per modern inflationary Big Bang cosmology has been able to discern.
The scientific theories will stand or fall based on the strength of the evidence we discover going forward, either supporting them or rendering them untenable.
Ultimately, the only thing I see these types of Cosmological arguments demonstrating is that we are limited by what we can measure of the universe from the inside. There is almost certainly a greater construct within which the entirety rests but I think it is unreasonable to assume that greater construct is outside of the universe rather than merely being that part of the universe that is inaccessible from the inside. Imagine a cellular automata executing on some hardware system, carrying out the instructions that form the laws for that 'universe'. Those laws might result in patterns that store and process information about their surroundings and those patterns might eventually discern the patterns that define the apparent 'laws of the universe' that act upon the cellular automata. But NOTHING is revealed that represents the instructions running the cellular automata itself, nor anything about the computer system upon which it is running. But the cellular automata is not external to nor independent from the totality of the system. It's just that from within the construct you CANNOT access the information that would be necessary to truly understand the whole - that is, you cannot jump up a level. No amount of logical reasoning from inside the cellular automata could deduce the proper conclusion.
The 'beings' existing inside this cellular automata could ponder the origin of their universe by presenting these SAME fallacious arguments, but they would be entirely wrong in their conclusions. They would be making arguments from ignorance about the very nature of their own universe.
So I PROFOUNDLY doubt that we can say anything at all meaningful about the kinds of beginnings necessary to say anything meaningful about the origins of either our Universe or the greater Cosmos as a whole [which does NOT mean we cannot say ANYTHING meaningful about the universe either, it means that we must use the strongest observable facts when we draw conclusions - and where we lack knowledge we can only postulate a vast array of possibilities which we then must test against reality, not just pretend that one of the more absurd of them is true]
The Cosmic Triangle: Assessing the State of the Universe
(Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy on the Babel fish) Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. The argument goes something like this:
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanished in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
Douglas Adams
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)