I've said many times, most Atheists like TS and others don't even understand (or could explain) the mathematics behind that which defines their existence for them. Their faith is in those who posit them as correct. But they refuse to call it faith because some humans have evaluated it with our limited understanding and ability to test our greater universe.Oldbear83 said:
I seriously doubt more than one person on this board genuinely understands 'quantum fluctuations', and that person is neither TS nor myself.
They do have experiments/tests for their theories:TexasScientist said:Mathematics is simply a description, in this case of a philosphical idea. By itself it doesn't prove anything. There are no tests, or experiments that have produced empirical evidence for their hypothesis. String theory, for example, has some interesting mathmatics, but it hasn't proven or led to anything (yet) that tells us something that is testable about our universe. We certainly know that any animal consciousness is a biologic function. There is no evidence of consciousness before or after death. The whole concept borders on mysticism.Doc Holliday said:Hoffman is a neuroscientist and this isn't philosophical. He has the math to back up his theories.TexasScientist said:All of that is nothing more than non-evidentiary philosophical musings, at best entertaining nonsense against what we know to be true about the physical universe, and cosmogony. It's apparent the interaction of quantumDoc Holliday said:I don't believe in simulation theory whatsoever and I'm discussing cosmogony: quantum theory is a byproduct of cosmogony.TexasScientist said:Theorizing you live in a computer simulation does't alter the fact that general relativity and quantum theory reliably describe our universe.Doc Holliday said:Try DMT, find out this reality is less real than others and then we'll see what you think.quash said:D. C. Bear said:quash said:D. C. Bear said:quash said:D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:No, it's well documented on this site here: https://sicem365.com/forums/7TexasScientist said:Wishfull thinking on your part doesn't make it reality.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If religion is an intellectual cop out, then how is it that you've always been defeated intellectually by Christians?TexasScientist said:
Belief in a power outside of the physical universe only comes from the imaginations of humans. There is no other source. Science does ask questions, and strives to find the answers. Religion presumes, in the imaginations of humans, to know the answers before the questions are even asked. Religion is an intellectual cop out.
There, it is also well documented how your argument solely involves repeating the same phrase over and over, like your "Religion presumes to know the answers before the questions are even asked." You must have recycled this repetitive tripe at least a dozen times.Hmmm? Who repeats themselves? The more you pronounce something as true doesn't change the facts or the truth. You're offended because you've been trained and reinforced to believe in what is obviously obsurd. To confront those beliefs requires you to reconcile the time, and emotional commitment you have invested in those beliefs with reality. You would be required to accept that everything you were taught to believe about your existence is wrong, the social community you identify with is wrong, your understanding about who you are as a sentient being in this universe is all wrong. That's a hard pill to ask anyone to swallow. But, deep down I suspect you know it's true. That's why it is so offensive.Quote:
"you've alwyas been defeated"
Deep down, you know that the universe, and those of us in it, do not exist by chance, despite your wishing it was so. To face that reality, however, you would have to accept that your mind is not capable of really understanding the world in which we live or our place in it, and you take an incredible amount of pride in your own ability to understand the world. It provides you with feelings of superiority in a world of uncertainty and suffering, and you need those feeling to feel good about yourself.
Wrong on both counts. I find it totally humbling to exist by chance.
Wasn't addressing you.
I know. If you want a private discussion you know how to do it
Since I wasn't addressing you and you knew it, your claim I am wrong and your support for that argument from your own personal self knowledge isn't really relevant.
Relevant because TS are a lot alike on these issues.
The theory I'm interested in posits that Consciousness, not spacetime and its objects, is fundamental reality and can be usefully described as a network of conscious agents.
Donald Hoffman and his team are working on it:Our new paper, "Fusions of consciousness," is published today, and free. We propose a dynamics of conscious agents beyond spacetime, and a mapping of this dynamics into spacetime physics via our new application of decorated permutations to Markov chains.https://t.co/twE8O2DFzN
— Donald Hoffman (@donalddhoffman) January 9, 2023
They propose that spacetime and scattering processes are a data structure that codes for interactions of conscious agents: a particle in spacetime is a projection of the Markovian dynamics of a communicating class of conscious agents.
It's more like spacetime is a headset and tool for consciousness to have utility. Consciousness would be the substrate of reality not physicalism and this consciousness is metaphysical.
This all comes back to the false belief of there being no causality to spacetime. You can't have spacetime causing spacetime or you have a paradox. So what science is going to have to do is show how spacetime emerged without pointing to spacetime. Saying it's a random phenomenon without causality isn't going to cut it and is even more radical and requires more faith than belief in a god.
particles, energy, gravity and space time began millions, if not billions of years before consciousness even evolved. Neuroscience is a better field for understanding consciousness as a physical biological process. The evidence of reality leads in that direction.
With regard to space/time, if space/time are quantum variables, then they can be quantum fluctuations, without causation.
This shows you don't understand the theory at all. We haven't proven that the human brain creates consciousness.
In the five days you've been commenting how you never saw the thread, you could have been commenting on the thread. But it doesn't matter - we know why you won't.TexasScientist said:I don't constantly check this board. If I had noticed it, I likely would have participated as I have on many other similar threads. I'm an empiracist. I don't have faith in anything. Show me empirical evidence for the supernatural and I'll conform my beliefs to the evidence of reality. I don't think you will say the same, because religion is built upon faith in something without evidence. Science is at odds with all of the doctrines of religions, because there is no testable empirical evidence to support faith in the supernatural.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Both this thread and the ID thread were at the top together often, and you've been commenting on this one. So either you have an awareness problem, or you knew your religion of naturalism would get shellacked.TexasScientist said:What ID thread? Debate it here if you like. You should to read the definition of 'naturalism.'BusyTarpDuster2017 said:And this empirical evidence continues to refute your religion of naturalism, in favor of intelligent design.TexasScientist said:ID is a faith based rehash of creationism. Science is based on empirical evidence.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:But you're the one copping out. You're exactly the religion you describe. If you have an argument against the points in the ID thread, if creationism isn't true, then lets hear your arguments against the points there. Or do you prefer to stick with knowing the answers to the questions before they are asked?TexasScientist said:I don't have a religion. Creationism isn't true, so you don't have to worry about intelligent design. Science asks questions. Religion doesn't.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If creationism is true, then so is Intelligent Design. But I understand your avoidance, your intellectual cop out.. Your religion has you knowing the answers before the questions are even asked.TexasScientist said:I don't believe I have seen that thread, but I doubt there was anything of substance there. Intelligent Design is a re-packaging of Creationism.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Is that why you avoided the Intelligent Design thread? Couldn't dumb it down enough for us?TexasScientist said:I keep it simple so you can get it.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:No, it's well documented on this site here: https://sicem365.com/forums/7TexasScientist said:Wishfull thinking on your part doesn't make it reality.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If religion is an intellectual cop out, then how is it that you've always been defeated intellectually by Christians?TexasScientist said:
Belief in a power outside of the physical universe only comes from the imaginations of humans. There is no other source. Science does ask questions, and strives to find the answers. Religion presumes, in the imaginations of humans, to know the answers before the questions are even asked. Religion is an intellectual cop out.
There, it is also well documented how your argument solely involves repeating the same phrase over and over, like your "Religion presumes to know the answers before the questions are even asked." You must have recycled this repetitive tripe at least a dozen times.
For an atheist who thinks of the other side as an "intellectual cop out", how ironic that your rebuttal to the intellectual points made there was conspicuously absent.
And you continue to avoid the debate on the ID thread. It's obvious you don't have anything except the repetition of mantras (like a religion).
Naturalism denies the existence of the supernatural, a belief that has no science behind it - it takes faith. So yours is as much a religion as those you hate.
And as stated, the math behind the quantum fluctuations must be constrained by boundaries to produce our universe. From where does this delineation originate, and what is it's nature?TexasScientist said:No, but I do agree that math is not a causal agent. Math is a language to describe what is observable, and abstract concepts yet to be tested. Quantum fluctations exist. It is plausible in quatum theory for space/time to be spontanesous along with the laws that govern our universe, which would impact the mathmatics we use to describe those laws. If there is a multiverse, each universe may have its own unique space/time with a whole different set of governing laws, and different descriptive mathematics.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:No. Quantum cosmology only theorizes that these quantum fluctuations could have given rise to our space/time universe if they followed a certain mathematical construction - but only if boundary constraints were placed on it by the physicist in order to get the result that they want.... which takes an intelligent mind with intent and purpose! Thanks for supporting Intelligent Design.TexasScientist said:Doc Holliday said:I don't believe in simulation theory whatsoever and I'm discussing cosmogony: quantum theory is a byproduct of cosmogony.TexasScientist said:Theorizing you live in a computer simulation does't alter the fact that general relativity and quantum theory reliably describe our universe.Doc Holliday said:Try DMT, find out this reality is less real than others and then we'll see what you think.quash said:D. C. Bear said:quash said:D. C. Bear said:quash said:D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:No, it's well documented on this site here: https://sicem365.com/forums/7TexasScientist said:Wishfull thinking on your part doesn't make it reality.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If religion is an intellectual cop out, then how is it that you've always been defeated intellectually by Christians?TexasScientist said:
Belief in a power outside of the physical universe only comes from the imaginations of humans. There is no other source. Science does ask questions, and strives to find the answers. Religion presumes, in the imaginations of humans, to know the answers before the questions are even asked. Religion is an intellectual cop out.
There, it is also well documented how your argument solely involves repeating the same phrase over and over, like your "Religion presumes to know the answers before the questions are even asked." You must have recycled this repetitive tripe at least a dozen times.Hmmm? Who repeats themselves? The more you pronounce something as true doesn't change the facts or the truth. You're offended because you've been trained and reinforced to believe in what is obviously obsurd. To confront those beliefs requires you to reconcile the time, and emotional commitment you have invested in those beliefs with reality. You would be required to accept that everything you were taught to believe about your existence is wrong, the social community you identify with is wrong, your understanding about who you are as a sentient being in this universe is all wrong. That's a hard pill to ask anyone to swallow. But, deep down I suspect you know it's true. That's why it is so offensive.Quote:
"you've alwyas been defeated"
Deep down, you know that the universe, and those of us in it, do not exist by chance, despite your wishing it was so. To face that reality, however, you would have to accept that your mind is not capable of really understanding the world in which we live or our place in it, and you take an incredible amount of pride in your own ability to understand the world. It provides you with feelings of superiority in a world of uncertainty and suffering, and you need those feeling to feel good about yourself.
Wrong on both counts. I find it totally humbling to exist by chance.
Wasn't addressing you.
I know. If you want a private discussion you know how to do it
Since I wasn't addressing you and you knew it, your claim I am wrong and your support for that argument from your own personal self knowledge isn't really relevant.
Relevant because TS are a lot alike on these issues.
The theory I'm interested in posits that Consciousness, not spacetime and its objects, is fundamental reality and can be usefully described as a network of conscious agents.
Donald Hoffman and his team are working on it:Our new paper, "Fusions of consciousness," is published today, and free. We propose a dynamics of conscious agents beyond spacetime, and a mapping of this dynamics into spacetime physics via our new application of decorated permutations to Markov chains.https://t.co/twE8O2DFzN
— Donald Hoffman (@donalddhoffman) January 9, 2023
They propose that spacetime and scattering processes are a data structure that codes for interactions of conscious agents: a particle in spacetime is a projection of the Markovian dynamics of a communicating class of conscious agents.
It's more like spacetime is a headset and tool for consciousness to have utility. Consciousness would be the substrate of reality not physicalism and this consciousness is metaphysical.
This all comes back to the false belief of there being no causality to spacetime. You can't have spacetime causing spacetime or you have a paradox. So what science is going to have to do is show how spacetime emerged without pointing to spacetime. Saying it's a random phenomenon without causality isn't going to cut it and is even more radical and requires more faith than belief in a god.
With regard to space/time, if space/time are quantum variables, then they can be quantum fluctuations, without causation.
Also, and perhaps more importantly, math is not a causal agent. Math doesn't bring anything into existence. It only a description of something that is already there. This is something even Alexander Vilenkin and Stephen Hawking conceded. Whatever this math was describing, by necessity it must exist outside the this universe, In other words, if quantum fluctuations produced this universe, then the math had to be there. But what's behind the math being there?
What you're saying is nonsense.LIB,MR BEARS said:
Disregarding religion, you are either lying or you miss out on many wonderful things while you wait on empirical evidence.
I have zero empirical evidence that my granddaughters love me and yet, it's one of the greatest things in my life.
Demanding empirical evidence sounds like you have really high standards but I know, and you know, you don't live your life that way.
Hypothetical game theory, simulations and modeling has its merits for attempting an understanding of the real world, but that's all it is. Speculation. They prove nothing, and they are dependent upon the assumptions and variables built into the model. The concepts formulated have to be tested, in order to make scientific conclusions. There is no empirical evidence of any outside agent acting within our universe.Doc Holliday said:They do have experiments/tests for their theories:TexasScientist said:Mathematics is simply a description, in this case of a philosphical idea. By itself it doesn't prove anything. There are no tests, or experiments that have produced empirical evidence for their hypothesis. String theory, for example, has some interesting mathmatics, but it hasn't proven or led to anything (yet) that tells us something that is testable about our universe. We certainly know that any animal consciousness is a biologic function. There is no evidence of consciousness before or after death. The whole concept borders on mysticism.Doc Holliday said:Hoffman is a neuroscientist and this isn't philosophical. He has the math to back up his theories.TexasScientist said:All of that is nothing more than non-evidentiary philosophical musings, at best entertaining nonsense against what we know to be true about the physical universe, and cosmogony. It's apparent the interaction of quantumDoc Holliday said:I don't believe in simulation theory whatsoever and I'm discussing cosmogony: quantum theory is a byproduct of cosmogony.TexasScientist said:Theorizing you live in a computer simulation does't alter the fact that general relativity and quantum theory reliably describe our universe.Doc Holliday said:Try DMT, find out this reality is less real than others and then we'll see what you think.quash said:D. C. Bear said:quash said:D. C. Bear said:quash said:D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:No, it's well documented on this site here: https://sicem365.com/forums/7TexasScientist said:Wishfull thinking on your part doesn't make it reality.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If religion is an intellectual cop out, then how is it that you've always been defeated intellectually by Christians?TexasScientist said:
Belief in a power outside of the physical universe only comes from the imaginations of humans. There is no other source. Science does ask questions, and strives to find the answers. Religion presumes, in the imaginations of humans, to know the answers before the questions are even asked. Religion is an intellectual cop out.
There, it is also well documented how your argument solely involves repeating the same phrase over and over, like your "Religion presumes to know the answers before the questions are even asked." You must have recycled this repetitive tripe at least a dozen times.Hmmm? Who repeats themselves? The more you pronounce something as true doesn't change the facts or the truth. You're offended because you've been trained and reinforced to believe in what is obviously obsurd. To confront those beliefs requires you to reconcile the time, and emotional commitment you have invested in those beliefs with reality. You would be required to accept that everything you were taught to believe about your existence is wrong, the social community you identify with is wrong, your understanding about who you are as a sentient being in this universe is all wrong. That's a hard pill to ask anyone to swallow. But, deep down I suspect you know it's true. That's why it is so offensive.Quote:
"you've alwyas been defeated"
Deep down, you know that the universe, and those of us in it, do not exist by chance, despite your wishing it was so. To face that reality, however, you would have to accept that your mind is not capable of really understanding the world in which we live or our place in it, and you take an incredible amount of pride in your own ability to understand the world. It provides you with feelings of superiority in a world of uncertainty and suffering, and you need those feeling to feel good about yourself.
Wrong on both counts. I find it totally humbling to exist by chance.
Wasn't addressing you.
I know. If you want a private discussion you know how to do it
Since I wasn't addressing you and you knew it, your claim I am wrong and your support for that argument from your own personal self knowledge isn't really relevant.
Relevant because TS are a lot alike on these issues.
The theory I'm interested in posits that Consciousness, not spacetime and its objects, is fundamental reality and can be usefully described as a network of conscious agents.
Donald Hoffman and his team are working on it:Our new paper, "Fusions of consciousness," is published today, and free. We propose a dynamics of conscious agents beyond spacetime, and a mapping of this dynamics into spacetime physics via our new application of decorated permutations to Markov chains.https://t.co/twE8O2DFzN
— Donald Hoffman (@donalddhoffman) January 9, 2023
They propose that spacetime and scattering processes are a data structure that codes for interactions of conscious agents: a particle in spacetime is a projection of the Markovian dynamics of a communicating class of conscious agents.
It's more like spacetime is a headset and tool for consciousness to have utility. Consciousness would be the substrate of reality not physicalism and this consciousness is metaphysical.
This all comes back to the false belief of there being no causality to spacetime. You can't have spacetime causing spacetime or you have a paradox. So what science is going to have to do is show how spacetime emerged without pointing to spacetime. Saying it's a random phenomenon without causality isn't going to cut it and is even more radical and requires more faith than belief in a god.
particles, energy, gravity and space time began millions, if not billions of years before consciousness even evolved. Neuroscience is a better field for understanding consciousness as a physical biological process. The evidence of reality leads in that direction.
With regard to space/time, if space/time are quantum variables, then they can be quantum fluctuations, without causation.
This shows you don't understand the theory at all. We haven't proven that the human brain creates consciousness.
1.) They've used evolutionary game theory with mathematical proof to show that organisms that see truth or fundamental reality have 0% chance of survival. This happens in all simulations. It suggests that the reality we're seeing is NOTHING like what it truly is.
I've never said there is a multiverse. We don't know. I've said that science seems to be pointing in that direction. We know quantum fluctuations exist, that has been tested. What I have said is that it is plausible the universe can spontaneously arise. We don't know yet. But the fact that it is plausible makes the supernatural irrelevant. For example, we know atomic nuclear decay spontaneously produces/emits photons and radiation without causation. Religion is not science, it contributes nothing to our understanding, and is even an impediment to our understanding the physical universe. Science is at odds with all of the religious doctrines.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:And as stated, the math behind the quantum fluctuations must be constrained by boundaries to produce our universe. From where does this delineation originate, and what is it's nature?TexasScientist said:No, but I do agree that math is not a causal agent. Math is a language to describe what is observable, and abstract concepts yet to be tested. Quantum fluctations exist. It is plausible in quatum theory for space/time to be spontanesous along with the laws that govern our universe, which would impact the mathmatics we use to describe those laws. If there is a multiverse, each universe may have its own unique space/time with a whole different set of governing laws, and different descriptive mathematics.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:No. Quantum cosmology only theorizes that these quantum fluctuations could have given rise to our space/time universe if they followed a certain mathematical construction - but only if boundary constraints were placed on it by the physicist in order to get the result that they want.... which takes an intelligent mind with intent and purpose! Thanks for supporting Intelligent Design.TexasScientist said:Doc Holliday said:I don't believe in simulation theory whatsoever and I'm discussing cosmogony: quantum theory is a byproduct of cosmogony.TexasScientist said:Theorizing you live in a computer simulation does't alter the fact that general relativity and quantum theory reliably describe our universe.Doc Holliday said:Try DMT, find out this reality is less real than others and then we'll see what you think.quash said:D. C. Bear said:quash said:D. C. Bear said:quash said:D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:No, it's well documented on this site here: https://sicem365.com/forums/7TexasScientist said:Wishfull thinking on your part doesn't make it reality.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If religion is an intellectual cop out, then how is it that you've always been defeated intellectually by Christians?TexasScientist said:
Belief in a power outside of the physical universe only comes from the imaginations of humans. There is no other source. Science does ask questions, and strives to find the answers. Religion presumes, in the imaginations of humans, to know the answers before the questions are even asked. Religion is an intellectual cop out.
There, it is also well documented how your argument solely involves repeating the same phrase over and over, like your "Religion presumes to know the answers before the questions are even asked." You must have recycled this repetitive tripe at least a dozen times.Hmmm? Who repeats themselves? The more you pronounce something as true doesn't change the facts or the truth. You're offended because you've been trained and reinforced to believe in what is obviously obsurd. To confront those beliefs requires you to reconcile the time, and emotional commitment you have invested in those beliefs with reality. You would be required to accept that everything you were taught to believe about your existence is wrong, the social community you identify with is wrong, your understanding about who you are as a sentient being in this universe is all wrong. That's a hard pill to ask anyone to swallow. But, deep down I suspect you know it's true. That's why it is so offensive.Quote:
"you've alwyas been defeated"
Deep down, you know that the universe, and those of us in it, do not exist by chance, despite your wishing it was so. To face that reality, however, you would have to accept that your mind is not capable of really understanding the world in which we live or our place in it, and you take an incredible amount of pride in your own ability to understand the world. It provides you with feelings of superiority in a world of uncertainty and suffering, and you need those feeling to feel good about yourself.
Wrong on both counts. I find it totally humbling to exist by chance.
Wasn't addressing you.
I know. If you want a private discussion you know how to do it
Since I wasn't addressing you and you knew it, your claim I am wrong and your support for that argument from your own personal self knowledge isn't really relevant.
Relevant because TS are a lot alike on these issues.
The theory I'm interested in posits that Consciousness, not spacetime and its objects, is fundamental reality and can be usefully described as a network of conscious agents.
Donald Hoffman and his team are working on it:Our new paper, "Fusions of consciousness," is published today, and free. We propose a dynamics of conscious agents beyond spacetime, and a mapping of this dynamics into spacetime physics via our new application of decorated permutations to Markov chains.https://t.co/twE8O2DFzN
— Donald Hoffman (@donalddhoffman) January 9, 2023
They propose that spacetime and scattering processes are a data structure that codes for interactions of conscious agents: a particle in spacetime is a projection of the Markovian dynamics of a communicating class of conscious agents.
It's more like spacetime is a headset and tool for consciousness to have utility. Consciousness would be the substrate of reality not physicalism and this consciousness is metaphysical.
This all comes back to the false belief of there being no causality to spacetime. You can't have spacetime causing spacetime or you have a paradox. So what science is going to have to do is show how spacetime emerged without pointing to spacetime. Saying it's a random phenomenon without causality isn't going to cut it and is even more radical and requires more faith than belief in a god.
With regard to space/time, if space/time are quantum variables, then they can be quantum fluctuations, without causation.
Also, and perhaps more importantly, math is not a causal agent. Math doesn't bring anything into existence. It only a description of something that is already there. This is something even Alexander Vilenkin and Stephen Hawking conceded. Whatever this math was describing, by necessity it must exist outside the this universe, In other words, if quantum fluctuations produced this universe, then the math had to be there. But what's behind the math being there?
If you say that there's a multiverse, then where's your observable evidence for this, mister empiricist?
No more than any or all of your posts, TS.TexasScientist said:What you're saying is nonsense.LIB,MR BEARS said:
Disregarding religion, you are either lying or you miss out on many wonderful things while you wait on empirical evidence.
I have zero empirical evidence that my granddaughters love me and yet, it's one of the greatest things in my life.
Demanding empirical evidence sounds like you have really high standards but I know, and you know, you don't live your life that way.
Quantum fluctuations are not the cause, they are the result of a cause, a cause that is outside of nature (i.e. supernatural) as I've been repeating. Science is pointing in that direction, but yet, as always you are not willing to go where the evidence is taking you, because it's against the worldview that you want. Sounds a lot like religion.TexasScientist said:I've never said there is a multiverse. We don't know. I've said that science seems to be pointing in that direction. We know quantum fluctuations exist, that has been tested. What I have said is that it is plausible the universe can spontaneously arise. We don't know yet. But the fact that it is plausible makes the supernatural irrelevant. For example, we know atomic nuclear decay spontaneously produces/emits photons and radiation without causation. Religion is not science, it contributes nothing to our understanding, and is even an impediment to our understanding the physical universe. Science is at odds with all of the religious doctrines.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:And as stated, the math behind the quantum fluctuations must be constrained by boundaries to produce our universe. From where does this delineation originate, and what is it's nature?TexasScientist said:No, but I do agree that math is not a causal agent. Math is a language to describe what is observable, and abstract concepts yet to be tested. Quantum fluctations exist. It is plausible in quatum theory for space/time to be spontanesous along with the laws that govern our universe, which would impact the mathmatics we use to describe those laws. If there is a multiverse, each universe may have its own unique space/time with a whole different set of governing laws, and different descriptive mathematics.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:No. Quantum cosmology only theorizes that these quantum fluctuations could have given rise to our space/time universe if they followed a certain mathematical construction - but only if boundary constraints were placed on it by the physicist in order to get the result that they want.... which takes an intelligent mind with intent and purpose! Thanks for supporting Intelligent Design.TexasScientist said:Doc Holliday said:I don't believe in simulation theory whatsoever and I'm discussing cosmogony: quantum theory is a byproduct of cosmogony.TexasScientist said:Theorizing you live in a computer simulation does't alter the fact that general relativity and quantum theory reliably describe our universe.Doc Holliday said:Try DMT, find out this reality is less real than others and then we'll see what you think.quash said:D. C. Bear said:quash said:D. C. Bear said:quash said:D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:No, it's well documented on this site here: https://sicem365.com/forums/7TexasScientist said:Wishfull thinking on your part doesn't make it reality.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If religion is an intellectual cop out, then how is it that you've always been defeated intellectually by Christians?TexasScientist said:
Belief in a power outside of the physical universe only comes from the imaginations of humans. There is no other source. Science does ask questions, and strives to find the answers. Religion presumes, in the imaginations of humans, to know the answers before the questions are even asked. Religion is an intellectual cop out.
There, it is also well documented how your argument solely involves repeating the same phrase over and over, like your "Religion presumes to know the answers before the questions are even asked." You must have recycled this repetitive tripe at least a dozen times.Hmmm? Who repeats themselves? The more you pronounce something as true doesn't change the facts or the truth. You're offended because you've been trained and reinforced to believe in what is obviously obsurd. To confront those beliefs requires you to reconcile the time, and emotional commitment you have invested in those beliefs with reality. You would be required to accept that everything you were taught to believe about your existence is wrong, the social community you identify with is wrong, your understanding about who you are as a sentient being in this universe is all wrong. That's a hard pill to ask anyone to swallow. But, deep down I suspect you know it's true. That's why it is so offensive.Quote:
"you've alwyas been defeated"
Deep down, you know that the universe, and those of us in it, do not exist by chance, despite your wishing it was so. To face that reality, however, you would have to accept that your mind is not capable of really understanding the world in which we live or our place in it, and you take an incredible amount of pride in your own ability to understand the world. It provides you with feelings of superiority in a world of uncertainty and suffering, and you need those feeling to feel good about yourself.
Wrong on both counts. I find it totally humbling to exist by chance.
Wasn't addressing you.
I know. If you want a private discussion you know how to do it
Since I wasn't addressing you and you knew it, your claim I am wrong and your support for that argument from your own personal self knowledge isn't really relevant.
Relevant because TS are a lot alike on these issues.
The theory I'm interested in posits that Consciousness, not spacetime and its objects, is fundamental reality and can be usefully described as a network of conscious agents.
Donald Hoffman and his team are working on it:Our new paper, "Fusions of consciousness," is published today, and free. We propose a dynamics of conscious agents beyond spacetime, and a mapping of this dynamics into spacetime physics via our new application of decorated permutations to Markov chains.https://t.co/twE8O2DFzN
— Donald Hoffman (@donalddhoffman) January 9, 2023
They propose that spacetime and scattering processes are a data structure that codes for interactions of conscious agents: a particle in spacetime is a projection of the Markovian dynamics of a communicating class of conscious agents.
It's more like spacetime is a headset and tool for consciousness to have utility. Consciousness would be the substrate of reality not physicalism and this consciousness is metaphysical.
This all comes back to the false belief of there being no causality to spacetime. You can't have spacetime causing spacetime or you have a paradox. So what science is going to have to do is show how spacetime emerged without pointing to spacetime. Saying it's a random phenomenon without causality isn't going to cut it and is even more radical and requires more faith than belief in a god.
With regard to space/time, if space/time are quantum variables, then they can be quantum fluctuations, without causation.
Also, and perhaps more importantly, math is not a causal agent. Math doesn't bring anything into existence. It only a description of something that is already there. This is something even Alexander Vilenkin and Stephen Hawking conceded. Whatever this math was describing, by necessity it must exist outside the this universe, In other words, if quantum fluctuations produced this universe, then the math had to be there. But what's behind the math being there?
If you say that there's a multiverse, then where's your observable evidence for this, mister empiricist?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Quantum fluctuations are not the cause, they are the result of a cause, a cause that is outside of nature (i.e. supernatural) as I've been repeating. Science is pointing in that direction, but yet, as always you are not willing to go where the evidence is taking you, because it's against the worldview that you want. Sounds a lot like religion.TexasScientist said:I've never said there is a multiverse. We don't know. I've said that science seems to be pointing in that direction. We know quantum fluctuations exist, that has been tested. What I have said is that it is plausible the universe can spontaneously arise. We don't know yet. But the fact that it is plausible makes the supernatural irrelevant. For example, we know atomic nuclear decay spontaneously produces/emits photons and radiation without causation. Religion is not science, it contributes nothing to our understanding, and is even an impediment to our understanding the physical universe. Science is at odds with all of the religious doctrines.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:And as stated, the math behind the quantum fluctuations must be constrained by boundaries to produce our universe. From where does this delineation originate, and what is it's nature?TexasScientist said:No, but I do agree that math is not a causal agent. Math is a language to describe what is observable, and abstract concepts yet to be tested. Quantum fluctations exist. It is plausible in quatum theory for space/time to be spontanesous along with the laws that govern our universe, which would impact the mathmatics we use to describe those laws. If there is a multiverse, each universe may have its own unique space/time with a whole different set of governing laws, and different descriptive mathematics.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:No. Quantum cosmology only theorizes that these quantum fluctuations could have given rise to our space/time universe if they followed a certain mathematical construction - but only if boundary constraints were placed on it by the physicist in order to get the result that they want.... which takes an intelligent mind with intent and purpose! Thanks for supporting Intelligent Design.TexasScientist said:Doc Holliday said:I don't believe in simulation theory whatsoever and I'm discussing cosmogony: quantum theory is a byproduct of cosmogony.TexasScientist said:Theorizing you live in a computer simulation does't alter the fact that general relativity and quantum theory reliably describe our universe.Doc Holliday said:Try DMT, find out this reality is less real than others and then we'll see what you think.quash said:D. C. Bear said:quash said:D. C. Bear said:quash said:D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:No, it's well documented on this site here: https://sicem365.com/forums/7TexasScientist said:Wishfull thinking on your part doesn't make it reality.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If religion is an intellectual cop out, then how is it that you've always been defeated intellectually by Christians?TexasScientist said:
Belief in a power outside of the physical universe only comes from the imaginations of humans. There is no other source. Science does ask questions, and strives to find the answers. Religion presumes, in the imaginations of humans, to know the answers before the questions are even asked. Religion is an intellectual cop out.
There, it is also well documented how your argument solely involves repeating the same phrase over and over, like your "Religion presumes to know the answers before the questions are even asked." You must have recycled this repetitive tripe at least a dozen times.Hmmm? Who repeats themselves? The more you pronounce something as true doesn't change the facts or the truth. You're offended because you've been trained and reinforced to believe in what is obviously obsurd. To confront those beliefs requires you to reconcile the time, and emotional commitment you have invested in those beliefs with reality. You would be required to accept that everything you were taught to believe about your existence is wrong, the social community you identify with is wrong, your understanding about who you are as a sentient being in this universe is all wrong. That's a hard pill to ask anyone to swallow. But, deep down I suspect you know it's true. That's why it is so offensive.Quote:
"you've alwyas been defeated"
Deep down, you know that the universe, and those of us in it, do not exist by chance, despite your wishing it was so. To face that reality, however, you would have to accept that your mind is not capable of really understanding the world in which we live or our place in it, and you take an incredible amount of pride in your own ability to understand the world. It provides you with feelings of superiority in a world of uncertainty and suffering, and you need those feeling to feel good about yourself.
Wrong on both counts. I find it totally humbling to exist by chance.
Wasn't addressing you.
I know. If you want a private discussion you know how to do it
Since I wasn't addressing you and you knew it, your claim I am wrong and your support for that argument from your own personal self knowledge isn't really relevant.
Relevant because TS are a lot alike on these issues.
The theory I'm interested in posits that Consciousness, not spacetime and its objects, is fundamental reality and can be usefully described as a network of conscious agents.
Donald Hoffman and his team are working on it:Our new paper, "Fusions of consciousness," is published today, and free. We propose a dynamics of conscious agents beyond spacetime, and a mapping of this dynamics into spacetime physics via our new application of decorated permutations to Markov chains.https://t.co/twE8O2DFzN
— Donald Hoffman (@donalddhoffman) January 9, 2023
They propose that spacetime and scattering processes are a data structure that codes for interactions of conscious agents: a particle in spacetime is a projection of the Markovian dynamics of a communicating class of conscious agents.
It's more like spacetime is a headset and tool for consciousness to have utility. Consciousness would be the substrate of reality not physicalism and this consciousness is metaphysical.
This all comes back to the false belief of there being no causality to spacetime. You can't have spacetime causing spacetime or you have a paradox. So what science is going to have to do is show how spacetime emerged without pointing to spacetime. Saying it's a random phenomenon without causality isn't going to cut it and is even more radical and requires more faith than belief in a god.
With regard to space/time, if space/time are quantum variables, then they can be quantum fluctuations, without causation.
Also, and perhaps more importantly, math is not a causal agent. Math doesn't bring anything into existence. It only a description of something that is already there. This is something even Alexander Vilenkin and Stephen Hawking conceded. Whatever this math was describing, by necessity it must exist outside the this universe, In other words, if quantum fluctuations produced this universe, then the math had to be there. But what's behind the math being there?
If you say that there's a multiverse, then where's your observable evidence for this, mister empiricist?
Atomic nuclear decay is caused by thermodynamic instability. It is not without causation.
Science contributes to our understanding of how the physical universe works. But the human experience is far more than the physical. And science fails to explain the most significant and meaningful parts of our existence - our mind, our consciousness and subjective experience. Without those, science doesn't even exist. So science is utterly incapable of explaining the very things which make science exist in the first place. That shows there is a higher order or layer to reality.Quote:
Science is not at odds with religion. That is as wrong as wrong can be. It's being demonstrated more and more as scientific knowledge increases that science points to God. Also, the greatest scientists and mathematicians in history presupposed a Christian God of order, and that shaped their approach to science. Science is the computer program. Religion (and not all religion, but specifically Christianity) is about the programmer. The program is not at odds with the programmer, it points to him.
There is no cause. Quantum fluctuations are spontaneous and random. This is well established. You absolutely no empirical evidence of any supernatural forces outside of our universe that have any interaction within our universe - only unfounded wishful thinking.Quote:
Quantum fluctuations are not the cause, they are the result of a cause, a cause that is outside of nature (i.e. supernatural) as I've been repeating. Science is pointing in that direction, but yet, as always you are not willing to go where the evidence is taking you, because it's against the worldview that you want. Sounds a lot like religion.
Atomic nuclear decay is caused by thermodynamic instability. It is not without causation.
Our cognitive abilities, and our consciousness are clearly biological functions. Your brain, and other biological functions govern those processes. Sedate, damage or destroy your brain and those functions disappear either completely or partially, depending upon the extent. Cognition to a higher or lesser degree in other animals depends upon the degree of cerebral evolution. Science, and specifically neuroscience, continues to make progress in understanding these processes. Nothing points to supernatural activity. We don't need to rely upon supernatural superstition to explain anything.Quote:
But the human experience is far more than the physical. And science fails to explain the most significant and meaningful parts of our existence - our mind, our consciousness and subjective experience. Without those, science doesn't even exist. So science is utterly incapable of explaining the very things which make science exist in the first place. That shows there is a higher order or layer to reality.
You can't be serious. Scientists throughout history were hampered by their ignorance and presuppositions of gods, or a god to account for what they could not understand. They were persecuted by the religious institutions of power for the scientific revelations they uncovered, until it was abundantly clear science was true and religious belief was false. Faced with the evidence of reality, religious institutions, in order to remain credible, had to modify how they interpreted their religious doctrine. Otherwise, they couldn't to maintain the faith, influence, and power religion held over their culture. When you get down to the basic purposes of control and sway over people, there is no real fundamental difference in the various religions, including Christianity. And yes, science is at odds with every religious doctrine. People don't crawl out of their graves, or caskets at funerals. Virgins don't give birth, with or without relations with a god. Burning bushes don't talk. People don't ascend into space, speak in tongues. The sun doesn't stand still, etc. The universe is more than 6,000 years old (something even the Catholic Church had to recognize). Consciousness is a biological and physical function of the brain. Scientific observation and testing confirm it. We don't have to understand every aspect and nuance of the consciousness to know this.Quote:
Science is not at odds with religion. That is as wrong as wrong can be. It's being demonstrated more and more as scientific knowledge increases that science points to God. Also, the greatest scientists and mathematicians in history presupposed a Christian God of order, and that shaped their approach to science. Science is the computer program. Religion (and not all religion, but specifically Christianity) is about the programmer. The program is not at odds with the programmer, it points to him.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Quantum fluctuations are not the cause, they are the result of a cause, a cause that is outside of nature (i.e. supernatural) as I've been repeating. Science is pointing in that direction, but yet, as always you are not willing to go where the evidence is taking you, because it's against the worldview that you want. Sounds a lot like religion.TexasScientist said:I've never said there is a multiverse. We don't know. I've said that science seems to be pointing in that direction. We know quantum fluctuations exist, that has been tested. What I have said is that it is plausible the universe can spontaneously arise. We don't know yet. But the fact that it is plausible makes the supernatural irrelevant. For example, we know atomic nuclear decay spontaneously produces/emits photons and radiation without causation. Religion is not science, it contributes nothing to our understanding, and is even an impediment to our understanding the physical universe. Science is at odds with all of the religious doctrines.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:And as stated, the math behind the quantum fluctuations must be constrained by boundaries to produce our universe. From where does this delineation originate, and what is it's nature?TexasScientist said:No, but I do agree that math is not a causal agent. Math is a language to describe what is observable, and abstract concepts yet to be tested. Quantum fluctations exist. It is plausible in quatum theory for space/time to be spontanesous along with the laws that govern our universe, which would impact the mathmatics we use to describe those laws. If there is a multiverse, each universe may have its own unique space/time with a whole different set of governing laws, and different descriptive mathematics.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:No. Quantum cosmology only theorizes that these quantum fluctuations could have given rise to our space/time universe if they followed a certain mathematical construction - but only if boundary constraints were placed on it by the physicist in order to get the result that they want.... which takes an intelligent mind with intent and purpose! Thanks for supporting Intelligent Design.TexasScientist said:Doc Holliday said:I don't believe in simulation theory whatsoever and I'm discussing cosmogony: quantum theory is a byproduct of cosmogony.TexasScientist said:Theorizing you live in a computer simulation does't alter the fact that general relativity and quantum theory reliably describe our universe.Doc Holliday said:Try DMT, find out this reality is less real than others and then we'll see what you think.quash said:D. C. Bear said:quash said:D. C. Bear said:quash said:D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:No, it's well documented on this site here: https://sicem365.com/forums/7TexasScientist said:Wishfull thinking on your part doesn't make it reality.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If religion is an intellectual cop out, then how is it that you've always been defeated intellectually by Christians?TexasScientist said:
Belief in a power outside of the physical universe only comes from the imaginations of humans. There is no other source. Science does ask questions, and strives to find the answers. Religion presumes, in the imaginations of humans, to know the answers before the questions are even asked. Religion is an intellectual cop out.
There, it is also well documented how your argument solely involves repeating the same phrase over and over, like your "Religion presumes to know the answers before the questions are even asked." You must have recycled this repetitive tripe at least a dozen times.Hmmm? Who repeats themselves? The more you pronounce something as true doesn't change the facts or the truth. You're offended because you've been trained and reinforced to believe in what is obviously obsurd. To confront those beliefs requires you to reconcile the time, and emotional commitment you have invested in those beliefs with reality. You would be required to accept that everything you were taught to believe about your existence is wrong, the social community you identify with is wrong, your understanding about who you are as a sentient being in this universe is all wrong. That's a hard pill to ask anyone to swallow. But, deep down I suspect you know it's true. That's why it is so offensive.Quote:
"you've alwyas been defeated"
Deep down, you know that the universe, and those of us in it, do not exist by chance, despite your wishing it was so. To face that reality, however, you would have to accept that your mind is not capable of really understanding the world in which we live or our place in it, and you take an incredible amount of pride in your own ability to understand the world. It provides you with feelings of superiority in a world of uncertainty and suffering, and you need those feeling to feel good about yourself.
Wrong on both counts. I find it totally humbling to exist by chance.
Wasn't addressing you.
I know. If you want a private discussion you know how to do it
Since I wasn't addressing you and you knew it, your claim I am wrong and your support for that argument from your own personal self knowledge isn't really relevant.
Relevant because TS are a lot alike on these issues.
The theory I'm interested in posits that Consciousness, not spacetime and its objects, is fundamental reality and can be usefully described as a network of conscious agents.
Donald Hoffman and his team are working on it:Our new paper, "Fusions of consciousness," is published today, and free. We propose a dynamics of conscious agents beyond spacetime, and a mapping of this dynamics into spacetime physics via our new application of decorated permutations to Markov chains.https://t.co/twE8O2DFzN
— Donald Hoffman (@donalddhoffman) January 9, 2023
They propose that spacetime and scattering processes are a data structure that codes for interactions of conscious agents: a particle in spacetime is a projection of the Markovian dynamics of a communicating class of conscious agents.
It's more like spacetime is a headset and tool for consciousness to have utility. Consciousness would be the substrate of reality not physicalism and this consciousness is metaphysical.
This all comes back to the false belief of there being no causality to spacetime. You can't have spacetime causing spacetime or you have a paradox. So what science is going to have to do is show how spacetime emerged without pointing to spacetime. Saying it's a random phenomenon without causality isn't going to cut it and is even more radical and requires more faith than belief in a god.
With regard to space/time, if space/time are quantum variables, then they can be quantum fluctuations, without causation.
Also, and perhaps more importantly, math is not a causal agent. Math doesn't bring anything into existence. It only a description of something that is already there. This is something even Alexander Vilenkin and Stephen Hawking conceded. Whatever this math was describing, by necessity it must exist outside the this universe, In other words, if quantum fluctuations produced this universe, then the math had to be there. But what's behind the math being there?
If you say that there's a multiverse, then where's your observable evidence for this, mister empiricist?
Atomic nuclear decay is caused by thermodynamic instability. It is not without causation.
Science contributes to our understanding of how the physical universe works. But the human experience is far more than the physical. And science fails to explain the most significant and meaningful parts of our existence - our mind, our consciousness and subjective experience. Without those, science doesn't even exist. So science is utterly incapable of explaining the very things which make science exist in the first place. That shows there is a higher order or layer to reality.
Science is not at odds with religion. That is as wrong as wrong can be. It's being demonstrated more and more as scientific knowledge increases that science points to God. Also, the greatest scientists and mathematicians in history presupposed a Christian God of order, and that shaped their approach to science. Science is the computer program. Religion (and not all religion, but specifically Christianity) is about the programmer. The program is not at odds with the programmer, it points to him.
Intentionally placing boundary constraints on the math behind the fluctuations for the goal-directed result of producing our universe is the definition of NOT random. You seem to want to ignore this and just keep repeating your mantras, like a religious zealot.Quote:
There is no cause. Quantum fluctuations are spontaneous and random. This is well established. You absolutely no empirical evidence of any supernatural forces outside of our universe that have any interaction within our universe - only unfounded wishful thinking.
You're not saying anything here. You're just telling me that it's biology. You're not explaining the "how" part with science. Science fails here. At best, you're only saying that biology is a necessary component of consciousness, but not that it's sufficient. Biology is just atoms and molecules. How do atoms and molecules produce subjective experience? Experiencing the color "red", for example, can not be explained in terms of biological systems.Quote:
Our cognitive abilities, and our consciousness are clearly biological functions. Your brain, and other biological functions govern those processes. Sedate, damage or destroy your brain and those functions disappear either completely or partially, depending upon the extent. Cognition to a higher or lesser degree in other animals depends upon the degree of cerebral evolution. Science, and specifically neuroscience, continues to make progress in understanding these processes. Nothing points to supernatural activity. We don't need to rely upon supernatural superstition to explain anything.
I didn't say that throughout history, science and people's understanding of Christianity didn't conflict. I am saying that science is not at odds with Christianity. If you disagree, then by all means, give us science that conflicts with or debunks Christianity. You've been challenged with this before multiple times, and you failed each time. So let's make it another, just so you'll go away for a while - then come back, recycling your same old failed arguments, hoping no one remembers your previous failure. Wash, rinse, repeat.Quote:
You can't be serious. Scientists throughout history were hampered by their ignorance and presuppositions of gods, or a god to account for what they could not understand. They were persecuted by the religious institutions of power for the scientific revelations they uncovered, until it was abundantly clear science was true and religious belief was false. Faced with the evidence of reality, religious institutions, in order to remain credible, had to modify how they interpreted their religious doctrine. Otherwise, they couldn't to maintain the faith, influence, and power religion held over their culture. When you get down to the basic purposes of control and sway over people, there is no real fundamental difference in the various religions, including Christianity. And yes, science is at odds with every religious doctrine. People don't crawl out of their graves, or caskets at funerals. Virgins don't give birth, with or without relations with a god. Burning bushes don't talk. People don't ascend into space, speak in tongues. The sun doesn't stand still, etc. The universe is more than 6,000 years old (something even the Catholic Church had to recognize). Consciousness is a biological and physical function of the brain. Scientific observation and testing confirm it. We don't have to understand every aspect and nuance of the consciousness to know this.
Yes, you do, if you're gonna assert that it's entirely biological and nothing more.Quote:
Consciousness is a biological and physical function of the brain. Scientific observation and testing confirm it. We don't have to understand every aspect and nuance of the consciousness to know this.
No.Quote:
There is no cause. Quantum fluctuations are spontaneous and random. This is well established. You absolutely no empirical evidence of any supernatural forces outside of our universe that have any interaction within our universe - only unfounded wishful thinking.
Doc Holliday said:No.Quote:
There is no cause. Quantum fluctuations are spontaneous and random. This is well established. You absolutely no empirical evidence of any supernatural forces outside of our universe that have any interaction within our universe - only unfounded wishful thinking.
Quantum particles/behavior are still spacetime.
There's absolutely ZERO evidence the brain produces consciousness. There is no mathematical theory explaining the pattern of neural activity that creates consciousness. Science hasn't shown that the taste of chocolate is produced by xyz.
Also posit this: if you think your brain produces consciousness then your brain is hallucinating reality. How do you know what it's presenting to you is fundamental reality? How do you know it's showing you everything?
Your hypothesis is the one that is goal directed, to desperately justify religious belief. The spontaneous universe that has been suggested as plausible fits the evidence, of what we know about our universe. What would such a universe look like? A universe just like the one we find ourselves living in. Your models are simply that, without any evidence. They may be interesting mathematical exercises, but without evidence are meaningless.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Intentionally placing boundary constraints on the math behind the fluctuations for the goal-directed result of producing our universe is the definition of NOT random. You seem to want to ignore this and just keep repeating your mantras, like a religious zealot.Quote:
There is no cause. Quantum fluctuations are spontaneous and random. This is well established. You absolutely no empirical evidence of any supernatural forces outside of our universe that have any interaction within our universe - only unfounded wishful thinking.
Having no empirical evidence is not an obstacle to truth. If you saw a deck of cards stacked in the shape of a house, you do not need empirical evidence to know that it didn't just land that way - someone made that. Or if you see a computer program running, you don't need empirical evidence to know that there's a programmer who programmed it. They are just self-evident truths.
Ironically, your idea of quantum fluctuations that just so happened to produce a universe with a set of more than 26 universal constants that each had to be exquisitely and finely tuned in order for life in our universe to even exist, is so exceedingly improbable by chance, that atheists have to resort to the idea of the multiverse - for which there is absolutely no empirical evidence. Oops.
You don't have to know the how part to scientifically understand that it is a biological function. Observation tells you this. In time, we'll know the how part. There was a time when we knew a heartbeat was biological, but didn't understand the how part. How do you think you experience pain? How does any sentient being experience pain? It is a chemical and neurological process of the brain. You can alter that experience by impairing the brain. You can do the same with experiencing colors. We're learning more and more all the time about those reactions. Nothing we have learned about neurological processes found a god caused it. You haven't said anything other than argue god of the gaps.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You're not saying anything here. You're just telling me that it's biology. You're not explaining the "how" part with science. Science fails here. At best, you're only saying that biology is a necessary component of consciousness, but not that it's sufficient. Biology is just atoms and molecules. How do atoms and molecules produce subjective experience? Experiencing the color "red", for example, can not be explained in terms of biological systems.Quote:
Our cognitive abilities, and our consciousness are clearly biological functions. Your brain, and other biological functions govern those processes. Sedate, damage or destroy your brain and those functions disappear either completely or partially, depending upon the extent. Cognition to a higher or lesser degree in other animals depends upon the degree of cerebral evolution. Science, and specifically neuroscience, continues to make progress in understanding these processes. Nothing points to supernatural activity. We don't need to rely upon supernatural superstition to explain anything.
Science tells us that the dead don't come back to life. Science tells us that the communion wafer doesn't transform into flesh, nor does communion wine to blood. Science tells us the sun doesn't stand still. Science tells us space is not filled with water. Science tells us that cognition is a neurological process that develops, beginning with conception and ending with death. Science tells us when the brain dies, all cognition ends. Science tells us hallucinations and dreams are biochemical processes. I have to repeat what science tells us, because I can't change the truth to fit religious attempts to alter reality. Where would we be if Galileo had scrapped his views, quit repeating, and embraced Church censorship? Religion stands in opposition to understanding and embracing reality, until it has no choice but to modify its religious views in the face of science. It has no choice but to reinterpret its beliefs to fill the remaining and evershrinking gap.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I didn't say that throughout history, science and people's understanding of Christianity didn't conflict. I am saying that science is not at odds with Christianity. If you disagree, then by all means, give us science that conflicts with or debunks Christianity. You've been challenged with this before multiple times, and you failed each time. So let's make it another, just so you'll go away for a while - then come back, recycling your same old failed arguments, hoping no one remembers your previous failure. Wash, rinse, repeat.Quote:
You can't be serious. Scientists throughout history were hampered by their ignorance and presuppositions of gods, or a god to account for what they could not understand. They were persecuted by the religious institutions of power for the scientific revelations they uncovered, until it was abundantly clear science was true and religious belief was false. Faced with the evidence of reality, religious institutions, in order to remain credible, had to modify how they interpreted their religious doctrine. Otherwise, they couldn't to maintain the faith, influence, and power religion held over their culture. When you get down to the basic purposes of control and sway over people, there is no real fundamental difference in the various religions, including Christianity. And yes, science is at odds with every religious doctrine. People don't crawl out of their graves, or caskets at funerals. Virgins don't give birth, with or without relations with a god. Burning bushes don't talk. People don't ascend into space, speak in tongues. The sun doesn't stand still, etc. The universe is more than 6,000 years old (something even the Catholic Church had to recognize). Consciousness is a biological and physical function of the brain. Scientific observation and testing confirm it. We don't have to understand every aspect and nuance of the consciousness to know this.
Which is what the evidence of reality tells us, as opposed to some non-evident and unexplained supernatural power is doing it. Where is the evidence for your supernatural influence on cognition. Why is it so different for other sentient beings. Do dogs and cats have this same unseen, non-evident supernatural being cognitively functioning for them, or do they have a different god?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Yes, you do, if you're gonna assert that it's entirely biological and nothing more.Quote:
Consciousness is a biological and physical function of the brain. Scientific observation and testing confirm it. We don't have to understand every aspect and nuance of the consciousness to know this.
We know for a fact that quantum fluctuations exist. You don't have to understand every aspect to know this.Doc Holliday said:No.Quote:
There is no cause. Quantum fluctuations are spontaneous and random. This is well established. You absolutely no empirical evidence of any supernatural forces outside of our universe that have any interaction within our universe - only unfounded wishful thinking.
Quantum particles/behavior are still spacetime.
There's absolutely ZERO evidence the brain produces consciousness. There is no mathematical theory explaining the pattern of neural activity that creates consciousness. Science hasn't shown that the taste of chocolate is produced by xyz.
Also posit this: if you think your brain produces consciousness then your brain is hallucinating reality. How do you know what it's presenting to you is fundamental reality? How do you know it's showing you everything?
That's why we test hypotheses, and draw conclusions about reality, based upon results that are repeatable. We accept what is true as revealed from the evidence of reality, even if it is contrary to what our brains have previously been taught to believe about reality. If a scientific belief is invalidated or partially invalidated, we throw it out, and seek the correct answer. Science tries to prove its hypotheses wrong. That's how we learn about reality. Religion presumes to know the answers, before the questions are even asked.D. C. Bear said:Doc Holliday said:No.Quote:
There is no cause. Quantum fluctuations are spontaneous and random. This is well established. You absolutely no empirical evidence of any supernatural forces outside of our universe that have any interaction within our universe - only unfounded wishful thinking.
Quantum particles/behavior are still spacetime.
There's absolutely ZERO evidence the brain produces consciousness. There is no mathematical theory explaining the pattern of neural activity that creates consciousness. Science hasn't shown that the taste of chocolate is produced by xyz.
Also posit this: if you think your brain produces consciousness then your brain is hallucinating reality. How do you know what it's presenting to you is fundamental reality? How do you know it's showing you everything?
You don't. In fact, given that brain differences can create entirely different perceptions, we might conclude with a pretty high degree of confidence that it doesn't. There may be realities that are beyond the capacity of humans to comprehend.
Quantum fluctuations do not create spacetime, they are spacetime. You can't point to spacetime/physicalism as causality to further spacetime/physicalism or you have a situation of infinite regress and a paradox of turtles all the way down.TexasScientist said:We know for a fact that quantum fluctuations exist. You don't have to understand every aspect to know this.Doc Holliday said:No.Quote:
There is no cause. Quantum fluctuations are spontaneous and random. This is well established. You absolutely no empirical evidence of any supernatural forces outside of our universe that have any interaction within our universe - only unfounded wishful thinking.
Quantum particles/behavior are still spacetime.
There's absolutely ZERO evidence the brain produces consciousness. There is no mathematical theory explaining the pattern of neural activity that creates consciousness. Science hasn't shown that the taste of chocolate is produced by xyz.
Also posit this: if you think your brain produces consciousness then your brain is hallucinating reality. How do you know what it's presenting to you is fundamental reality? How do you know it's showing you everything?
The fact that when your brain dies, ceases to function completely, or partially consciousness is impaired or ceases. You don't need a mathematical theory to completely explain all aspects to know this. Observation tells us this fact.
What you posit proves what I'm saying. Hallucinations can be chemically induced through action on various parts of the brain. Observation, and what we do understand through neuroscience tells us the brain processes and interprets and stores neurological information received. We test what it presents to us to see if it conforms with what we know to be true of reality. Impairment of the brain function can produce hallucinations, and alteration of personal behavior from what is normal. Do you really think the crackhead shouting gibberish on the street corner is really acting under the influence of god or some supernatural being? Or, do you think they just might have biochemically damaged their brain to the point that it is impaired from normal function. One should give some consideration to the thought that extreme religious indoctrinations, reinforced through time and culture similarly can damage or impair rational neurological processes.
If spacetime are quantum variables, then spacetime can spontaneously arise with the particles, laws, and energy that make up the universe.Doc Holliday said:Quantum fluctuations do not create spacetime, they are spacetime. You can't point to spacetime/physicalism as causality to further spacetime/physicalism or you have a situation of infinite regress and a paradox of turtles all the way down.TexasScientist said:We know for a fact that quantum fluctuations exist. You don't have to understand every aspect to know this.Doc Holliday said:No.Quote:
There is no cause. Quantum fluctuations are spontaneous and random. This is well established. You absolutely no empirical evidence of any supernatural forces outside of our universe that have any interaction within our universe - only unfounded wishful thinking.
Quantum particles/behavior are still spacetime.
There's absolutely ZERO evidence the brain produces consciousness. There is no mathematical theory explaining the pattern of neural activity that creates consciousness. Science hasn't shown that the taste of chocolate is produced by xyz.
Also posit this: if you think your brain produces consciousness then your brain is hallucinating reality. How do you know what it's presenting to you is fundamental reality? How do you know it's showing you everything?
The fact that when your brain dies, ceases to function completely, or partially consciousness is impaired or ceases. You don't need a mathematical theory to completely explain all aspects to know this. Observation tells us this fact.
What you posit proves what I'm saying. Hallucinations can be chemically induced through action on various parts of the brain. Observation, and what we do understand through neuroscience tells us the brain processes and interprets and stores neurological information received. We test what it presents to us to see if it conforms with what we know to be true of reality. Impairment of the brain function can produce hallucinations, and alteration of personal behavior from what is normal. Do you really think the crackhead shouting gibberish on the street corner is really acting under the influence of god or some supernatural being? Or, do you think they just might have biochemically damaged their brain to the point that it is impaired from normal function. One should give some consideration to the thought that extreme religious indoctrinations, reinforced through time and culture similarly can damage or impair rational neurological processes.
Just because our brains alter consciousness does not mean the brain is where it's derived from. You have no mathematical theory explaining the pattern of neural activity that creates consciousness.
What caused your creator?Oldbear83 said:
It's amusing to see TS build up his case by emphasizing Causality through Experimentation, then blithely throw Causality under the bus by claiming "spontaneous" self-creation is a reasonable presumption.
Particles and energy are spacetime. Quarks have electric charge, mass, color charge, and spin.TexasScientist said:If spacetime are quantum variables, then spacetime can spontaneously arise with the particles and energy that make up the universe.Doc Holliday said:Quantum fluctuations do not create spacetime, they are spacetime. You can't point to spacetime/physicalism as causality to further spacetime/physicalism or you have a situation of infinite regress and a paradox of turtles all the way down.TexasScientist said:We know for a fact that quantum fluctuations exist. You don't have to understand every aspect to know this.Doc Holliday said:No.Quote:
There is no cause. Quantum fluctuations are spontaneous and random. This is well established. You absolutely no empirical evidence of any supernatural forces outside of our universe that have any interaction within our universe - only unfounded wishful thinking.
Quantum particles/behavior are still spacetime.
There's absolutely ZERO evidence the brain produces consciousness. There is no mathematical theory explaining the pattern of neural activity that creates consciousness. Science hasn't shown that the taste of chocolate is produced by xyz.
Also posit this: if you think your brain produces consciousness then your brain is hallucinating reality. How do you know what it's presenting to you is fundamental reality? How do you know it's showing you everything?
The fact that when your brain dies, ceases to function completely, or partially consciousness is impaired or ceases. You don't need a mathematical theory to completely explain all aspects to know this. Observation tells us this fact.
What you posit proves what I'm saying. Hallucinations can be chemically induced through action on various parts of the brain. Observation, and what we do understand through neuroscience tells us the brain processes and interprets and stores neurological information received. We test what it presents to us to see if it conforms with what we know to be true of reality. Impairment of the brain function can produce hallucinations, and alteration of personal behavior from what is normal. Do you really think the crackhead shouting gibberish on the street corner is really acting under the influence of god or some supernatural being? Or, do you think they just might have biochemically damaged their brain to the point that it is impaired from normal function. One should give some consideration to the thought that extreme religious indoctrinations, reinforced through time and culture similarly can damage or impair rational neurological processes.
Just because our brains alter consciousness does not mean the brain is where it's derived from. You have no mathematical theory explaining the pattern of neural activity that creates consciousness.
I don't need a mathematical theory to understand what observation confirms. Analogously, we don't have a mathematical theory that explains what gravity is, but we understand from observation and mathematics what it does. Saying god does it is intellectually deficient.
I see the concept of God eludes you yet.TexasScientist said:What caused your creator?Oldbear83 said:
It's amusing to see TS build up his case by emphasizing Causality through Experimentation, then blithely throw Causality under the bus by claiming "spontaneous" self-creation is a reasonable presumption.
TS - "In time, we'll know the how part (via science)"TexasScientist said:You don't have to know the how part to scientifically understand that it is a biological function. Observation tells you this. In time, we'll know the how part. There was a time when we knew a heartbeat was biological, but didn't understand the how part. How do you think you experience pain? How does any sentient being experience pain? It is a chemical and neurological process of the brain. You can alter that experience by impairing the brain. You can do the same with experiencing colors. We're learning more and more all the time about those reactions. Nothing we have learned about neurological processes found a god caused it. You haven't said anything other than argue god of the gaps.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You're not saying anything here. You're just telling me that it's biology. You're not explaining the "how" part with science. Science fails here. At best, you're only saying that biology is a necessary component of consciousness, but not that it's sufficient. Biology is just atoms and molecules. How do atoms and molecules produce subjective experience? Experiencing the color "red", for example, can not be explained in terms of biological systems.Quote:
Our cognitive abilities, and our consciousness are clearly biological functions. Your brain, and other biological functions govern those processes. Sedate, damage or destroy your brain and those functions disappear either completely or partially, depending upon the extent. Cognition to a higher or lesser degree in other animals depends upon the degree of cerebral evolution. Science, and specifically neuroscience, continues to make progress in understanding these processes. Nothing points to supernatural activity. We don't need to rely upon supernatural superstition to explain anything.
You can't even tell us the biology behind consciousness - but you say the evidence of reality tells us it's all biology?TexasScientist said:Which is what the evidence of reality tells us, as opposed to some non-evident and unexplained supernatural power is doing it. Where is the evidence for your supernatural influence on cognition. Why is it so different for other sentient beings. Do dogs and cats have this same unseen, non-evident supernatural being cognitively functioning for them, or do they have a different god?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Yes, you do, if you're gonna assert that it's entirely biological and nothing more.Quote:
Consciousness is a biological and physical function of the brain. Scientific observation and testing confirm it. We don't have to understand every aspect and nuance of the consciousness to know this.
You DO need to fully explain it biologically, in order to claim that it is entirely biological.TexasScientist said:You don't have to know the how part to scientifically understand that it is a biological function.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You're not saying anything here. You're just telling me that it's biology. You're not explaining the "how" part with science. Science fails here. At best, you're only saying that biology is a necessary component of consciousness, but not that it's sufficient. Biology is just atoms and molecules. How do atoms and molecules produce subjective experience? Experiencing the color "red", for example, can not be explained in terms of biological systems.Quote:
Our cognitive abilities, and our consciousness are clearly biological functions. Your brain, and other biological functions govern those processes. Sedate, damage or destroy your brain and those functions disappear either completely or partially, depending upon the extent. Cognition to a higher or lesser degree in other animals depends upon the degree of cerebral evolution. Science, and specifically neuroscience, continues to make progress in understanding these processes. Nothing points to supernatural activity. We don't need to rely upon supernatural superstition to explain anything.
And for the umpteenth time, the math behind the quantum fluctuations must be constrained within limits. This constraint by necessity must exist OUTSIDE spacetime. Spacetime can not constrain the conditions of it's own origin, before it even existed. That's a circular logic failure.TexasScientist said:If spacetime are quantum variables, then spacetime can spontaneously arise with the particles, laws, and energy that make up the universe.Doc Holliday said:Quantum fluctuations do not create spacetime, they are spacetime. You can't point to spacetime/physicalism as causality to further spacetime/physicalism or you have a situation of infinite regress and a paradox of turtles all the way down.TexasScientist said:We know for a fact that quantum fluctuations exist. You don't have to understand every aspect to know this.Doc Holliday said:No.Quote:
There is no cause. Quantum fluctuations are spontaneous and random. This is well established. You absolutely no empirical evidence of any supernatural forces outside of our universe that have any interaction within our universe - only unfounded wishful thinking.
Quantum particles/behavior are still spacetime.
There's absolutely ZERO evidence the brain produces consciousness. There is no mathematical theory explaining the pattern of neural activity that creates consciousness. Science hasn't shown that the taste of chocolate is produced by xyz.
Also posit this: if you think your brain produces consciousness then your brain is hallucinating reality. How do you know what it's presenting to you is fundamental reality? How do you know it's showing you everything?
The fact that when your brain dies, ceases to function completely, or partially consciousness is impaired or ceases. You don't need a mathematical theory to completely explain all aspects to know this. Observation tells us this fact.
What you posit proves what I'm saying. Hallucinations can be chemically induced through action on various parts of the brain. Observation, and what we do understand through neuroscience tells us the brain processes and interprets and stores neurological information received. We test what it presents to us to see if it conforms with what we know to be true of reality. Impairment of the brain function can produce hallucinations, and alteration of personal behavior from what is normal. Do you really think the crackhead shouting gibberish on the street corner is really acting under the influence of god or some supernatural being? Or, do you think they just might have biochemically damaged their brain to the point that it is impaired from normal function. One should give some consideration to the thought that extreme religious indoctrinations, reinforced through time and culture similarly can damage or impair rational neurological processes.
Just because our brains alter consciousness does not mean the brain is where it's derived from. You have no mathematical theory explaining the pattern of neural activity that creates consciousness.
I don't need a mathematical theory to understand what observation confirms. Analogously, we don't have a mathematical theory that explains what gravity is, but we understand from observation and mathematics what it does. Saying god does it is intellectually deficient.
