There's probably no God...

[Walter Joyce]

"Now Einstein showed long ago that two objects can never affect each other instantly in space and time because everything must travel with a maximum speed limit, and that speed limit is the speed of light. So any influence must travel, if it travels through space, taking a finite time. This is called the idea of "locality." Every signal is supposed to be local in the sense that it must take a finite time to travel through space. And yet, Aspect's photons—the photons emitted by the atom in Aspect's experiment—influence one another, at a distance, without exchanging signals because they are doing it instantaneously—they are doing it faster than the speed of light. And therefore it follows that the influence could not have traveled through space. Instead the influence must belong to a domain of reality that we must recognize as the transcendent domain of reality."

what about the notion of connectivity rather than transference? That all matter is somehow connected so that it is not a question of communicating from one photon to the other but that this connection not controlled by the speed of light because somehow, in a manner that we have not yet comprehended, what one photon realized is realized by the other through this connectivity that yes, transcends physics as we know it?

Maybe I'm just paraphrasing, but the notion of the big bang, that all creation came from a singularity that exploded and expanded and, for now at least, is still expanding? The implication that if everything came from that singularity everything MUST be still connected somehow, and coupled with the notion that matter is now neither created or destroyed, but only transformed? That we can in fact say, within reason not poetry, that we are made of stardust?

When I heard these thoughts recently it really resonated with me, they were for me, truthful.

[Ron Panunto]

Jesus Christ Doc - talk about pseudoscience. This concept is known as "quantum pairing" and concerns the collapsing of the probability waves of some elementary particles when observed. Einstein's speed limit has not been violated - INFORMATION cannot be transmitted faster than the speed of light. Information cannot be encoded or inferred from this phenomenon.

[Walter Joyce]

What of Bodhisattvas?

Are they angelic, or demonic?

Is Buddhism a belief system based on reason, or a religion? Or both depending on the practitioner?

Damn there are some true scholars on this board.

Great thread.

[Doc Stier]

Jesus Christ Doc - talk about pseudoscience. This concept is known as "quantum pairing" and concerns the collapsing of the probability waves of some elementary particles when observed. Einstein's speed limit has not been violated - INFORMATION cannot be transmitted faster than the speed of light. Information cannot be encoded or inferred from this phenomenon.

Ron:

Thank you for linking me to the name of Jesus Christ, even though your use of the name in vain is inappropriate to say the least, IMO, especially coming from an atheist.

I am beginning to suspect that your views on this topic are only quasi-scientific at best, in that you seem unwilling to entertain any views or opinions other than your own. That's not very good science, Bubba, especially in light of the fact that not all top scientists are even in agreement on these questions.

In that regard, here's another article that I'm sure you'll love as well:

http://godsciencemanifesto.com/pages/sc ... f_god.html



Doc

[Doc Stier]

What of Bodhisattvas?

Is Buddhism a belief system based on reason, or a religion? Or both depending on the practitioner?

Well, the answers to these questions are rather complex from a Buddhist perspective, IMO. Since Buddhist views about individuated existence are that every individual thing is illusory, then spiritual beings are illusory, too. Of course, this includes bodhisattvas, angels, and demons, et al.

The really interesting question is to return to the most basic question: What is real?

If every individuated being is only provisionally real, or a metaphor, so to speak, merely a trick of the mind that we use to get through the day, we must ask whether the most profound philosophical puzzle about our identity is perhaps whether there is any reality to our belief that there is an individuated self at all which continues to exist from minute to minute to minute throughout this one life?



Doc

[Darth Rock&Roll]

Jesus Christ Doc - talk about pseudoscience. This concept is known as "quantum pairing" and concerns the collapsing of the probability waves of some elementary particles when observed. Einstein's speed limit has not been violated - INFORMATION cannot be transmitted faster than the speed of light. Information cannot be encoded or inferred from this phenomenon.

Actually, this is unknown.

The speed of light is a constant, but it is not all that is known and there is admission currently in working theories that states that there are particles that travel faster than the constant in E=MC2
They are called tachyons and the theory of special relativity doesn't rule them out at all.

[Ron Panunto]

Jesus Christ Doc - talk about pseudoscience. This concept is known as "quantum pairing" and concerns the collapsing of the probability waves of some elementary particles when observed. Einstein's speed limit has not been violated - INFORMATION cannot be transmitted faster than the speed of light. Information cannot be encoded or inferred from this phenomenon.

Actually, this is unknown.

The speed of light is a constant, but it is not all that is known and there is admission currently in working theories that states that there are particles that travel faster than the constant in E=MC2
They are called tachyons and the theory of special relativity doesn't rule them out at all.

Gerald Feinberg, who named these hypothetical particles, said that "contrary to what has been written in many works of science fiction, they (tachyons) would still preserve the basic tenets of causality in special relativity and not allow transmission of information faster than the speed of light."

In Peskin & Schroeder's book "An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory" they state: "Today, in the framework of quantum field theory, tachyons are best understood as signifying an instability of the system and treated using tachyon condensation, rather than as real faster than light particles. According to the contemporary and widely accepted understanding of the concept of a particle, tachyon particles are too unstable to be treated as existing. By that theory, faster than light transmission and causality violation with tachyons are impossible on both grounds: they are non-existent in the first place, and even if they existed they wouldn't be able to transmit information."

But of course, Doc will say that the work of eminent physicists like Feinberg is pseudo science because religious thinkers can disband the laws of physics at will.

[GrahamB]

Great thread.

Thanks. All I did was push a rock, and it started an avalanche!!!!!!!

[qiphlow]

graham has the powah!!!

[Steve James]

This discussion is going way over my head but, imo, scientists don't think that matter and energy are two separate things. This is one reason why physicists use the term "information." It's true that all "matter" can be converted to "energy", according to Einstein's famous formula.

Afa the speed of light being a speed limit, that's a theory. However, the speed of light is only a constant in a vacuum, and even then, it s relative to the observer. We could not "observe" anything that moves faster than the speed of light. We can only predict them. That's why we can't prove string theory, or m-theory, yet. I'm not sure how the speed of light is related to this particular discussion of the probability of a creator or creative intelligence. In Genesis, light is created (well, allowed to come into being) after the creation of heaven and earth. So, to someone who accepts the account, God would be faster than light anyway.

[zenshiite]

What of Bodhisattvas?

Is Buddhism a belief system based on reason, or a religion? Or both depending on the practitioner?

Well, the answers to these questions are rather complex from a Buddhist perspective, IMO. Since Buddhist views about individuated existence are that every individual thing is illusory, then spiritual beings are illusory, too. Of course, this includes bodhisattvas, angels, and demons, et al.

The really interesting question is to return to the most basic question: What is real?

If every individuated being is only provisionally real, or a metaphor, so to speak, merely a trick of the mind that we use to get through the day, we must ask whether the most profound philosophical puzzle about our identity is perhaps whether there is any reality to our belief that there is an individuated self at all which continues to exist from minute to minute to minute throughout this one life?



Doc

And the Real is the perpetual goal of the mystic/gnostic is it not?

Sufis have gone into the realm of saying everything is essentially illusory as well, though they would put it more like everything is a mixture of "He/not He"(huwa la huwa), meaning that the creation is an admixture of Being(God) and non-being. You and I have only so much reality as was made manifest in us by the Real and all else is illusion. Thus, neither you nor I have any reality of our "own." We, and all the phenomena we observe, are only real insofar as God continually maintains us by His own Reality.

Which is why one might come to a point where you can only go so far with science, not that I'm saying that limit has been reached, but you can only go so far with observing the signs before you have to observe what the signs are pointing to. Otherwise you're just mistaking the finger pointing at the moon for the moon. What interests me is that the further science delves into the phenomenal world the closer the come to realizing the inherent oneness of it all... and ultimately I think that leads back to the basic idea of all spiritual/mystical paths. That there is only One.

[Ron Panunto]

Afa the speed of light being a speed limit, that's a theory. However, the speed of light is only a constant in a vacuum, and even then, it s relative to the observer. We could not "observe" anything that moves faster than the speed of light. We can only predict them. That's why we can't prove string theory, or m-theory, yet. I'm not sure how the speed of light is related to this particular discussion of the probability of a creator or creative intelligence. In Genesis, light is created (well, allowed to come into being) after the creation of heaven and earth. So, to someone who accepts the account, God would be faster than light anyway.

The speed of light as the limiting speed of both particles and radiation is no longer a "theory." It is a fact and all modern science is based on it. The problem is in the word "theory." The limiting speed of light comes from Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. It has been proven over and over again, but the connotation of "theory" meaning something postulated but not definitely proven beyond a doubt never gets dropped. That the earth revolves around the sun is the Copernican "theory," but it is no longer doubted - it is a fact, but it is still called a "theory." The same goes with Darwin's "theory" of of evolution or geology's "theory" of Plate Tectonics. They are now accepted scientific facts.

We can't "prove" string theory or it's counterpart M-theory because it's just a mathematical construct that requires 11 spatial dimensions and it so far has not lead to anything that can be tested in real life physics to separate it from mental masturbation. Many such mathematical constructs have been developed over the years in an attempt to unify the four forces of nature (the nuclear weak, the nuclear strong, electromagnetism, and gravity). There are several theories that unite the first three, Gauge theory being the best to date, but gravity has always been the bastard to unite with the other three. When we postulate a space with 11 dimensions, then wallah - it works. But many scientists are skeptical because when they allow 11 dimensions they can come up with dozens of theories similar to M theory, but none of the theories supply predictions that can be tested for and verified in the lab.

Also, the speed of light is not relative to the observer. The speed of light is constant and is not dependent on the speed of the object from which it is projected. That was the great breakthrough of the Special Theory of Relativity - that it is a constant (in a vacuum) and INDEPENDENT of an observer. Other things like length, mass and time are in fact relevant to an observer, but not the speed of light.

I don't know whether god is faster than light, but Superman was definitely faster than a speeding bullet!

[Inner_man]

I find this thread so amusing from the tooing and froing of the over intellectualisation and counter-intellectualisation of peoples individual beliefs (or non-beliefs). Im going to get slammed for this line simply cos Ive contradicted myself by detailing my beleifs of course however I have found this thread very entertaining, so thanks everyone - I was bored till I started following this (sunday morning and all that)

The whole point for me is very simple - I dont give a damn whether there is a god (the all knowing external conscious entity) or not, I dont give a damn about what others beliefs are and they of no consequence to me at all as long as they dont cross swords with me or mean me or my family harm.

My belief in god is totally and ABSOLUTELY personal and I use it as a frame work to base my moral and ethical perspective on how I live my life. I have no need in my life that other people agree with my beliefs as i would be very dissappointed with the other 6 billion who want to fight me because of it.

I was lucky my parents took me to church as a kid and as I was growing up they made it clear that the spiritual path I choose is totally my choice and no one elses. I pass this on to my kids only to give them a frame for them to make their own choices about what they believe and i certainly dont expect them to follow me lock stock and two smoking barrels.

FWIW I do beleive in god but only as an internal perspective for me - god exists in me cos I choose it too........ I dont need proof because its my choice.

[Steve James]

The speed of light as the limiting speed of both particles and radiation is no longer a "theory." It is a fact and all modern science is based on it.....The same goes with Darwin's "theory" of of evolution or geology's "theory" of Plate Tectonics. They are now accepted scientific facts.

We can't "prove" string theory or it's counterpart M-theory because it's just a mathematical construct that requires 11 spatial dimensions and it so far has not lead to anything that can be tested in real life physics to separate it from mental masturbation.

You are stretching what I wrote in some ways and narrowing it in others. I didn't deny the absolute speed of light or Einstein's theory. Nor was I questioning plate tectonics or evolution. As you say, string "theory" cannot be tested, but not because of its mathematics. The problem is devising a way to observe the universe at that level. Yes, string and M-theory are attempts at a unified field theory (or how all four fundamental forces work on the sub-atomic and macro-cosmic levels). We can use spectroscopy to determine the composition of distant celestial bodies. But, there's no conceivable "instrument" (i.e., piece of kit) that could be used. If you know of one, that's probably worth a Nobel Prize.

In any case, I think you misuse the word "fact." You really mean, imho, "demonstrably true" or repeatable. Even then, there's no real definition for what a fact is. For ex., the sun is a star: that's a fact: but, I'm in love: that's also a fact. Just calling something a fact doesn't make it unassailable, any more than calling something a theory makes it suspect.

[Walter Joyce]

I have to post my favorite thought from the movie Waking Life. Here is the heart of it:

" Now, Philip K. Dick is right about time, but he's wrong that it's A.D.
"Actually, there's only one instant, and it's right now.
"And it's eternity.
"And it's an instant in which God is posing a question.
"And that question is, basically, 'Do you want to, you know,
"'be one with eternity?
" Do you want to be in heaven?'
"And we're all saying, 'No, thank you. Not just yet.'"
And so time is actually just this constant saying no...
to God's invitation.
That's what time is. It's no more A.D. than it's you know?
There's just this one instant, and that's what we're always in.
And then she tells me that actually this is the narrative of everyone's life.
That behind the phenomenal difference, there is but one story,
and that's the story of moving from the "no" to the "yes."
All of life is, " No, thank you. No, thank you."
Then ultimately it's, "Yes, I give in.
Yes, I accept. Yes, I embrace."
I mean, that's the journey.
- Everyone gets to the "yes" in the end, right? - Right."

Pardon the profanity, but I fucking love that idea.

For those who want more: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0243017/quotes