Science vs. Atheism

[Divine Insight]

[youtube][/youtube]

I agree with this view in general. I personally don't see science as supporting atheism actually.

Now it's true that I am extremely atheistic toward the Abrahamic religions. But not for scientific reasons. I reject those religions based on their own self-contradictions and absurdities. When it comes to spirituality in general I'm definitely open-minded and agnostic. I even intuitively lean toward the spiritual. Albeit confessing that I can't know it to be true.

I just thought I'd post this here to see how others view this topic.

So please share your views.

[Divine Insight]

I just explained that math was used to predict the Higgs. (You could argue that math is logic). And it seems it was right.

You're wrong John. PURE mathematics did no such thing.

What happened here was that APPLIED mathematics was applied to a particular THEORY in physics and manipulated based on the premises that Peter Higgs himself had created using already known experimental truths of physical reality.

The fact of the matter is that you could have created a totally different theory using PURE mathematics and applied that to your theory and you would have mathematical prediction that would be wrong.

Apparently you don't even truly understand the relationship between math and physics. You could have NEVER predicted the Higgs particle using PURE mathematics alone.

Similar, the Relativity followed the same path.

That's exactly right John. It was EXACTLY the same path. In fact, Einstein and other mathematicians actually had to invent new mathematics, or search around for previously obscure mathematics in order to describe the ideas Einstein had in his head.

So Relativity (in particular General Relativity) was NOT predicted by mathematics, but rather mathematics as arranged, manipulated, and massaged, to describe Albert Einsteins intuitive ideas.

Actually, may scientific facts, laws, theories do. Remember a hypothesis is the "evidence based guess" to the answer. You have to "guess" the answer first before you can teats it.

And then after you do that you often need to INVENT new mathematics to describe it. In fact String Theorists are inventing new mathematics all the time. Just ask anyone in the field. They often say that even if String Theory proves to be physically false it will have still generated a lot of interesting mathematics.

So mathematics isn't predicting anything. Physicists are making predictions and then trying hard to describe their predictions in terms of quantitative relationships which is what we call 'mathematics'.

In fact, the true nature of reality may not even be restricted to just quantitative properties. If that's true, then mathematics may ultimately fail as a description of reality in general.

So, yes, historical evidence does show that math/logic can (not always) have preceded and resulted in laws of physics. Why do you omit the logic?

Yes, it can. But in the specific cases where you claim it did, it didn't.

Math was simply applied to the theories of physics that physicists had in their heads. So it was the premises of those theories that drove the result, not pure mathematics.

Zero = one? Maybe one was a zero all along, if so, I can show Zero = one.

Show me that zero = one please.

As for QM, you brought that up. So, I am refusing to take the straw man bait.

So when a pillar of modern science is mentioned you run away with your tail between your legs?

So much for your confidence in science.

Suggest you read more on Hawking and Krauss. There are other theoretical physicists that have valid logic for everything from nothing too.

There is NO physicists who has valid logic for everything from nothing. If any physicist truly had valid logic for such a thing they would be world famous far above Einstein and Newton.

All such "theories" actually begin with assuming things like the rules of QM for example. But starting with rules of QM requires that those laws must be in place prior to getting started. That's hardly 'nothing'.

Neither Hawking nor Krauss has been able to demonstrate where anything can come from nothing. Krauss assumes the preexistence of the laws of QM and some other physical laws as well. Hawking is far simpler. Hawking just says, "Give me some quarks and some gravity and I'll show you how our universe can evolve from that". But from whence did he get his primordial quarks and gravity?

You have been taken for a ride if you think anyone can explain logically how any thing can come from nothing.

If your definition of magic is mysterious, then so be it. I can live with that, we have not solved all the sceintific problems. Many 'mysterious' ones remain.

And we may never solve them. In fact QM currently states that we can never solve them.

And yes I'm happy with the definition of magic simple meaning "mysterious" (or currently unexplained). In fact, that's precisely who I do define it.

I might also add that my support of mysticism is also very similar, Mysticism means 'mystery'. The unknown, and possibly even the unknowable.

Science may never be able to know the truth of reality. QM currently suggests (even demands) that this is certainly the case in terms of physical reality.

So the very PILLAR of science clearly states that we can never know the truth of physical reality. Thus reality will forever remain a mystery to science. And thus science itself is a form of mysticism.

You can not use probability if you have no examples to apply it against, or only one example. Also, you can not use probability when an event already happened as the probability of it is exactly 1.

I agree. And for this reason any arguments of probability concerning why the universe is the way it is are moot. So why even bring up the concept of probability when discussing this question?

Agree, the Abrahamic religions are silly. They can be dismissed easily.

Good, then there's no reason to be paranoid about ideas that reality itself may actually have some mystical essence to it.

I think you may be using consciousness as your definition of experience. So, I agree, we have not solved it all, but no need to insert "any form of deity" as that is just shifting the problem.

I'm concerned with what it is that is actually having an experience. Because, for me, that is the deepest essence of what I am. Whether we label this as being "consciousness" or not is unimportant. I'm just focusing on the issue of what it is that is actually having an experience. What AM I?

The secular view doesn't appear to have a good answer to this question. The idea that I am just some sort of logical feedback loop that is "having an experience" seems pretty weird (and even magical itself). How could a logical feedback loop have an experience? That certainly isn't an explanation that leaves me saying, "Of course, I understand now. I'm just a feedback loop of electromagnetic fields that is having and experience."

To me that suggests that electromagnetic fields can "Have an experience". And that begs the question, "Do electromagnetic fields INNATELY have the potential to have an experience?"

If so, then this suggests to me that electromagnetic fields must be the foundation of my being, and not the physical atoms that are creating a temporary feedback loop that I am currently experiencing.

If I'm an electromagnetic field experiencing this particular feedback configuration today, then why can't I be an electromagnetic fields that is experiencing a different configuration tomorrow? (i.e. this almost provides a physical explanation of how reincarnation might actually work)

I don't speak in terms of deities. In fact, the mystical philosophies that I find most interesting are actually stating that we are this mystical essence of reality. So if you want to call that a 'deity' then we are it. Or at least a facet of it.

Have a good day. I enjoy most of your posts, by do not get how you get stuck on the "deity-of-the-gaps" fallacy.

It's not a deity-of-the-gaps.

I'm simply asking a very straight-forward (and even a potentially scientific) question.

What exactly is it that is 'Having an experience"?

If it is a configuration of electromagnetic fields, then I ask what is having the experience?

1. The configuration?
2. The actual electromagnetic stuff?

I have difficulty understanding or accepting that a configuration is having an experience. How can a configuration have an experience? What is it that is actually having this experience?

Well, if we hypotheses that it's actually the mystical magical stuff that is in this configuration that is having an experience, now we have something that is at least slightly more tangible that we can point to and say, "That is the stuff that is having an experience".

What is that stuff? Does science even know?

No science doesn't know what electromagnetic fields even are. We do say that they are Quantum Fields (because electrons and photons are quantum phenomena). We say that they are "real" because we can measure them and describe and even predict much (but not all) of their behavior.

So we can accept that the quantum fields of electromagnetic energy is "tangible" in the sense of having some sort of physical reality (although according to QM it also necessarily has some strange non-physical reality as well) Or at least it has some properties that are beyond are ability to physically detect directly.

So it makes sense to me to see this mysterious and unexplainable energy field as being "The entity" that is having an experience.

That makes far more logical sense to me than to believe that it's just a configuration that is having an experience.

So as far as I can see this mystical view of reality is at least on the same ground as the secular view, if not more so.

They are equally plausible.

It's just as sane and logical to assume that it's the actual electromagnetic field that is having an experience as it is to assume that it's just the temporary configuration that is having an experience.

In fact, I would personally argue that it's more reasonable to assume that the actual tangible electromagnetic stuff is the entity that is having the experience.

After all what sense does it really make to say that a temporary configuration is "having an experience"?

So for me the mystical view makes more logical sense then the "emergent property" view. How can an emergent property have an experience?

And Electromagnetic field may be the physical MIND of some actual living entity that is far beyond our ability to even comprehend.

At least it's an actual physical thing.

I would think that this view would actually be more scientific than the view that a mere configuration is having an experience.

So for me the mystical view of mysticism is actually MORE scientific than the claim that some abstract emergent property is having an experience.

Yet you act like I'm the one who is proposing absurdly magical stuff.

As far as I'm concerned your claim that a mere configuration is having an experience is itself a totally magical concept.

So, for me, the mystical view of Eastern mysticism actually makes MORE SENSE.

[scourge99]

The mind IS a manifestation of a working brain.

I reckon I need a metaphor here. Ok, so if you break the engine on a car it won't go.

You need an engine for a car to go. But you also need a gearbox, transmission shaft and wheels.

Analogies are useless unless you explain what each item is analogous to. That's exactly where people who don't accept that the mind is a product of the brain fail. They can't explain the analogy. Its just superficial but falls apart under scrutiny.

I think the analogy is valid here. Goat suggested that since altering or damaging A correspondingly and equally alters or damages B, it should then follow that A and B are the same thing. Simple analogy with a radio and a song that it plays, for example, shows that that does not follow from those premises alone at all. I agree with KP, Goat's argument alone is clearly a non-sequitur and also highly insufficient for drawing any conclusions regarding reductionism.

If you think thr the analogy is valid then please explain what everything in the analogy is analogous to. Otherwise you are just giving a superficial argument that fails under scrutiny, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID IN MY PREVIOUS POST THAT YOU EVEN QUOTED BUT SOMEHOW YOU MISSED IT. MAYBE IF ITS IN ALL CAPS THEN YOU WON'T MISS IT THIS TIME.

The point of the analogy is to show that argument N (if altering A equally alters B, then A and B are the same thing) doesn't hold by replacing A and B with something familiar like a radio and a song.

I've told you before that you are misunderstanding what's actually being said. No one is arguing that A equals B;that a song on the radio equals the radio or that consciousness equals the brain.

Consciousness is a manifestation of a working brain. Just as a song is produced by a working radio. But that doesn't mean anyone is saying that consciousness = brain or that the radio = a song.

I don't have to show that the brain and the mind are fully analogous to anything.

if you use an analogy and expect us to take that analogy as valid then Yes you do. Otherwise you are tacitly admitting your analogy is inaccurate or wrong. Which is exactly what I'm saying.

The logic in Goat's argument does not follow. Do you not understand? The fact that altering A alter B DOES NOT MEAN that A is B, is that too difficult for you?

1) A equals B.
2) B manifests from a working A.

Those two statements are NOT EQUIVALENT.

Goat's argument about alteration of the brain is consistent with even the wildest religious soul theories, is it not?

No because soul theories cannot explain why altering the brain changes cognitive capabilities. Specifically, there is nothing left for the "soul" to be in charge of because all our cognitive capabilities are mapped to the brain.

If altering the brain only caused losses to things like vision, hearing, taste, etc, then that could be used as evidence for some possible external place for the mind. But because every aspect of our mind (from language, to facial recognition, to our memories, to our ability to use logic... ) is dependent on parts of the brain then there is nothing left for the soul to contain. It becomes a superfluous explanation. It would be like saying that magic invisible pixies cause things with mass to have gravity.

This explanation is also why the analogy between songs/radios or cars/engines isn't an accurate analogy between the brain mind. For example, the radio/song analogy breaks because if i mess with the radio in a certain way then we shouldn't expect the song to change. We would expect that i can change the pitch or clarity, tone, etc. But not that i can change the song. For example, suppose the radio is playing Britney Spears. I then fiddle with the internals and the song changes to Ricky Martin. The radio signal hasn't changed and I'm still on the same channel. The only thing that's changed is the radio internals.

Thats why this analogy breaks because it cannot clearly represent the actual relationship between brain/mind.

[keithprosser3]

Would that 'consciousness' be you though? Or would it be something like a photograph?

I think consciousness gets used in two different (but obviously closely connected) ways. When we say 'a state of consciousness' we refer mean a state of awareness. Consciousness can also refer to the process (generally believed to be located in the brain) that brings awareness about.

So consciousness (sense 2) is what brings consciousness (sense 1) about. Much the same happens with other words like 'sound', which can refer to a sensation (as in 'imagine the sound of a starling') or what brings that senation about (air vibrations, 'the speed of sound').

Let me try this tack. Suppose X is something in the world. It makes some impression on my sense organs. The sense data is input to processes within the brain (we hope only the brain) eventually producing awareness of X, the awareness of X occurs 'in consciousness', or through the action of consciousness depending on which sense of consciousness you prefer at the time.

If you think that is messy and incoherent, I agree, but it doesn't worry me because the problem as I see it is to produce an understanding of consciousness that isn't messy and incoherent.

Getting a clear picture of what is going on in the brain (I am happy to assume the brain only, even though I argue we can't quite be sure yet) might lead to a model that produces consciousness artificially, but perhaps the other way round works too. We might not be able to define consciousness very well in words, but I think we might be able to recognise it when we see it.

Consider colours one more time. It's trivial to build a machine that can tell blue light from red light, but what it would really be doing is measuring its wavelength, not colour. Getting a machine to see red and blue as you or I see red and blue is a problem we don't know the answer to. Worse than that, we don't even know what questions we should be asking in the first place. If you don't see that getting a computer to see red as, well, red (or indeed understand how people see red as red) is a huge challenge then I can't actually explain it to you. It comes as a sort of 'aha!' moment.

And when it comes, you'll never be truly happy again.

[keithprosser3]

Would that 'consciousness' be you though? Or would it be something like a photograph?

I think consciousness gets used in two different (but obviously closely connected) ways. When we say 'a state of consciousness' we refer mean a state of awareness. Consciousness can also refer to the process (generally believed to be located in the brain) that brings awareness about.

So consciousness (sense 2) is what brings consciousness (sense 1) about. Much the same happens with other words like 'sound', which can refer to a sensation (as in 'imagine the sound of a starling') or what brings that senation about (air vibrations, 'the speed of sound').

Let me try this tack. Suppose X is something in the world. It makes some impression on my sense organs. The sense data is input to processes within the brain (we hope only the brain) eventually producing awareness of X, the awareness of X occurs 'in consciousness', or through the action of consciousness depending on which sense of consciousness you prefer at the time.

If you think that is messy and incoherent, I agree, but it doesn't worry me because the problem as I see it is to produce an understanding of consciousness that isn't messy and incoherent.

Getting a clear picture of what is going on in the brain (I am happy to assume the brain only, even though I argue we can't quite be sure yet) might lead to a model that produces consciousness artificially, but perhaps the other way round works too. We might not be able to define consciousness very well in words, but I think we might be able to recognise it when we see it.

Consider colours one more time. It's trivial to build a machine that can tell blue light from red light, but what it would really be doing is measuring its wavelength, not colour. Getting a machine to see red and blue as you or I see red and blue is not a problem we don't know the answer to. Worse than that, we don't even know what questions we should be asking in the first place. If you can't see that getting a computer to see red as, well, red (or indeed understand how people see red as red) is a huge challenge then I can't really explain it to you. It comes as a sort of 'aha!' moment.

And when it comes, you'll never be happy again.

[instantc]

I've told you before that you are misunderstanding what's actually being said. No one is arguing that A equals B;that a song on the radio equals the radio or that consciousness equals the brain.

Consciousness is a manifestation of a working brain. Just as a song is produced by a working radio. But that doesn't mean anyone is saying that consciousness = brain or that the radio = a song.

By 'A' I was referring to brain activity, not the brain, and by 'B' I was referring to the mind. I'm quite sure that's exactly what Goat is arguing.

Specifically, there is nothing left for the "soul" to be in charge of because all our cognitive capabilities are mapped to the brain.

Good point.

Thats why this analogy breaks because it cannot clearly represent the actual relationship between brain/mind.

Yes, I never said that the brain/mind would in fact have the same relationship as a radio and a song. I'm convinced that's not the case, as should anyone who doesn't have a religious agenda be as well. My point, and I think KP's point as well, was to expose the faulty logic of (since altering the brain activity alters the mind, the two should be identical). That's a highly insufficient as an argument for drawing any conclusions.

[JohnA]

.

There is a logical argument for everything from nothing. It is even backed up by mathematics.

Would you please show us some of this 'mathematics'.

The logical explanation of this is as per Laurence Krauss, his book: A universe from Nothing. Also, there is a Youtube Video on this.

For more Math you can have a look at the no boundary proposal (Hartle–Hawking state). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartle–Hawking_state

The math is based considering time up another axis similar to imaginary numbers (i); time being represented by a vector or complex number; thus size and a direction (not just a size as traditional thinking). So indeed we can have a vector (or complex number) that = 0 + i, which is zero on the real number axis and 1 on the imaginary access (so we can have in the real number axis 0=0+i). That is not all that the Hartle–Hawking state do, it argues for an infinitely finite universe. Meaning that the universe had a beginning (real), but existed infinitely in the no boundary direction. Earth is "round" so have no boundary either! So why can't that be for time? The math is quite complex if you do not understand integrals, differential equations, vectors, matrices, tensors, complex number algebra, etc. Here is a written explanation (no math) by Hawking: http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

And for anyone not knowing what i is, it is square root of -1. So i times 1= -1 in the real numbers. This is not made up stuff, it is how we do many calculations of electronic / mechanical systems in engineering. Here is a quick explanation of it (complex numbers and their physical significance) : http://www.picomonster.com/

There are a few others scientists with logical / mathematical explanations for a universe from nothing. The most basic explanation is it seems like the net energy of the universe is zero.

The issue is that none of these can be evidenced. It may or may not be in future.
At least science is making progress vs religions that just declared truth via faith that something (a god or whateva) can create everything from nothing, existed before existence, existed inside/outside nothing before it created everything. How absurd, and clearly illogical. You therefore have to reject logic in order to hold a belief that this god can can exist inside/outside nothing. That is why science can say that there is no need for a god, besides there not being any evidence for god(s).

[olavisjo]

JohnA wrote:

There is a logical argument for everything from nothing. It is even backed up by mathematics.

Would you please show us some of this 'mathematics'.

JA might be referring to something you can find in Hawkins Brief history of time:

"In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero."

In other words the universe 'cancels itself out'. There was zero before the big bang, and there is a total of zero now despite the fact there is now 'something' (a whacking great universe to be exact) from the nothing 'before' the BB.

Is it necessary to paste or post a link to the actual calculation? I'm sure I could find it given time.

[olavisjo]

.

There is a logical argument for everything from nothing. It is even backed up by mathematics.

Would you please show us some of this 'mathematics'.

The logical explanation of this is as per Laurence Krauss, his book: A universe from Nothing. Also, there is a Youtube Video on this.

For more Math you can have a look at the no boundary proposal (Hartle–Hawking state). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartle–Hawking_state

The math is based considering time up another axis similar to imaginary numbers (i); time being represented by a vector or complex number; thus size and a direction (not just a size as traditional thinking). So indeed we can have a vector (or complex number) that = 0 + i, which is zero on the real number axis and 1 on the imaginary access (so we can have in the real number axis 0=0+i). That is not all that the Hartle–Hawking state do, it argues for an infinitely finite universe. Meaning that the universe had a beginning (real), but existed infinitely in the no boundary direction. Earth is "round" so have no boundary either! So why can't that be for time? The math is quite complex if you do not understand integrals, differential equations, vectors, matrices, tensors, complex number algebra, etc. Here is a written explanation (no math) by Hawking: http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

And for anyone not knowing what i is, it is square root of -1. So i times 1= -1 in the real numbers. This is not made up stuff, it is how we do many calculations of electronic / mechanical systems in engineering. Here is a quick explanation of it (complex numbers and their physical significance) : http://www.picomonster.com/

There are a few others scientists with logical / mathematical explanations for a universe from nothing. The most basic explanation is it seems like the net energy of the universe is zero.

The issue is that none of these can be evidenced. It may or may not be in future.
At least science is making progress vs religions that just declared truth via faith that something (a god or whateva) can create everything from nothing, existed before existence, existed inside/outside nothing before it created everything. How absurd, and clearly illogical. You therefore have to reject logic in order to hold a belief that this god can can exist inside/outside nothing. That is why science can say that there is no need for a god, besides there not being any evidence for god(s).

[Divine Insight]

The math is quite complex if you do not understand integrals, differential equations, vectors, matrices, tensors, complex number algebra, etc.

I have no problem with the math. I just disagree that anything you've stated here even mathematically shows that anything can be created from nothing. You're example with a complex plane actually requires that a complex plane first exists anyway.

In short, any claim that mathematics can be used to show how a physical universe can start with "just mathematics" already presumes the existence of a Platonic mathematical reality that underlies physical reality to begin with. So you haven't gained anything philosophically.

On the contrary these kinds of mathematical arguments actually suggest that physical reality is indeed created by some sort of preexisting mystical mathematical computer or mystical mind. Otherwise from whence does this mathematics itself arise?

Starting with an assumed complete mathematical structure of thought is certainly not starting from "nothing".

So an understanding of mathematical concepts is irrelevant anyway. Although I do have a fair understanding of all the mathematical topics you have mentioned. I've worked with complex number in many cases, not the least of which was with electronics and magnetic fields. I should mention also, that in that particular case, the "imaginary" plane actually represents the magnetic field. So it's hardly imaginary anyway. It's really just adding change in substance. In other words, the real numbers represent the value of electron flow or current, and the imaginary numbers represent the magnetic fields. And these two things interchange. So there's nothing imaginary about these quantities even though they are represented by "imaginary" numbers.

It's just a convenient way for adding another vector "direction". Only in this case it's not a direction in space, but rather a change between electron current and magnetic field strength.

There are a few others scientists with logical / mathematical explanations for a universe from nothing. The most basic explanation is it seems like the net energy of the universe is zero.

I have no problem with the energy content of the universe being equal to zero. I would suspect that to be the case even from a mystic point of view.

My question isn't concerned with how the energy/matter content of the universe can sum to zero, but rather what would have caused it fluctuation from non-zero in the first place? Obviously the laws of QM are pointed to as an explanation, but then where did those laws come from? And what was it that actually fluctuated?

That is hardly starting from "NOTHING".

At least science is making progress vs religions that just declared truth via faith that something (a god or whateva) can create everything from nothing, existed before existence, existed inside/outside nothing before it created everything.

I don't pit science versus religion, or vice versa. I see no reason why they can't coexist as both being useful in their own way.

There is nothing in science that conflicts with my mystical beliefs, and there is nothing in my mystical beliefs that conflicts with science.

So I see no reason to create a war between the two that isn't necessary.

How absurd, and clearly illogical. You therefore have to reject logic in order to hold a belief that this god can can exist inside/outside nothing. That is why science can say that there is no need for a god, besides there not being any evidence for god(s).

But you haven't managed to do that. On the contrary you are appealing to a mystical Platonic preexisting mathematical structure that underlies all of reality.

You are far more mystical-minded than you realize.

You are probably just extremely upset with the Abrahamic religions (which I don't blame you at all). But then to carry that over to create an imaginary war between science and every imaginable mystical idea is nothing but overkill, IMHO.

I'm not suggesting that you should believe in a god or a mystical essence to reality. But I will continue to suggest that I see where our current understanding of science and mathematics appears to me to actually be pointing in that direction.

I don't see a conflict between science and my mystical philosophies.

Yet you act like as if there should be a conflict here.

I don't see where you have established that any such conflict exists.

[JohnA]

The math is quite complex if you do not understand integrals, differential equations, vectors, matrices, tensors, complex number algebra, etc.

I have no problem with the math. I just disagree that anything you've stated here even mathematically shows that anything can be created from nothing. You're example with a complex plane actually requires that a complex plane first exists anyway.

In short, any claim that mathematics can be used to show how a physical universe can start with "just mathematics" already presumes the existence of a Platonic mathematical reality that underlies physical reality to begin with. So you haven't gained anything philosophically.

On the contrary these kinds of mathematical arguments actually suggest that physical reality is indeed created by some sort of preexisting mystical mathematical computer or mystical mind. Otherwise from whence does this mathematics itself arise?

Starting with an assumed complete mathematical structure of thought is certainly not starting from "nothing".

So an understanding of mathematical concepts is irrelevant anyway. Although I do have a fair understanding of all the mathematical topics you have mentioned. I've worked with complex number in many cases, not the least of which was with electronics and magnetic fields. I should mention also, that in that particular case, the "imaginary" plane actually represents the magnetic field. So it's hardly imaginary anyway. It's really just adding change in substance. In other words, the real numbers represent the value of electron flow or current, and the imaginary numbers represent the magnetic fields. And these two things interchange. So there's nothing imaginary about these quantities even though they are represented by "imaginary" numbers.

It's just a convenient way for adding another vector "direction". Only in this case it's not a direction in space, but rather a change between electron current and magnetic field strength.

There are a few others scientists with logical / mathematical explanations for a universe from nothing. The most basic explanation is it seems like the net energy of the universe is zero.

I have no problem with the energy content of the universe being equal to zero. I would suspect that to be the case even from a mystic point of view.

My question isn't concerned with how the energy/matter content of the universe can sum to zero, but rather what would have caused it fluctuation from non-zero in the first place? Obviously the laws of QM are pointed to as an explanation, but then where did those laws come from? And what was it that actually fluctuated?

That is hardly starting from "NOTHING".

At least science is making progress vs religions that just declared truth via faith that something (a god or whateva) can create everything from nothing, existed before existence, existed inside/outside nothing before it created everything.

I don't pit science versus religion, or vice versa. I see no reason why they can't coexist as both being useful in their own way.

There is nothing in science that conflicts with my mystical beliefs, and there is nothing in my mystical beliefs that conflicts with science.

So I see no reason to create a war between the two that isn't necessary.

How absurd, and clearly illogical. You therefore have to reject logic in order to hold a belief that this god can can exist inside/outside nothing. That is why science can say that there is no need for a god, besides there not being any evidence for god(s).

But you haven't managed to do that. On the contrary you are appealing to a mystical Platonic preexisting mathematical structure that underlies all of reality.

You are far more mystical-minded than you realize.

You are probably just extremely upset with the Abrahamic religions (which I don't blame you at all). But then to carry that over to create an imaginary war between science and every imaginable mystical idea is nothing but overkill, IMHO.

I'm not suggesting that you should believe in a god or a mystical essence to reality. But I will continue to suggest that I see where our current understanding of science and mathematics appears to me to actually be pointing in that direction.

I don't see a conflict between science and my mystical philosophies.

Yet you act like as if there should be a conflict here.

I don't see where you have established that any such conflict exists.

My post was not directed at you.
I never argued that Math created everything from nothing. Your straw man was not needed. The Math merely explains how you can get everything from Nothing. Am not convinced you even looked at it.
You have not watched the Krauss video, have you? He disagrees with your 'mystical' in that it does conflict with science.
You are assuming there was a cause for the start of the universe. That is begging the question fallacy.
I did not pitch science vs religion. They are not even comparative, that is why I mentioned the process of getting to answers are different.
Seems to me you are angry at science not showing your hateful Abrahamic deity false by having an evidenced based answer for everything from nothing (even when it seems like there is zero net energy - that is consistent with a universe from nothing. The logic and Math is in place, evidence is pointing to it, we just need more falsification and more evidence.).
Please go read the Krauss stuff and look at the math in detail. (We have used Math before to proof 1+1=2; who ever would have thought that.) And here you are building and beating your math straw man with me without even reviewing the math. You just want it to be your mystical when it is not.
And now you are saying that the theology version is logical that something can exist outside /inside nothing before it created everything. So everything has a cause except for this something? How bizarre and illogical.

If you want to discuss this topic more then go read Krauss' book and watch the video lecture. Go read about Hawking no boundary proposal. Do the Math, show where it is wrong (since you claim you understand it all). Read about the other hypotheses or there for Everything from Nothing. Come back when we can chat about the facts, not your emotion.