Eternity

[Diogenes]

Is it intellectually dishonest to claim "God has always existed, without beginning and without end;"
yet claim the universe must have had a beginning?

[1213]

... seek to impose that belief through force of law.

Ok, thank you. I think it is not good to force any beliefs.

[William]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #88]

I'm not arguing that a universe couldn't be random (even a true universe), but that all of the evidence we have is that it's random and nondeterministic. Your claim is that the randomness is only apparent and therefore false. I'm arguing the contrary position, which is that it's true. That's not the Scotsman fallacy.

Okay thanks for clarifying. Often when I see the expression 'true' placed before 'whatever is being claimed as true' this amounts to folk declaring there are such a thing as True Scotsmen...and I am not entirely convinced you weren't doing that - so I will keep an eye on...

The universe is probably nondeterministic. It's almost certainly nondeterministic. If it's otherwise, quantum physics is wrong.

It is entirely possible Quantum Physics is wrong -

And this method of deduction must also include the idea of their being a mind behind the universes existence.

That's not what "observer" means in physics.

Like I said - Quantum Physics might be wrong - Are you suggesting that any one process to do with the study of wave function, can be done completely without the minds involvement?

What might be seen as 'a property of the universe' could actually be 'a property of the device being used to do the measuring'.

It "could" in the philosophical sense that it's "possible," but there's no evidence that it's true.

How could there be "evidence that it's true" [there's that word again] if scientists are not looking for evidence of that sort?

This is the same "possible means probable" argument that plagues Christian apologetics.

In any case, is it simply a numbers game?

"We don't observe evidence of intelligent design in the universe, therefore the universe exists because of a random event, and the evidence we see observing the universe, supports how we see things when we observe things."

Said another way "Confirmation Bias" and "Cognitive Bias"

No. That's the point. If the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle were not true, information could travel faster than light, the universe were deterministic, or a number of other things about quantum physics weren't true, we would expect a uniform background.

Can the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle still be true if the universe was designed to be the way that is it?

[William]

[Replying to 1213 in post #89]

What makes you think that you know the intricacies of God to the degree that you observe no change?

Do you not agree that we all come from the point of ignorance?

[William]

[Replying to 1213 in post #90]

Sorry, I don't think non-static means necessarily that one has changed. For example, if I walk from here to some other place, I have not changed, I have only changed my place.

How do you know that you have not changed? What do you mean when you use the word "you"?

These things first have to be clearly established, before we can accept that the words you wrote above, are actually true.

For example, if you are referring to your body as 'you' then yes - you have changed in your walk from one position to the other. Time and motion in relation to this universe just has it that way.

But perhaps you are speaking of the consciousness which makes you 'you'? Even then, changes are occurring at subtle levels in which you are unconscious of.

Time works on the person that way...

[JoeyKnothead]

... seek to impose that belief through force of law.

Ok, thank you. I think it is not good to force any beliefs.

I preciate that. Your posts do indicate you try to accept disagreement without infuriation.

I think we who vote kinda force our beliefs, but hope we do so in a way that allows dissent, and is least restrictive of freedom.

[Difflugia]

It is entirely possible Quantum Physics is wrong

In the sense that anything is possible, yes. It's also entirely possible that New Zealand doesn't exist. Whenever we test for it, it's there and there are even people that think that they're in New Zealand right now, but it's entirely possible that it's not there.

Like I said - Quantum Physics might be wrong - Are you suggesting that any one process to do with the study of wave function, can be done completely without the minds involvement?

No. But we've no evidence (there's that word again!) that our "mind's involvement" would change the outcome of the experiment.

How could there be "evidence that it's true" [there's that word again] if scientists are not looking for evidence of that sort?

No evidence is no evidence. It doesn't matter why we have no evidence. Even if it is impossible in principle for us to gather any, we still have no knowledge about whatever it is one way or another. In the absence of evidence, one speculation is as good, but only as good, as every other speculation. If you're going to speculate that our minds are somehow creating our experimental results completely independent of reality, then that has the same chance of actually being true as sentient cheeses changing the outcomes of our experiments for their own amusement.

This is the same "possible means probable" argument that plagues Christian apologetics.

In any case, is it simply a numbers game?

No. A numbers game would mean that we're finally speaking the same language. Instead, it's an attempt to bring no numbers to a numbers game.

The space of made-up possibilities is infinite. If your argument is merely that something's possible, then it's competing with all of the other things that aren't impossible. Moreover, that entire infinite space of possible things with no evidence can dance together on the head of a pin. A claim of "not impossible" no matter how it's worded ("possible," "very possible," "entirely possible," "prove me wrong") is completely meaningless. If you have evidence, we have something to compare in a meaningful way. If not, then your speculation, whatever it is, is in direct and even-money competition with Santa Claus.

"We don't observe evidence of intelligent design in the universe, therefore the universe exists because of a random event, and the evidence we see observing the universe, supports how we see things when we observe things."

Said another way "Confirmation Bias" and "Cognitive Bias"

No. Confirmation bias is different. Confirmation bias is if you have evidence both for a position you already accept and against that position, you'll consider the evidence for the position that you already accept as stronger than you should.

If the evidence just supports your position, that's just plain confirmation. One certainly has to guard against those, but if you're going to legitimately claim confirmation bias, you have to show that the disconfirming evidence is actually stronger. So far, all you've done is told me sans evidence that you might be right.

Can the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle still be true if the universe was designed to be the way that is it?

If the designer of the universe designed the universe with uncertainty as a fundamental property, then sure, I guess.

[William]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #96]

In the sense that anything is possible, yes. It's also entirely possible that New Zealand doesn't exist. Whenever we test for it, it's there and there are even people that think that they're in New Zealand right now, but it's entirely possible that it's not there.

It is therefore "entirely possible" that NZ both does and does not exist, cancelling out any ability to confirm either way...

Like I said - Quantum Physics might be wrong - Are you suggesting that any one process to do with the study of wave function, can be done completely without the minds involvement?
No. But we've no evidence (there's that word again!) that our "mind's involvement" would change the outcome of the experiment.

No evidence either way...

How could there be "evidence that it's true" [there's that word again] if scientists are not looking for evidence of that sort?

No evidence is no evidence. It doesn't matter why we have no evidence.

Hmmm...we may be nearing the crux of the matter.

If we are not looking for evidence of a Cosmic Mind, then it does matter why we have no evidence.

Even if it is impossible in principle for us to gather any, we still have no knowledge about whatever it is one way or another.

Nonetheless, theists are stepping in the direction which allows of 'whatever it is' to show and tell itself however it will.

In the absence of evidence, one speculation is as good, but only as good, as every other speculation.

Not necessarily. Theist speculation on the idea of a Cosmic Mind vary from quite badly thought out and understood to brilliantly thought out and understood.

If you're going to speculate that our minds are somehow creating our experimental results completely independent of reality,

Ye nah. [NZ expression meaning 'yes but no'] I am not speculating that at all. What I am saying is that the individuate minds connect with a vaster mind which itself is not independent from reality...

...and that said vaster mind makes itself known to the individuate mind through reality - not independent of reality...bearing in mind the hope that we are on the same page re "Reality being the physical universe".

In any case, is it simply a numbers game?

No. A numbers game would mean that we're finally speaking the same language. Instead, it's an attempt to bring no numbers to a numbers game.

Is it? Is that how you see what I am doing as being? That I am attempting to kept the numbers out of the equation?

If you have evidence, we have something to compare in a meaningful way. If not, then your speculation, whatever it is, is in direct and even-money competition with Santa Claus.

You think that the idea of communing with a Cosmic Mind/Planetary Mind is equally to the belief in Santa?

No. Confirmation bias is different. Confirmation bias is if you have evidence both for a position you already accept and against that position, you'll consider the evidence for the position that you already accept as stronger than you should.

If the evidence just supports your position, that's just plain confirmation. One certainly has to guard against those, but if you're going to legitimately claim confirmation bias, you have to show that the disconfirming evidence is actually stronger. So far, all you've done is told me sans evidence that you might be right.

I present evidence daily on this message board. Here is one such sample of said evidence, pertinent to our discussion.
viewtopic.php?p=1073678#p1073678

You will see therein whatever it is that your bias permits you to see.

Can the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle still be true if the universe was designed to be the way that is it?

If the designer of the universe designed the universe with uncertainty as a fundamental property, then sure, I guess.

You 'guess'? You cannot simply say "Yes"?

Even so, this may be a point where we can say we that we can - at least potentially - get onto speaking the same language.

[Difflugia]

It is therefore "entirely possible" that NZ both does and does not exist, cancelling out any ability to confirm either way...

And this is the "possible is probable" argument. The problem with it is that while it is "entirely possible" that New Zealand doesn't exist, every form of evidence that we have says that it does. Unless evidence itself is meaningless, mere possibility isn't support for a claim. We can't confirm it in the philosophical sense of rendering the converse impossible, but that doesn't add any information. It's like adding zeroes (or like adding epsilon limits, nonzero numbers that are arbitrarily close to zero).

No evidence either way...

That's right. There is no evidence for a mind behind the universe or for any of the other made-up things competing for the space. Even if we combine all the possibilities that involve "minds" (God, Santa Claus, hyperintelligent cheese, ...), then we're still left with the same possibility dancing on the head of a pin. The rest of the space is taken up by hypotheses for which we have positive evidence and nothing. There are none of the former, but we have an overabundance, as it were, of nothing.

Hmmm...we may be nearing the crux of the matter.

If we are not looking for evidence of a Cosmic Mind, then it does matter why we have no evidence.

I don't know why, so you'll have to explain it.

Nonetheless, theists are stepping in the direction which allows of 'whatever it is' to show and tell itself however it will.

And yet "whatever it is" is so far indistinguishable from nothing.

In the absence of evidence, one speculation is as good, but only as good, as every other speculation.

Not necessarily. Theist speculation on the idea of a Cosmic Mind vary from quite badly thought out and understood to brilliantly thought out and understood.

Without evidence, the best a claim can be is internally consistent. Without something to anchor it to reality, it's still Santa Claus.

If you're going to speculate that our minds are somehow creating our experimental results completely independent of reality,

Ye nah. [NZ expression meaning 'yes but no'] I am not speculating that at all. What I am saying is that the individuate minds connect with a vaster mind which itself is not independent from reality...

...and that said vaster mind makes itself known to the individuate mind through reality - not independent of reality...bearing in mind the hope that we are on the same page re "Reality being the physical universe".

I don't understand why you think that's different than speculation. "Saying" that there's a vaster mind isn't evidence of a vaster mind.

In any case, is it simply a numbers game?

No. A numbers game would mean that we're finally speaking the same language. Instead, it's an attempt to bring no numbers to a numbers game.

Is it? Is that how you see what I am doing as being? That I am attempting to kept the numbers out of the equation?

Yes.

If you have evidence, we have something to compare in a meaningful way. If not, then your speculation, whatever it is, is in direct and even-money competition with Santa Claus.

You think that the idea of communing with a Cosmic Mind/Planetary Mind is equally to the belief in Santa?

Yes.

I present evidence daily on this message board. Here is one such sample of said evidence, pertinent to our discussion.
viewtopic.php?p=1073678#p1073678

You will see therein whatever it is that your bias permits you to see.

Your evidence is flawed. The mind that you're claiming evidence for is indistinguishable from your own mind. Despite the possibilities that New Zealand, you, and your mind aren't real, the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that they are. Since nothing beyond your mind is necessary to explain your evidence, I conclude that probably nothing else is involved. It's possible that something is, but so is Santa Claus.

You 'guess'? You cannot simply say "Yes"?

Sorry. You're right.

[William]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #98]

If we are not looking for evidence of a Cosmic Mind, then it does matter why we have no evidence.

I don't know why, so you'll have to explain it.

IF we are not looking for that in the things we can observe, then we will not find it in the things we observe.

Therefore, in order to find it in the things we observe, it matters that we are looking for it in the things we observe.

To give a type of future reference to the idea that we can 'get about life' without 'seeing' or finding evidence for a Cosmic Mind, the following short story from a recent and ongoing interaction I am having with a hard-boiled skeptic, seems appropriate;

Lukraak: I'd personally rejoice that no evidence for such a mind has ever been found, because if it exists I fear that it will far more likely be Lovecraftian than caring.

William: Which may underline the main reason why you would rather deny its existence.
However, that would be viewing nature through the lens of 'good' and 'evil' which is a mistake many make, and why there is also something called 'the problem of evil'. Fallacious.

Rather, the Cosmic Mind allows for a variety of expression of human thought and activity - including scientists intent on getting a foot hole into space...and why not?

It seems to me that eventually if that were to actually happen, and scientists found ways and means in which to make their stay in this reality an indefinite one, they will eventually exhaust all avenues of obtaining knowledge [know everything there is to possibly know] would have come to the conclusion that there is indeed an intelligent Cosmic Mind, would likely be more machine than biological, and just as likely would have combined their separate minds into One Mind, effectively become a "God" in their own right, and will probably engage in building/becoming a Large Simulation Machine in order to - as One Mind - escape the frustration of knowing everything that there is to know while they await the inevitable end of the universe through entropy.

Common sense is not the only thing that informs me of their most likely fate...

However, we have yet to get to the point where scientists intent on this future event they are invested in, will be allowed - as nature might have other plans...the race is on...will the planet heat up sufficiently to cause an extinction event? How will that impact on the plans of the scientists supporting Scientific Cosmology? DO they have a backup plan to offset an extinction event?

What does the 'math' tell them as a way of finding answers to those kinds of questions?

_________________________________________

On the subject of the mathematics of Cosmology Difflugia, do you understand the mathematics implicitly, as in - do you understand it when you view it, or does it appear to be gobbledygook to you?

Ye nah. [NZ expression meaning 'yes but no'] I am not speculating that at all. What I am saying is that the individuate minds connect with a vaster mind which itself is not independent from reality...

...and that said vaster mind makes itself known to the individuate mind through reality - not independent of reality...bearing in mind the hope that we are on the same page re "Reality being the physical universe".

I don't understand why you think that's different than speculation. "Saying" that there's a vaster mind isn't evidence of a vaster mind.

That is not what I am trying to say at all.

I am pointing out that the experience - no matter how many are involved with it on whatever level that they are involved with it - the evidence is presented to the individual by the Cosmic Mind through the fact of their own subjective experience.

Saying that to anyone who isn't experiencing that connection isn't what I am referring to as "evidence".

What I am referring to as evidence, is the personal experience the individual involved with the Cosmic Mind is going through and how the CM uses the nature of this reality to provide the individual with said evidence.

Did you read the link I gave in the last post? [you did not comment re that, which is why I ask.]

[Difflugia]

IF we are not looking for that in the things we can observe, then we will not find it in the things we observe.

Therefore, in order to find it in the things we observe, it matters that we are looking for it in the things we observe.

That's a true statement. The implied corollary, though, that we will find it if we start looking or look differently or look in another place is again merely possible. The analogy is becoming tired, but it's the exact same likelihood that we'll find Santa Claus.

To give a type of future reference to the idea that we can 'get about life' without 'seeing' or finding evidence for a Cosmic Mind, the following short story from a recent and ongoing interaction I am having with a hard-boiled skeptic, seems appropriate;

[...]

It seems to me that eventually if that were to actually happen, and scientists found ways and means in which to make their stay in this reality an indefinite one, they will eventually exhaust all avenues of obtaining knowledge [know everything there is to possibly know] would have come to the conclusion that there is indeed an intelligent Cosmic Mind, would likely be more machine than biological, and just as likely would have combined their separate minds into One Mind, effectively become a "God" in their own right, and will probably engage in building/becoming a Large Simulation Machine in order to - as One Mind - escape the frustration of knowing everything that there is to know while they await the inevitable end of the universe through entropy.

I get where you're coming from, but at this point I can only say that you and I use the word "probably" to mean different things.

What does the 'math' tell them as a way of finding answers to those kinds of questions?

That you have composed one of a great many equally probable futures of which most don't include immortality, a Cosmic Mind, or a Large Simulation Machine.

On the subject of the mathematics of Cosmology Difflugia, do you understand the mathematics implicitly, as in - do you understand it when you view it, or does it appear to be gobbledygook to you?

Somewhere in between, I guess? I can read and visualize integral calculus, but I'm not a quantum physics guy. Too many unfamiliar terms and constants become gobbledygook.

I'm not sure if that's what you're guessing or asking, but that's actually how I think about the probabilities we've been talking about. If we integrate the probability function of anything, we get a sum of 1, or 100%. All of the possibilities for which we have evidence fill most of the area under the probability curve. Because anything's possible, though, that area approaches a limit of 1, but is never equal to 1. All, and I mean all of the infinite other possibilities are squeezed together in the last little slice that is arbitrarily small, but greater than zero.

Did you read the link I gave in the last post? [you did not comment re that, which is why I ask.]

Yes. That is what I was commenting on. The information that you are getting out of your method is all information that you are putting in yourself, both in terms of input and the interpretation of your output. I'm pretty sure that the nonrandom factors that you're putting into your method are responsible for the nonrandom data that you're getting out and you're then overinterpreting the results. I'm convinced that if you blind the experiment in a way that controls for your own influence in both data selection and interpretation, the results will be indistinguishable from noise. I explained this before, but you disagreed with me in a way that I didn't think a discussion would change, so I didn't pursue it.