Is the Multiverse Science?

[jillery]

Ethan Siegel recently posted a comprehensive answer to the topic
question, asked by one of the readers of Starts With A Bang:

<https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/ask-ethan-96-is-the-multiverse-science-ecceb24fa2af>

This topic addresses issues raised by several posts on T.O. which have
challenged what qualifies as scientific theory.

Siegel makes explicit three parts required for a revolutionary new
theory:

1.) It has to reproduce all the successes of the previously existing
theory.

2.) It has to explain the new results that contradicted the old
theory.

3.) It needs to make new, testable predictions that have not been
tested before, and that can either be confirmed and validated or
refuted.

Siegel defines "Universe" as the observable Universe, which is all
that is contained within a sphere of 46 billion light-year radius
centered on the observer (note: just as all observers in the Universe
view an expanding Universe, so too do observers view the same size
Universe centered on themselves).

Siegel also makes explicit that the Big Bang Theory is different from
Cosmic Inflation is different from Multiverse.

The evidence for the Big Bang is straightforward: Almost all distant
galaxies are receding from us at a rate in proportion to their
distance. Also, more distant galaxies have less elements heavier than
helium, are smaller, and are more spiral shaped, than galaxies closer
to us, which imply more distant galaxies are also younger in
proportion. Finally, there is the Cosmic Microwave Background,
understood as the leftover glow of the Big Bang itself. These
observation satisfy the three requirements for a revolutionary new
theory.

The Big Bang is the start of our observable Universe, but can't
explain the start of space and time. Cosmic Inflation does, by
building on Big Bang Theory.

Cosmic Inflation explains why the Universe is the same temperature
everywhere, why it's spatially flat, and why there are no leftover
high-energy relics like magnetic monopoles.

Cosmic Inflation made 5 explicit predictions, 4 of which have been
confirmed by observation:

<https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/cosmic-inflation-s-five-great-predictions-bf9a560376c7>

1.) A Flat Universe, from observations of distant supernova.

2.) A Universe with fluctuations on scales larger than light could’ve
traveled across, from observations of temperature variations of the
Cosmic Microwave Background.

3.) A Universe whose fluctuations were adiabatic, or of equal entropy
everywhere, from correlations between temperature variations of the
Cosmic Microwave Background and the large-scale structure of the
Universe.

4.) A Universe where the spectrum of fluctuations were just slightly
less than having a scale invariant (n_s < 1) nature, from observations
of baryon acoustic oscillations.

As with the Big Bang, these explanations and successful predictions
put Cosmic Inflation beyond mere speculation, beyond hypothesis, and
into the category of tested scientific theory.

However, the Multiverse is not a scientific theory on its own. Rather,
it’s a theoretical consequence of the laws of physics as they’re best
understood today. That makes Multiverse a scientific hypothesis; less
than a theory, but more than informed guesswork.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[RSNorman]

On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 17:35:26 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I am not a cosmologist so I tend to believe in whatever cosmological
work I read most recently that made some sense. And that happens to
be Max Tegmark's "Our Mathematical Universe".

Tegmark describes a whole series of very different kinds of multiverse
ending with a truly outlandish notion that the universe is simply
mathematics and different mathematical formulations correspond to
different universes. However I do believe his other lower levels of
multiverse do have support in the physics community.

The most important notion I got from Tegmark is that multiverses are
not proposed as a theory in and of themselves. Rather a theory is
proposed to explain what we do see in this universe but a consequence
of that theory is the existence of those other universes. There are
universes lying "outside" our own because of the limitation of the
speed of light so that they are beyond the reach of signals from them
reaching us even though the accepted notion of inflation suggest that
there is more outside that visible limit. There are universes
produced by other inflationary events, depending on what theory you
have about why our universe underwent an inflation. And there are
universes in an interpretation of quantum mechanics that does not
involve a collapse of the wave function. No doubt I am not serving
Tegmark well in my recounting of these. However I think I am correct
in the point that the theories are not "about" multiverses but about
our universe with the multiverses getting carried along for the ride.

[dcleve]

The fusion of "m-theory" with Linde's Eternal Inflation, produces the Cosmic Landscape.

http://www.amazon.com/Cosmic-Landscape-String-Illusion-Intelligent/dp/0316013331/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1439686454&sr=1-1&keywords=the+cosmic+landscape+string+theory+and+the+illusion+of+intelligent+design

Susskind went looking for a way to create a multiverse, rather than accepting it as an accidental byproduct, because he considered it a necessary answer to why our universe looks designed.

The rebuttals of Susskind are pretty compelling:
http://www.amazon.com/Trouble-Physics-String-Theory-Science/dp/061891868X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1439686659&sr=1-1&keywords=trouble+with+physics

http://www.amazon.com/Not-Even-Wrong-Failure-Physical/dp/0465092764/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1439686753&sr=1-1&keywords=not+even+wrong

[RSNorman]

On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 18:00:27 -0700 (PDT), dcleve <dcl...@qis.net>
wrote:

Susskind's multiverses may be problematical but there are others.

[Glenn]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:q3cvsa5m28kiqmghm...@4ax.com...

"What science actually is, is a matter for extreme debate."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/falsify.html

[Mark Isaak]

On 8/15/15 6:21 PM, RSNorman wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 18:00:27 -0700 (PDT), dcleve <dcl...@qis.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, August 15, 2015 at 6:34:09 PM UTC-4, RSNorman wrote:

>>> [...]

>>> The most important notion I got from Tegmark is that multiverses are
>>> not proposed as a theory in and of themselves. Rather a theory is
>>> proposed to explain what we do see in this universe but a consequence
>>> of that theory is the existence of those other universes. There are
>>> universes lying "outside" our own because of the limitation of the
>>> speed of light so that they are beyond the reach of signals from them
>>> reaching us even though the accepted notion of inflation suggest that
>>> there is more outside that visible limit. There are universes
>>> produced by other inflationary events, depending on what theory you
>>> have about why our universe underwent an inflation. And there are
>>> universes in an interpretation of quantum mechanics that does not
>>> involve a collapse of the wave function. No doubt I am not serving
>>> Tegmark well in my recounting of these. However I think I am correct
>>> in the point that the theories are not "about" multiverses but about
>>> our universe with the multiverses getting carried along for the ride.
>>
>> The fusion of "m-theory" with Linde's Eternal Inflation, produces the Cosmic Landscape.
>>
>> http://www.amazon.com/Cosmic-Landscape-String-Illusion-Intelligent/dp/0316013331/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1439686454&sr=1-1&keywords=the+cosmic+landscape+string+theory+and+the+illusion+of+intelligent+design
>>
>> Susskind went looking for a way to create a multiverse, rather than accepting it as an accidental byproduct, because he considered it a necessary answer to why our universe looks designed.
>>
>> The rebuttals of Susskind are pretty compelling:
>> http://www.amazon.com/Trouble-Physics-String-Theory-Science/dp/061891868X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1439686659&sr=1-1&keywords=trouble+with+physics
>>
>> http://www.amazon.com/Not-Even-Wrong-Failure-Physical/dp/0465092764/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1439686753&sr=1-1&keywords=not+even+wrong
>
> Susskind's multiverses may be problematical but there are others.

Somehow I find the concept "There are other multiverses" to be -- I
can't think of the right adjective. Is there one that combines irony
with overkill?

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel

[RSNorman]

Neither irony nor overkill is sufficient to describe how cosmologists
and physicists talk about the nature of reality. I followed Tegmark's
"multiverse hierarchy" with four distinct levels.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.1283

As Dorothy put it: "Toto, I've a feeling we're not in the Newtonian
clockwork universe anymore."

[RonO]

A few months ago I put up the possibility that if Behe's type of ID
claptrap could be brought to a testable level that we might be able to
test some multiverse type ideas.

I think that life would be a good place to start because we have cell
theory and molecular biology and all the organic chemistry, so
calculating probabilities may be possible. If you could determine how
often really improbable things happen to create what we observe today
you might be able to get a handle on not only the types of multiverses
there could be, but if we got a statistically large sample of such
events we might be able to see how close or far from infinity the number
of possible multiverses are (how unlikely is possible?)

You expect most of the multiverses to be drab and lack luster with few
fantasically improbable events, but when such events happen (possibly,
such as abiogenesis) all the succeeding universes spawned by that
unlikely universe would have that improbable event in their pasts.
Depending on the number of such highly improbable events it took to
evolve us we may be able to do some quantitative analyses and figure out
something about the multiverse model.

The creationists claim that the universe with our physical laws is
needed to evolve us. Obviously we would have had that universe as a
progenitor way back at the big bang or before. How likely was it that
an earth like planet would be in the right orbit with the right amount
of star generated elements to produce life (after 10 billion years of
star deaths)? We would have such a universe as a progenitor spawning
new universes. What lucky accidents had to happen for abiogenesis to
occur? We would have such a universe as a progenitor etc. So there
may be IC type occurrences that we might be able to track to see what
kind of random walk we come up with and see if it tells us anything
about how multiverses may be spawning.

Now all we have to wait for is the IDiots to come up with the means to
test their junk. Would there be enough motivation for some real
scientists that actually want to know the answers to give it a try?

Ron Okimoto

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 18:56:21 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:

>"What science actually is, is a matter for extreme debate."
>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/falsify.html

Of course it is, conceptually; scientists are people, with
opinions. But none of Wilkins' article refutes what jillery
posted; Wilkins' final paragraph is instructive.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[jillery]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 11:31:38 -0400, RSNorman <r_s_n...@comcast.net>
wrote:

Great article. Thanks.

>As Dorothy put it: "Toto, I've a feeling we're not in the Newtonian
>clockwork universe anymore."

Einstein's Special Relativity smashed Newton's clock way back in 1905,
decades before Multiverse became popular.

[RSNorman]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 16:49:32 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>

There is another thread here about the notion that quantum mechanics
alters our notion of "reality" in rather extreme ways. That, too,
dates back to earlier in the 20th century.

Tegmark is considered rather extreme and "out there" by most. I think
some of his notions rather too outrageous to believe -- his fourth
level multiverse being different implementations of pure mathematics
for example. But I think his descriptions of level I, II, and III
multiverses represent what many other physicists actually proclaim.
Whether they represent "reality" is quite another story.

[Paul J Gans]

>>2.) A Universe with fluctuations on scales larger than light could?ve

>>traveled across, from observations of temperature variations of the
>>Cosmic Microwave Background.
>>
>>3.) A Universe whose fluctuations were adiabatic, or of equal entropy
>>everywhere, from correlations between temperature variations of the
>>Cosmic Microwave Background and the large-scale structure of the
>>Universe.
>>
>>4.) A Universe where the spectrum of fluctuations were just slightly
>>less than having a scale invariant (n_s < 1) nature, from observations
>>of baryon acoustic oscillations.
>>
>>As with the Big Bang, these explanations and successful predictions
>>put Cosmic Inflation beyond mere speculation, beyond hypothesis, and
>>into the category of tested scientific theory.
>>
>>However, the Multiverse is not a scientific theory on its own. Rather,

>>it?s a theoretical consequence of the laws of physics as they?re best

I'd think that there is more to it than that. There is a long standing
tradition in physics that phenomena that are not explicitly forbidden
in fact must exist somewhere.

In other words, our fundamental laws are not permissive, they are
proscriptive such as the law of conservation of energy that forbids
the construction or destruction of energy.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[J. J. Lodder]

Of course not. Einstein's is still a clockwork universe.
(that is, it is fully deterministic)
It is just that you have to know
the initial conditions for fields and particles.

Quantum mechanics smashed it,
and that was the reason for Einstein's vehement objections
to Bohr's claims that reality must be intrinsically probabilistic,

Jan

[RSNorman]

To be pedantically correct, Einstein did a lot of the early work
establishing quantum mechanics. Not just the photoelectric effect but
also important work on black body radiation both of which he explained
by quantal effects.

[jillery]

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 12:46:00 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:

Apparently you think Special Relativity made no difference to Newton's
concept of time. No surprise there.

[J. J. Lodder]

Apparenty you think that Newton's absolute time
has some relation to the clockwork universe.
No surprise there, unstead of understanding
you go by the superficial meaning of words,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Sure, Einstein is the founding father of quantum theory. (with Planck)
(but not of quantum mechanics)
He did a lot of later work on QM too,
such as Bose-Einstein statistics,
and above all the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox.
Especially EPR is at the root of much modern work in quantum theory.

EPR discovered how strange QM really is.
Bohr on the contrary tried to hide all problems
in clouds of wooly talk,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

I see. You go by the sound of the words,
without understanding the meaning in context.

Newton's absolute time has nothing to do
with the clockwork universe.

Jan

[jillery]

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 13:10:14 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.

Wow, a twofer. My "superficial" understanding knows that twice
nothing is still nothing.

[jillery]

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 09:46:08 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.

Even if my understanding is superficial, that's still better than you
making things up as you go along.

[John Stockwell]

If the universe began as a quantum fluctuation in a false vacuum state,
then then original sate was in superposition. Wouldn't that primordial state be the multiverse? When the fluctuation that some think was the origin of then Big Bang occurred, the wavefunction collapsed, destroying the superposition state and forming our universe.

At any rate, this sort of stuff is all quite speculative. There isn't any experimental or observational evidence for this.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Nope, vacuum fluctuation doesn't work. Neither does stealing energy/mass for a limited time with the Uncertainty Principle. With an infinite number of Worlds, yes you can get to this point rolling boxcars a gazillion times in a row, but that doesn't apply to the future and it's almost certain the Universe would blink out of existence in the next instant.

[jillery]

On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 05:18:24 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
wrote:

>Nope, vacuum fluctuation doesn't work. Neither does stealing energy/mass for a limited time with the Uncertainty Principle. With an infinite number of Worlds, yes you can get to this point rolling boxcars a gazillion times in a row, but that doesn't apply to the future and it's almost certain the Universe would blink out of existence in the next instant.

How did Alan Guth, Andrei Linde, and Paul Steinhardt take it when you
broke the news to the them?

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 03 Sep 2015 17:37:40 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

They probably also have pisserby killfiled.

[Barry]

No.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 00:01:43 +1000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Barry <Ba...@xx.com>:

>No.

Actually, yes.

[Steven Carlip]

In article <i066va1eoccdnt39q...@4ax.com>,

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 00:01:43 +1000, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Barry <Ba...@xx.com>:
>
> >No.
>
> Actually, yes.

Actually, it depends on just what you mean by "multiverse."

Steve Carlip

[erik simpson]

Asked as requesting information, without any implication of ridicule or
advocacy:

Are there any scientific studies/speculations among cosmolgists that
don't involve string (or brane) theory?

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 18:08:18 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Steven Carlip
<car...@physics.ucdavis.edu>:

Sure; there seem to be many "flavors", from "every decision
goes all possible ways" to the explanations by David Deutsch
in "The Beginning of Infinity", the latter of which I like
at least partly because I can imagine I understand them. ;-)

But as long as the subject is one of scientific enquiry by
scientists I think I can safely conclude that, in general,
it *is* science.

[RSNorman]

Max Tegmark describes 4 different kinds (levels) of multiverse and
none of them involve string theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Max_Tegmark.27s_four_levels

Brian Greene has 9 types, most without string theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Brian_Greene.27s_nine_types

[erik simpson]

Thanks to RSNorman and Bob

[RSNorman]

On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 11:30:55 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

wrote:

>On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 18:08:18 +0100, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by Steven Carlip
><car...@physics.ucdavis.edu>:
>
>>In article <i066va1eoccdnt39q...@4ax.com>,
>> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>>> On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 00:01:43 +1000, the following appeared
>>> in talk.origins, posted by Barry <Ba...@xx.com>:
>
>>> >No.
>
>>> Actually, yes.
>
>>Actually, it depends on just what you mean by "multiverse."
>
>Sure; there seem to be many "flavors", from "every decision
>goes all possible ways" to the explanations by David Deutsch
>in "The Beginning of Infinity", the latter of which I like
>at least partly because I can imagine I understand them. ;-)
>
>But as long as the subject is one of scientific enquiry by
>scientists I think I can safely conclude that, in general,
>it *is* science.

An awful lot of scientists, especially once they have won a Nobel
prize, start spouting all sorts of philosophical nonsense about What
It All Means.

A major objection to string theory as "science" is the lack of
testable predictions. I remember some half century ago a lecture of
Richard Feynman about a quantum theory of gravity: the properties of
gravitons. He started by telling the full lecture hall of CalTech
faculty and students that in order to understand anything of what he
was doing you had to be proficient in both quantum electrodynamics and
general relativity and he could count just two or possibly three
people in attendance who could qualify. Then after an hour of
unintelligible exposition he concluded: "My theory predicts that any
effect of gravitons is too small to measure. Since nobody has ever
measured any effect, the experimental evidence proves my theory to be
correct!" Of course he was kidding about his failure in producing a
useful theory but other physicists take very seriously their
fabrications which, because they are mathematically consistent, "must
necessarily" reflect a truth about the universe. Science is not the
same as mathematics where anything you can dream up must exist.

[erik simpson]

That's been my impression as well. Brian Greene, whom you mentioned is very
heavy into string theory, Max Tegmark not so much. I've tried to read Martin
Rees' six number book, but my interest flagged and I never finished the job.
All these theories/speculations share the theme that "since we don't know that
this isn't the way things are, we might as well consider the possibility that
this is". I find more immediate questions that have actual observations to
ponder much more interesting.

[Glenn]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:i066va1eoccdnt39q...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 00:01:43 +1000, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Barry <Ba...@xx.com>:
>
>>No.
>
> Actually, yes.
> --

If the universe came from a multiverse, where did the multiverse come from?

[Bill]

Bob Casanova wrote:

> On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 18:08:18 +0100, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Steven Carlip
> <car...@physics.ucdavis.edu>:
>
>>In article <i066va1eoccdnt39q...@4ax.com>,
>> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>>> On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 00:01:43 +1000, the following appeared
>>> in talk.origins, posted by Barry <Ba...@xx.com>:
>
>>> >No.
>
>>> Actually, yes.
>
>>Actually, it depends on just what you mean by "multiverse."
>
> Sure; there seem to be many "flavors", from "every decision
> goes all possible ways" to the explanations by David Deutsch
> in "The Beginning of Infinity", the latter of which I like
> at least partly because I can imagine I understand them. ;-)
>
> But as long as the subject is one of scientific enquiry by
> scientists I think I can safely conclude that, in general,
> it *is* science.

in exactly the same way as the study of the mating rituals of unicorns is
science. The methodology is the same so they are both science but surely we
should expect more.

Bill

[jillery]

Is your comment above something you would call "a proposal for
discussion"? Begging your pardon, but it looks to me very much like a
bald opinion masquerading as fact. My impression is that difference
is key to the "worldviews" of your posts and the replies to them.

[RSNorman]

If I understand Tegmark correctly, which itself is questionable, at
least some mutilverse concepts are based on theories to explain
something about our own universe. The existence of multiverses is
sort of a side effect. So there is a test of the theory although that
does not rule out alternative theories that do not include the
multiverse side effect.

[J. J. Lodder]

And even more on what you mean by 'Science',

Jan

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 12:23:07 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastsi...@gmail.com>:

But it *is* a good way to start to investigate the
completely unknown; begin with the hypothesis and try to
disprove it.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 14:59:09 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RSNorman
<r_s_n...@comcast.net>:

>On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 11:30:55 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 18:08:18 +0100, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by Steven Carlip
>><car...@physics.ucdavis.edu>:
>>
>>>In article <i066va1eoccdnt39q...@4ax.com>,
>>> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 00:01:43 +1000, the following appeared
>>>> in talk.origins, posted by Barry <Ba...@xx.com>:
>>
>>>> >No.
>>
>>>> Actually, yes.
>>
>>>Actually, it depends on just what you mean by "multiverse."
>>
>>Sure; there seem to be many "flavors", from "every decision
>>goes all possible ways" to the explanations by David Deutsch
>>in "The Beginning of Infinity", the latter of which I like
>>at least partly because I can imagine I understand them. ;-)
>>
>>But as long as the subject is one of scientific enquiry by
>>scientists I think I can safely conclude that, in general,
>>it *is* science.
>
>An awful lot of scientists, especially once they have won a Nobel
>prize, start spouting all sorts of philosophical nonsense about What
>It All Means.

Their privilege; it's ours to ignore them when they wax
philosophical. ;-)

But that wasn't what I was referring to; there are
apparently scientists who actually use experimental data,
sometimes quite well-known data, as the basis for their
conjectures/speculations/arguments. From what I can see of
his writings Deutsch is one of them, in both the cited book
and in his earlier one, "The Fabric of Reality".

>A major objection to string theory as "science" is the lack of
>testable predictions. I remember some half century ago a lecture of
>Richard Feynman about a quantum theory of gravity: the properties of
>gravitons. He started by telling the full lecture hall of CalTech
>faculty and students that in order to understand anything of what he
>was doing you had to be proficient in both quantum electrodynamics and
>general relativity and he could count just two or possibly three
>people in attendance who could qualify. Then after an hour of
>unintelligible exposition he concluded: "My theory predicts that any
>effect of gravitons is too small to measure. Since nobody has ever
>measured any effect, the experimental evidence proves my theory to be
>correct!"

Love it; thanks! ;-)

Sounds a bit like some arguments about "uniqueness" we've
seen here. Unfortunately, those weren't offered
tongue-in-cheek...

> Of course he was kidding about his failure in producing a
>useful theory but other physicists take very seriously their
>fabrications which, because they are mathematically consistent, "must
>necessarily" reflect a truth about the universe. Science is not the
>same as mathematics where anything you can dream up must exist.

Of course not; while math is a useful tool which *may*
reflect reality there's no reason to suppose it must.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 12:28:02 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:

>"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:i066va1eoccdnt39q...@4ax.com...

>> On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 00:01:43 +1000, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Barry <Ba...@xx.com>:

>>>No.

>> Actually, yes.

>If the universe came from a multiverse, where did the multiverse come from?

Why do you ask, Grasshopper?

But that question can wait until the existence of the
multiverse is confirmed; it's a bit difficult to investigate
the origin of something which doesn't exist. And yes, that's
true of deities, too, regardless of the questions of the
same type seen here occasionally.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 14:43:47 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

I'm sure that once the existence of unicorns is demonstrated
there will be numerous investigations into their mating
rituals, plus their other habits and even their origin. But
their existence is a necessary prerequisite.

Right now we're at the point of knowing the universe exists,
and investigating its nature, origin and context; unicorns,
not so much. But feel free to post the evidence you have.

[Glenn]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:psgbva11lpg13teb5...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 12:28:02 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:
>
>>"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:i066va1eoccdnt39q...@4ax.com...
>
>>> On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 00:01:43 +1000, the following appeared
>>> in talk.origins, posted by Barry <Ba...@xx.com>:
>
>>>>No.
>
>>> Actually, yes.
>
>>If the universe came from a multiverse, where did the multiverse come from?
>
> Why do you ask, Grasshopper?
>
> But that question can wait until the existence of the
> multiverse is confirmed; it's a bit difficult to investigate
> the origin of something which doesn't exist. And yes, that's
> true of deities, too, regardless of the questions of the
> same type seen here occasionally.
> --

A Master would not just handwave away a question of origins. One may offer a different path than all the others and say that the same is true for deities, but you are not one. If you had repeated that when the time was right I would reconsider.

[Bill]

A multiverse has the same kind of existence as a unicorn, as do many other
cosmological conjectures. We call them science because it's scientists doing
the conjecturing. The general view is that science is always about
something, a real phenomenon that actually exists. This (multiverse, etc.)
makes science, as generally understood, merely a methodology without
requiring any objective existence. Little wonder so many here are so
confused about reality.

Bill

[Öö Tiib]

Multiverse might be worse since unicorns are at least possible
to be demonstrated (as found on some other planet or being breed here).
Multiverse is in lot of ways less testable and exploitable concept.

> We call them science because it's scientists doing
> the conjecturing. The general view is that science is always about
> something, a real phenomenon that actually exists. This (multiverse, etc.)
> makes science, as generally understood, merely a methodology without
> requiring any objective existence. Little wonder so many here are so
> confused about reality.

It is likely because people just want to have explanations to what they
can not find explanations. Everybody are confused about reality, in
one or other way. You and me included.

[jillery]

On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 16:08:24 -0700 (PDT), 嘱 Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>
wrote:

Multiverse is presented as a plausible scenario that's based on, and
is consistent with, current astrophysics. In that sense it's similar
to both Ptolemy's model and Newton's model when they were current.
Time will tell which one it more closely resembles.

[Sneaky O. Possum]

Steven Carlip <car...@physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote in news:carlip-
899F71.180...@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu:

And what you mean by 'science.'
--
S.O.P.

[Sneaky O. Possum]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in

news:tpgbvalg6ia6a4v9h...@4ax.com:

Tegmark claims he's simply making a *modus ponens* argument - 'if some
scientific theory X has enough experimental support for us to take it
seriously, then we must take seriously also all its predictions Y, even
if these predictions are themselves untestable (involving parallel
universes, for example).'

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/are-parallel-universes-unscientific-nonsense-insider-tips-for-criticizing-the-multiverse/

http://tinyurl.com/qf7jxom

It seems that even the advocates of multiversalism don't consider it to
be a testable hypothesis.

As it happens, Tegmark's Level I parallel universes are predicted by
inflation theory: his blog post appeared shortly before scientists
announced the detection of gravity waves, a key prediction of inflation
theory, on 17 March 2014:

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2014-05

...except that they didn't.

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/su201516

Oops!
--
S.O.P.

[Öö Tiib]

Ptolemy did live almost 2000 years ago and his model predicts what we
see in sky rather accurately. We still base design of planetarium
projectors on his model. So it was useful from the scratch and is
still useful in practice.

The models built on multiverse hypothesis are many. It is hard even
to tell what those models predict if anything and no one considers
them testable. I feel that Paul Steinhardt is correct that those
are "Theories of anything". Perhaps the models will be good for
something one day but right now I can't imagine what it is.

[jillery]

The conclusions from your last cite put B-mode polarization from
Inflation in the same category that stellar parallax was before Bessel
observed it. IOW theory predicts it should exist, but theory doesn't
limit how faint the signal can be.

IIUC the failure to detect B-mode polarization makes specific
Inflationary models less likely, but not Inflation itself. Four
specific predictions of Inflation have been observationally confirmed:

1) A Flat Universe.

2) A Universe with fluctuations on scales larger than light could have
traveled across.

3) A Universe whose fluctuations were adiabatic, or of equal entropy
everywhere.

4) A Universe where the spectrum of fluctuations were just slightly
less than having a scale invariant (n_s < 1) nature.

<https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/cosmic-inflation-s-five-great-predictions-bf9a560376c7>

<http://tinyurl.com/q7htvr8>

[jillery]

On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 18:02:21 -0700 (PDT), 嘱 Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>

wrote:

>On Monday, 14 September 2015 02:42:35 UTC+3, jillery wrote:

>> On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 16:08:24 -0700 (PDT), ? Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>

Ptolomy's model was good enough for its time. Even Copernicus' model
didn't predict planetary motions any better, just more easily. It
took Galileo's observations through his telescope to prove Ptolemy's
model wrong, and Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion to make more
accurate calculations.

As for whether Ptolemy's model is still useful in practice, you might
be conflating it with the simplifying assumption of treating yourself
as the center of the Universe. I can't imagine why anyone today would
suffer through Ptolemy's equants and epicycles, except as an academic
exercise.

>The models built on multiverse hypothesis are many. It is hard even
>to tell what those models predict if anything and no one considers
>them testable. I feel that Paul Steinhardt is correct that those
>are "Theories of anything". Perhaps the models will be good for
>something one day but right now I can't imagine what it is.

I have no problems with your conclusions in your last paragraph.

[Öö Tiib]

I did only mean with "in practice" that lot of planetariums use planet
projectors that are technically either Copernican or Ptolemaic. Both
use circular rotations but the Ptolemaic projectors are simpler to
construct than Copernican. Most accurate projectors are likely
computer-controlled but it is not cheap to modernize such
special-purpose devices.

> As for whether Ptolemy's model is still useful in practice, you might
> be conflating it with the simplifying assumption of treating yourself
> as the center of the Universe. I can't imagine why anyone today would
> suffer through Ptolemy's equants and epicycles, except as an academic
> exercise.

It is unlikely that someone calculates astrophysical models manually
today. To my knowledge they use or write or ask some friend to write
software for that. There are even free online hands-on programming
courses specially for astronomers. http://python4astronomers.github.io/

[J. J. Lodder]

Sneaky O. Possum <sneaky...@gmail.com> wrote:

Like I also said.
People who want to declare multiverse speculations non-science
typically come up with some restricted view of what 'science' is,
naive empiricism, or naive Popperianism for example,

Jan

[jillery]

On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 00:33:14 -0700 (PDT), 嘱 Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>

wrote:

>On Monday, 14 September 2015 07:02:34 UTC+3, jillery wrote:

>> On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 18:02:21 -0700 (PDT), ? Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>

Ok. Being an application which is indifferent to accurate motion,
planetarium projectors would understandably use whatever mechanism was
easier to manufacture and/or maintain, rather than being deliberately
selected for a particular cosmological model.

>> As for whether Ptolemy's model is still useful in practice, you might
>> be conflating it with the simplifying assumption of treating yourself
>> as the center of the Universe. I can't imagine why anyone today would
>> suffer through Ptolemy's equants and epicycles, except as an academic
>> exercise.
>
>It is unlikely that someone calculates astrophysical models manually
>today. To my knowledge they use or write or ask some friend to write
>software for that. There are even free online hands-on programming
>courses specially for astronomers. http://python4astronomers.github.io/

Since computers can emulate all models with equal ease, my
understanding is they would all be based on Kepler's model at least,
or Einstein's model even better.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 12:02:21 -0700, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:

>
>"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:psgbva11lpg13teb5...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 12:28:02 -0700, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:
>>
>>>"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:i066va1eoccdnt39q...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>> On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 00:01:43 +1000, the following appeared
>>>> in talk.origins, posted by Barry <Ba...@xx.com>:
>>
>>>>>No.
>>
>>>> Actually, yes.
>>
>>>If the universe came from a multiverse, where did the multiverse come from?
>>
>> Why do you ask, Grasshopper?
>>
>> But that question can wait until the existence of the
>> multiverse is confirmed; it's a bit difficult to investigate
>> the origin of something which doesn't exist. And yes, that's
>> true of deities, too, regardless of the questions of the
>> same type seen here occasionally.

>A Master would not just handwave away a question of origins. One may offer a different path than all the others and say that the same is true for deities, but you are not one. If you had repeated that when the time was right I would reconsider.

Assuming I've interpreted your final sentence correctly,
that is essentially what I wrote; in this case "when the
time is right" equals "when their existence is
demonstrated". Until then there's nothing to investigate.
And scientists, unlike religious authorities, *are* trying
to determine whether the subject of their inquiries exists.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 15:04:04 -0500, the following appeared

Actually, we call them science because they are based on
observations (evidence); see below.

> The general view is that science is always about
>something, a real phenomenon that actually exists. This (multiverse, etc.)
>makes science, as generally understood, merely a methodology without
>requiring any objective existence. Little wonder so many here are so
>confused about reality.

Have you read the book I cited, or Deutsch's earlier one? Do
you understand the evidence on which he bases his
conclusions, in *either* book? That evidence includes "real
phenomena that actually exist". Get back to me when you've
read and think you understand his arguments, and we can
discuss them (as laymen, of course, but his writing isn't
excessively technical).

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 10:46:22 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder):

Or the "science is restricted to cataloguing observations"
school of Luddism...

[Bill]

But the are the speculations science or fantasy? Why are some things
considered worthy of investigations and others aren't when they all have the
same degree of evidence?

Bill

[Bill]

Bob Casanova wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 10:46:22 +0200, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder):
>
>>Sneaky O. Possum <sneaky...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Steven Carlip <car...@physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote in news:carlip-
>>> 899F71.180...@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu:
>>>
>>> > In article <i066va1eoccdnt39q...@4ax.com>,
>>> > Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 00:01:43 +1000, the following appeared
>>> >> in talk.origins, posted by Barry <Ba...@xx.com>:
>>> >>
>>> >> >No.
>>> >>
>>> >> Actually, yes.
>>> >
>>> > Actually, it depends on just what you mean by "multiverse."
>>>
>>> And what you mean by 'science.'
>>
>>Like I also said.
>>People who want to declare multiverse speculations non-science
>>typically come up with some restricted view of what 'science' is,
>>naive empiricism, or naive Popperianism for example,
>
> Or the "science is restricted to cataloguing observations"
> school of Luddism...

Which is the bulk of most sciences, biology especially.

Bill

[Bill]

Consider the following, "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for
experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and
eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." (Nikola
Tesla). As for your book recommendations, I've read many similar so the
ideas are familiar. Another tome of possible interest is, "The End of
Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific
Age" (John Horgan). Everything about science is controversial to some extent
so it's naive to claim any certainty about much of anything.

Bill

[Sneaky O. Possum]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in

news:4j6eva1c4d7s99i5t...@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 10:46:22 +0200, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder):
>
>>Sneaky O. Possum <sneaky...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Steven Carlip <car...@physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote in news:carlip-
>>> 899F71.180...@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu:
>>>
>>> > In article <i066va1eoccdnt39q...@4ax.com>,
>>> > Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 00:01:43 +1000, the following appeared
>>> >> in talk.origins, posted by Barry <Ba...@xx.com>:
>>> >>
>>> >> >No.
>>> >>
>>> >> Actually, yes.
>>> >
>>> > Actually, it depends on just what you mean by "multiverse."
>>>
>>> And what you mean by 'science.'
>>
>>Like I also said.
>>People who want to declare multiverse speculations non-science
>>typically come up with some restricted view of what 'science' is,
>>naive empiricism, or naive Popperianism for example,
>
> Or the "science is restricted to cataloguing observations"
> school of Luddism...

Luddites hate technology, not science. Classical Luddites hated the
newfangled machines because they couldn't get work: modern Luddites hate
the newfangled machines because they can't get them to work.
--
S.O.P.

[J. J. Lodder]

I know it is hard for you to take,
but with Darwin biology became a theoretical science,
and stamp collectors are looked down upon,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 10:46:22 +0200, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder):
>
> >Sneaky O. Possum <sneaky...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Steven Carlip <car...@physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote in news:carlip-
> >> 899F71.180...@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu:
> >>
> >> > In article <i066va1eoccdnt39q...@4ax.com>,
> >> > Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 00:01:43 +1000, the following appeared
> >> >> in talk.origins, posted by Barry <Ba...@xx.com>:
> >> >>
> >> >> >No.
> >> >>
> >> >> Actually, yes.
> >> >
> >> > Actually, it depends on just what you mean by "multiverse."
> >>
> >> And what you mean by 'science.'
> >
> >Like I also said.
> >People who want to declare multiverse speculations non-science
> >typically come up with some restricted view of what 'science' is,
> >naive empiricism, or naive Popperianism for example,
>
> Or the "science is restricted to cataloguing observations"
> school of Luddism...

Darwin already dealt with that, with his well known dictum.
(go count pebbles!)

A slightly more advanced form of that is know as 'naive positivism',
which least insists that science should be no more than
an 'economical' condensation of the observations.
(have you seen an atom?)

All of these have in common that they can't face the fact
that science has become to a large extent theoretical,

Jan

[passer...@gmail.com]

Oh look, Lizard Brain here is also stinking ignorant that Paul Steinhardt says it's eternal Big Bangs and Crunches too.

1,000,000 to 1 this downbreed can't do elementary algebra.

On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 7:53:06 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Sep 2015 17:37:40 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
> >On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 05:18:24 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
> >wrote:
> >
> >>Nope, vacuum fluctuation doesn't work. Neither does stealing energy/mass for a limited time with the Uncertainty Principle. With an infinite number of Worlds, yes you can get to this point rolling boxcars a gazillion times in a row, but that doesn't apply to the future and it's almost certain the Universe would blink out of existence in the next instant.
> >
> >
> >How did Alan Guth, Andrei Linde, and Paul Steinhardt take it when you
> >broke the news to the them?
>
> They probably also have pisserby killfiled.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Paul Steinhardt agrees with me, Sparky. Universe always here, banging and crunching. Big news to you, huh? 100 to 1 you can't do elementary algebra.

On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 5:43:09 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 05:18:24 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >Nope, vacuum fluctuation doesn't work. Neither does stealing energy/mass for a limited time with the Uncertainty Principle. With an infinite number of Worlds, yes you can get to this point rolling boxcars a gazillion times in a row, but that doesn't apply to the future and it's almost certain the Universe would blink out of existence in the next instant.
>
>
> How did Alan Guth, Andrei Linde, and Paul Steinhardt take it when you
> broke the news to the them?

[jillery]

On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 13:34:07 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
wrote:

>Paul Steinhardt agrees with me, Sparky. Universe always here, banging and crunching. Big news to you, huh? 100 to 1 you can't do elementary algebra.

If you hum a few bars I can fake it.

[passer...@gmail.com]

'Cyclic universe' can explain cosmological constant
* 19:00 04 May 2006 * NewScientist.com news
service * Zeeya Merali

A cyclic universe, which bounces through a series of big bangs and "big
crunches", could solve the puzzle of our cosmological constant,
physicists suggest.

http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn9114-cyclic-universe-can-explain\
-cosmological-constant.html

Edge, The Cyclic Universe

...The standard model, or consensus model, assumes that time has a
beginning that we normally refer to as the Big Bang. According to this
model, for reasons we don't quite understand, the universe sprang from
nothingness into somethingness, full of matter and energy, and has
been expanding and cooling for the past 15 billion years. In the
alternative model the universe is endless. Time is endless in the
sense that it goes on forever in the past and forever in the future,
and, in some sense, space is endless. Indeed, our three spatial
dimensions remain infinite throughout the evolution of the universe.

More specifically, this model proposes a universe in which the
evolution of the universe is cyclic. That is to say, the universe goes
through periods of evolution from hot to cold, from dense to
under-dense, from hot radiation to the structure we see today, and
eventually to an empty universe. Then, a sequence of events occurs that
cause the cycle to begin again. The empty universe is reinjected with
energy, creating a new period of expansion and cooling. This process
repeats periodically forever. What we're witnessing now is simply the
latest cycle.
The notion of a cyclic universe is not new. People have considered
this idea as far back as recorded history. The ancient Hindus, for
example, had a very elaborate and detailed cosmology based on a cyclic
universe. They predicted the duration of each cycle to be 8.64 billion
years-a prediction with three-digit accuracy. This is very
impressive, especially since they had no quantum mechanics and no string
theory! It disagrees with the number that I'm going suggest, which is
trillions of years rather than billions.
The cyclic notion has also been a recurrent theme in Western thought.
Edgar Allan Poe and Friedrich Nietzsche, for example, each had cyclic
models of the universe, and in the early days of relativistic
cosmology, Albert Einstein, Alexandr Friedman, Georges Lemaître,
and Richard Tolman were interested in the cyclic idea. I think it is
clear why so many have found the cyclic idea to be appealing: If you
have a universe with a beginning, you have the challenge of explaining
why it began and the conditions under which it began. If you have a
universe, which is cyclic, it is eternal, so you don't have to explain
the beginning.

During the attempts to try to bring cyclic ideas into modern
cosmology, it was discovered in the '20s and '30s that there are
various technical problems. The idea at that time was a cycle in which
our three-dimensional universe goes through periods of expansion
beginning from the Big Bang and then reversal to contraction and a big
crunch. The universe bounces and expansion begins again..."

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/steinhardt02/steinhardt02_p3.html

Everett, Einstein, Godel, every scientist and mathematician worth a damn has realized it's a cyclic universe.

And we all live forever in the Many Worlds of the Kingdom of the Father.

[Greg Guarino]

On 9/14/2015 3:48 PM, Bill wrote:
> Consider the following, "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for
> experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and
> eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." (Nikola
> Tesla)

On the Wiki page for "Black Hole" there is a history of the concept,
starting as far back as 1783. Much of the theoretical work was done
during Tesla's lifetime, perhaps by the very people Tesla refers to;
long before any empirical observations were made.

Sometimes purely theoretical mathematically-derived entities prove to be
real, bearing fruit often enough to make the work worth undertaking.

[Bill]

I've been forming the opinion that even our best efforts miss the point. The
more I participate in this newsgroup, the more convincing this opinion
becomes.

Even with all the noisy objections about some of my observations, those
observations remain persuasive because they are about meaning and not just
mindless clockworks. There is much more to the universe than just the
configurations of its constituent parts. The physical stuff seems to be the
means by which other stuff emerges and it's this emergent stuff that really
matters.

I've offered the existence of intelligent observers as the most obvious
example. Is it really just an accident, little particles that cohere through
random collisions into conscious entities? There's a huge gap between what
we can expect from dead matter and what emerges as intelligent observation.
Our existence is far more than the sum of the physical parts pointlessly
bouncing around inside us.

As you point out, ideas exist prior to their realization so that whatever we
think is more than just our immediate environment. A thousand years ago
people imagined things that were utterly impossible, things we take for
granted now. We know that the impossible is a moving target and may not,
ultimately, apply to anything.

Our current paradigm assumes an entirely mechanistic, wholly materialistic
answer for every question; the universe is a machine. We know better of
course but we are trapped by assumptions that force us to reduce reality to
mechanisms that match our expectations. This paradigm limits what we will
learn by what we observe, to what we expect to find based on the paradigm
itself. It really is a trap.

BTW, more on topic, I just finished a science fiction novel, "The Fold" by
Peter Clines that goes into the multiverse idea in an entertaining way.

Bill

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 14:48:36 -0500, the following appeared

How can you know what he has to say based on "many similar",
and how do you know they're similar, and contain no
evidence, without reading his books? You remind me of the
yokel who, on first seeing an elephant, stated "There ain't
no sech animal!" Except that he looked at it before denying
its existence.

Bottom line: You have no interest in discussing the things
Deutsch covers in his books, which are based on the evidence
he presents in those books, evidence you deny exists without
looking at it.

OK; got it. HAND.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 20:12:01 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Sneaky O. Possum"
<sneaky...@gmail.com>:

Point. We need a word to use for those I described. "Dolts"
and "morons" are too general.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 11:09:22 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Greg Guarino
<gdgu...@gmail.com>:

But mathematical rigor and elegance alone are never
sufficient to test hypotheses.

[Bill]

I don't read books just to use them as citations in this newsgroup. Having
read many books on astronomy, physics and cosmology, etc. I know what they
contain, in general, since they are about the science of those fields. The
big breakthroughs included. I also know, from reading, that each science is
based to varying degrees on hypotheses and incomplete data interpreted
through hypothesis. There is no one, complete, perfectly authoritative book
on much of anything and there are always dissenters when that claim is made.

It shouldn't be too great a burden to summarize the points you find worth
discussing. Merely pointing to some source or web link doesn't mean you
either read it yourself or understood it. That's what discussions are for.
I'm open to talking about most things so raise a point you find interesting
and let's talk about it. Quit dredging up excuses for your bad behavior.

Bill

[jillery]

<PING> Dang it!

[Vincent Maycock]

On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 13:56:57 -0500, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Greg Guarino wrote:
>
>> On 9/14/2015 3:48 PM, Bill wrote:
>>> Consider the following, "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics
>>> for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and
>>> eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." (Nikola
>>> Tesla)
>>
>> On the Wiki page for "Black Hole" there is a history of the concept,
>> starting as far back as 1783. Much of the theoretical work was done
>> during Tesla's lifetime, perhaps by the very people Tesla refers to;
>> long before any empirical observations were made.
>>
>> Sometimes purely theoretical mathematically-derived entities prove to be
>> real, bearing fruit often enough to make the work worth undertaking.
>
>I've been forming the opinion that even our best efforts miss the point. The
>more I participate in this newsgroup, the more convincing this opinion
>becomes.
>
>Even with all the noisy objections about some of my observations, those
>observations remain persuasive

Who here has been won over to what they feel is objectionable? From
what I've seen, your "observations" are either wrong or trivial;
"persuasive" would not be the word of choice to describe your
postings.

>because they are about meaning and not just
>mindless clockworks. There is much more to the universe than just the
>configurations of its constituent parts.

Non-discreditationally speaking, would this be God that you're
referring to?

>The physical stuff seems to be the
>means by which other stuff emerges and it's this emergent stuff that really
>matters.

Emergent phenomena are not the same as God (or anything else
non-physical for that matter). It's just a word that describes
phenomena that really can't be modeled from first principles, due to
the complexity of the system they comprise.

>I've offered the existence of intelligent observers as the most obvious
>example. Is it really just an accident, little particles that cohere through
>random collisions into conscious entities? There's a huge gap between what
>we can expect from dead matter and what emerges as intelligent observation.

A gap which is bridged by evolutionary change.

>Our existence is far more than the sum of the physical parts pointlessly
>bouncing around inside us.

Reading Bill's post with a critical eye, I here suggest that the
"something else" is God or maybe some angels, in Bill's view.

>As you point out, ideas exist prior to their realization so that whatever we
>think is more than just our immediate environment. A thousand years ago
>people imagined things that were utterly impossible, things we take for
>granted now. We know that the impossible is a moving target and may not,
>ultimately, apply to anything.

No, the laws of physics tell us that some things will always be
impossible.

>Our current paradigm assumes an entirely mechanistic, wholly materialistic
>answer for every question; the universe is a machine. We know better of
>course

No, the universe is very much like a machine.

> but we are trapped by assumptions that force us to reduce reality to
>mechanisms that match our expectations.

I think most scientists would rather learn something new than force
reality to match their expectations.

>This paradigm

I think you're projecting your own thought processes onto other
people. That is, you have this paradigm called theism that forces
you to view the world in a certain way; the idea that scientists are
forced to this or that because of some paradigm or philosophy is
really just projection on your part.

[Bill]

Vincent Maycock wrote:

...

>
> I think you're projecting your own thought processes onto other
> people. That is, you have this paradigm called theism that forces
> you to view the world in a certain way; the idea that scientists are
> forced to this or that because of some paradigm or philosophy is
> really just projection on your part.

A tediously shallow refrain, common here. When non-mechanistic phenomena are
explained mechanistically, the result is nonsense. When these explanations
are defended simply to obscure alternatives, they are worse than nonsense.
When this nonsense is exposed, it must be some theist conspiracy since any
good non-theist will never admit to defending nonsense. Thanks for making my
point.

Bill

[Vincent Maycock]

On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 19:16:07 -0500, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Vincent Maycock wrote:
>
>...
>
>>
>> I think you're projecting your own thought processes onto other
>> people. That is, you have this paradigm called theism that forces
>> you to view the world in a certain way; the idea that scientists are
>> forced to this or that because of some paradigm or philosophy is
>> really just projection on your part.
>
>A tediously shallow refrain, common here. When non-mechanistic phenomena are
>explained mechanistically, the result is nonsense.

When you say non-mechanistic phenomena, are we talking about God,
here?

> When these explanations
>are defended simply to obscure alternatives,

Like Intelligent Design, maybe?

> they are worse than nonsense.
>When this nonsense is exposed, it must be some theist conspiracy

No, there are no conspiracies, theist or otherwise, involved.

[Greg Guarino]

On 9/15/2015 2:56 PM, Bill wrote:
> Greg Guarino wrote:
>
>> On 9/14/2015 3:48 PM, Bill wrote:
>>> Consider the following, "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics
>>> for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and
>>> eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." (Nikola
>>> Tesla)
>>
>> On the Wiki page for "Black Hole" there is a history of the concept,
>> starting as far back as 1783. Much of the theoretical work was done
>> during Tesla's lifetime, perhaps by the very people Tesla refers to;
>> long before any empirical observations were made.
>>
>> Sometimes purely theoretical mathematically-derived entities prove to be
>> real, bearing fruit often enough to make the work worth undertaking.

Any actual comment about the above? It seems to me that Tesla was wrong;
mathematical manipulation can indeed lead us to discoveries we might be
unlikely to make, or make as quickly, without it.

> I've been forming the opinion that even our best efforts miss the point. The
> more I participate in this newsgroup, the more convincing this opinion
> becomes.

> Even with all the noisy objections about some of my observations, those
> observations remain persuasive because they are about meaning and not just
> mindless clockworks.

You seem to think that reality is incompatible with "meaning". I'm a
son, a brother, a husband, a father, an uncle, a cousin and a friend.
Also a musician, a woodworker, a tourist, and a sometime student of
foreign language; also wise, foolish, interested and indifferent.
Whether or not there's something beyond our daily existence, rest
assured that I find no lack of "meaning".

And I am also the descendant of billions of years of life on Earth, a
relative to every life form. I react to that fact with wonder, not
disappointment. Whatever meaning there is must incorporate that as well.

> There is much more to the universe than just the
> configurations of its constituent parts. The physical stuff seems to be the
> means by which other stuff emerges and it's this emergent stuff that really
> matters.

Some people find all that physical stuff fascinating, not to mention
useful. But beyond that, you seem to think we can more effectively
divine the meaning of the universe if we ignore ... well ... the universe.

>
> I've offered the existence of intelligent observers as the most obvious
> example. Is it really just an accident, little particles that cohere through
> random collisions into conscious entities?

Here's one of your problems. I have no idea if there is some
"intelligence" or "plan" behind the universe. Maybe, maybe not. I rather
suspect that whatever the ultimate "why" turns out to be, it will be
nothing like any human being has imagined.

But some things we can know something about. Intent or not, plan or not,
creator or not, life on earth is related. It has evolved and diverged
from a pool of early ancestors. So if there is a "plan", then the
evolution of life is part of it. Your problem is that you limit the
"plans" that are acceptable.

> There's a huge gap between what
> we can expect from dead matter and what emerges as intelligent observation.

And yet, every intelligent observer we know of appears to be composed of
the same dead matter, operating in exactly the same way that dead matter
operates everywhere else. If there's a plan, that seems to be an
integral part of it.

> Our existence is far more than the sum of the physical parts pointlessly
> bouncing around inside us.

Even if there is "more" (and perhaps especially if there *is* "more"),
what makes the physical stuff pointless? I imagine you believe in a
creator of some kind. Did he create all that stuff merely as a
distraction? Do you really think we study it to our detriment?

> As you point out, ideas exist prior to their realization so that whatever we
> think is more than just our immediate environment. A thousand years ago
> people imagined things that were utterly impossible, things we take for
> granted now. We know that the impossible is a moving target and may not,
> ultimately, apply to anything.
>
> Our current paradigm assumes an entirely mechanistic, wholly materialistic
> answer for every question; the universe is a machine.

Our current paradigm tells us that science can only study material
processes. The ultimate nature of "everything" does not seem to be
within human grasp.

> We know better of
> course but we are trapped by assumptions that force us to reduce reality to
> mechanisms that match our expectations. This paradigm limits what we will
> learn by what we observe, to what we expect to find based on the paradigm
> itself. It really is a trap.

I'll ask again how it is you think you know any of that.

I see an obvious irony. Your overriding thesis has been that scientists
find what they expect to find, evidence notwithstanding. Yet you have
managed to form a firm opinion about science and scientists without
knowing anything about either. You just *know* that it's their
motivations that drive their conclusions, rather than any "evidence",
but don't think it's worth your while to find out what the evidence is.

[Bill]

Greg Guarino wrote:

...

>> ... we are trapped by assumptions that force us to reduce reality

>> to mechanisms that match our expectations. This paradigm limits what we
>> will learn by what we observe, to what we expect to find based on the
>> paradigm itself. It really is a trap.
>
> I'll ask again how it is you think you know any of that.
>
> I see an obvious irony. Your overriding thesis has been that scientists
> find what they expect to find, evidence notwithstanding. Yet you have
> managed to form a firm opinion about science and scientists without
> knowing anything about either. You just *know* that it's their
> motivations that drive their conclusions, rather than any "evidence",
> but don't think it's worth your while to find out what the evidence is.

My opinions about science are not the issue. Science in any of its many
forms, is a valid way of interpreting natural phenomena. I have repeated
this many times. Science is not the problem and maybe isn't even relevant to
my point.

Through the sciences we know, generally, how nature works. I have not
disputed this. This also gives us a basis for determining what doesn't work,
magic,for instance. But does that tell the whole story?

Our existence is the strongest evidence that the sciences are only partially
informative. No other living thing on this planet can comprehend our
science, none of them can understand human technology. Of all the species on
this planet, only humans know why cars are made, no other know how they are
made and none has any idea what their purpose might be. All other species
will recognize the physical presence of a car, its size, maybe its speed or
its weight or even its color yet know nothing whatsoever of its utility.

Our own artifacts are evidence of something being more than just its
constituent parts, we see it every minute of the day. There is nothing in
any of the sciences that can explain why humans find their gadgets useful.
None of the sciences can show that nature creates any of the machines we
depend on or why we obsessively improve them. All we know is that nature
developed us and we developed machines.

This simple and obvious and continuously verified fact reduces to absurdity
the mechanistic, materialistic, naturalistic, reductionism so popular here.
We are the proof of the failure of this philosophy every time we post to
this newsgroup.

Bill

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 15:58:07 -0500, the following appeared

Of course there are; that's how science works. If you want
absolute surety take up a religion; they're usually
perfectly happy to have no evidence. Of course, they "also"
disagree with each other, often lethally, but there y'go...

>It shouldn't be too great a burden to summarize the points you find worth
>discussing. Merely pointing to some source or web link doesn't mean you
>either read it yourself or understood it. That's what discussions are for.
>I'm open to talking about most things so raise a point you find interesting
>and let's talk about it.

OK, please address the point Deutsch made in his first book,
that the evidence from slit experiments suggests (not
"proves" or "demonstrates"; simply "suggests") interference
between parallel universes. Critique and offer alternate
explanations.

> Quit dredging up excuses for your bad behavior.

Mote. Beam. Eye.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 17:20:25 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

Pretty much...

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 19:16:07 -0500, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

He didn't, but you made his.

First of all, define "non-mechanistic phenomena", and show
why they *must* be "non-mechanistic", i.e., not the result
of physical processes, since that'sthe only way in which
they can be considered "nonsense" a priori.

Second, demonstrate how you know that the only reason the
cited explanations are defended is due to the desire to
avoid what I assume you regard as inconvenient (for science)
knowledge, when no such evidence as requested above has been
presented. Note that "It's obvious" isn't evidence.

Third, present an alternative to the assumption of theism as
an explanation of "non-mechanistic" influence, but only
*after* showing why such influence exists and *must* be
non-physical.

Thanks.

[Bill]

Your summary is too brief to critique. Maybe you really didn't understand it
as well as you think. There is also the Calabi–Yau manifold which
complicates the notion of parallel dimensions. People have been trying to
figure out the slit experiments for years, without much success. I would
agree that other dimensions seem plausible but there is no explanatory value
since it can't be tested.

In fact, invoking other dimensions seem to postpone resolution since we then
need to determine why its affects only appear in very restricted
experimental conditions. Why, for instance, do the dimensions only interfere
in the one instance for which they are proposed? Maybe your summary needs
work.

Bill

[Bill]

Bob Casanova wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 19:16:07 -0500, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:
>
>>Vincent Maycock wrote:
>
>>> I think you're projecting your own thought processes onto other
>>> people. That is, you have this paradigm called theism that forces
>>> you to view the world in a certain way; the idea that scientists are
>>> forced to this or that because of some paradigm or philosophy is
>>> really just projection on your part.
>
>>A tediously shallow refrain, common here. When non-mechanistic phenomena
>>are explained mechanistically, the result is nonsense. When these
>>explanations are defended simply to obscure alternatives, they are worse
>>than nonsense. When this nonsense is exposed, it must be some theist
>>conspiracy since any good non-theist will never admit to defending
>>nonsense. Thanks for making my point.
>
> He didn't, but you made his.
>
> First of all, define "non-mechanistic phenomena", and show
> why they *must* be "non-mechanistic", i.e., not the result
> of physical processes, since that'sthe only way in which
> they can be considered "nonsense" a priori.

An obvious example is any human artifact. As I've mentioned before, The
pyramids of Giza are just limestone, automobiles are just iron, people are
just proteins. Why do we make things? Why do we value things?

Most of human reality exists only in the human mind. Gears, levers, bridges,
plumbing, political boundaries, currency, society, laws, value, are
additions to the physical existence in the physical environment. They are
not real in the same way as dirt clods or rain puddles or clouds and they
only exist to humans. By every sensible definition of physical existence,
human artifacts are non-mechanistic phenomena.

>
> Second, demonstrate how you know that the only reason the
> cited explanations are defended is due to the desire to
> avoid what I assume you regard as inconvenient (for science)
> knowledge, when no such evidence as requested above has been
> presented. Note that "It's obvious" isn't evidence.

Dismissing my remarks as theistic reveals a base assumption of atheism and
distorts the points made. My posts are not anti-atheist or pro-theist so the
mention of either is just a sleazy dodge.

>
> Third, present an alternative to the assumption of theism as
> an explanation of "non-mechanistic" influence, but only
> *after* showing why such influence exists and *must* be
> non-physical.

See above. Humans are the best evidence of the insufficiency of mechanistic
explanations. We can explain what humans are in a mechanistic context but we
can't explain what we do or why or why our creations matter to us. Most of
human reality is in the human mind, there is nothing in nature that requires
it and nothing in nature that predicts it. Human reality is in addition to
and other than the mechanistic, physical existence from which it emerges.

Why is this so difficult to understand; it's right there in front of us.

Bill

[Vincent Maycock]

No one is trying to "dismiss" your remarks. They get debunked the
same whether you're a theist or not.

>as theistic reveals a base assumption of atheism and
>distorts the points made. My posts are not anti-atheist or pro-theist so the
>mention of either is just a sleazy dodge.

So you're a theist who doesn't allow his biases slip into his posts?

>> Third, present an alternative to the assumption of theism as
>> an explanation of "non-mechanistic" influence, but only
>> *after* showing why such influence exists and *must* be
>> non-physical.
>
>See above. Humans are the best evidence of the insufficiency of mechanistic
>explanations.

Nonsense (and that would be the case regardless of whether your a
theist or not).

>We can explain what humans are in a mechanistic context but we
>can't explain what we do or why or why our creations matter to us.

We do things because we want to survive better, which natural
selection has bred into us.

[Sneaky O. Possum]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in

news:ldajvatbog08gh4al...@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 19:16:07 -0500, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:
>
>>Vincent Maycock wrote:
>
>>> I think you're projecting your own thought processes onto other
>>> people. That is, you have this paradigm called theism that forces
>>> you to view the world in a certain way; the idea that scientists
>>> are forced to this or that because of some paradigm or philosophy is
>>> really just projection on your part.
>
>>A tediously shallow refrain, common here. When non-mechanistic
>>phenomena are explained mechanistically, the result is nonsense. When
>>these explanations are defended simply to obscure alternatives, they
>>are worse than nonsense. When this nonsense is exposed, it must be
>>some theist conspiracy since any good non-theist will never admit to
>>defending nonsense. Thanks for making my point.
>
> He didn't, but you made his.

Not really, no. Vincent made the mistake of assuming that Bill uses words
the way normal people do - that is, to express thoughts in a manner that
other people will find intelligible. In fact, Bill uses words the way
Bill uses them - that is, to remind us that we're benighted fools who
understand nothing while Bill, the World's Onliest, Loneliest Genius,
sees all.

What both you and Vincent are overlooking is the fact that Bill is, by
his own account, a pothead. He's like, *enlightened*, man. His Doors of
Perception have *totally* been opened.

> First of all, define "non-mechanistic phenomena", and show
> why they *must* be "non-mechanistic", i.e., not the result
> of physical processes, since that'sthe only way in which
> they can be considered "nonsense" a priori.

As you've seen, Bill thinks manmade artifacts are non-mechanistic. If you
were a Bill-level Genius, that would make sense!

> Second, demonstrate how you know that the only reason the
> cited explanations are defended is due to the desire to
> avoid what I assume you regard as inconvenient (for science)
> knowledge, when no such evidence as requested above has been
> presented. Note that "It's obvious" isn't evidence.

It is when you're a Bill-level Genius!

> Third, present an alternative to the assumption of theism as
> an explanation of "non-mechanistic" influence, but only
> *after* showing why such influence exists and *must* be
> non-physical.

It's all in the mind, dude.
--
S.O.P.

[Bill]

Is smoking dope a problem? It's only an impediment when the other guys
aren't stoned. I recommend it to anyone, especially those who feel they know
everything. Even more especially to those who believe that everything is
just little pieces of stuff magically held together in a immense magical
machine called the universe.

>
>> First of all, define "non-mechanistic phenomena", and show
>> why they *must* be "non-mechanistic", i.e., not the result
>> of physical processes, since that'sthe only way in which
>> they can be considered "nonsense" a priori.
>
> As you've seen, Bill thinks manmade artifacts are non-mechanistic. If you
> were a Bill-level Genius, that would make sense!

No, that's not what I said. I said that the physical artifacts of human
reality are imbued with the very non-physical, non mechanical attributes of
purpose, design, value, meaning, function and utility. The example I used
(believing even the simplest minds could grasp it) is a car. There is the
physical thing, made of many physical parts. Any physical description will
miss all the non-physical aspects such as purpose, design, function,
performance, comfort, cool, desire and of course, why.

The physical description tells us nothing on such things a the route driven,
the preferred speed, the destination or road rage. It tells us nothing about
why some colors used on cars appeal to us or what trim package we want. An
appeal to a mechanistic explanation isn't very informative when all these
factors are considered.

This is just one example, of many, of why a wholly mechanistic explanation
is rarely explanatory.

>
>> Second, demonstrate how you know that the only reason the
>> cited explanations are defended is due to the desire to
>> avoid what I assume you regard as inconvenient (for science)
>> knowledge, when no such evidence as requested above has been
>> presented. Note that "It's obvious" isn't evidence.
>
> It is when you're a Bill-level Genius!
>
>> Third, present an alternative to the assumption of theism as
>> an explanation of "non-mechanistic" influence, but only
>> *after* showing why such influence exists and *must* be
>> non-physical.
>
> It's all in the mind, dude.

Yes, I've made exactly that point but, since the consensus seems to be that
the mind is merely a mechanical outgrowth of the brain and the brain is
entirely mechanical, there really isn't a mind at all. From what is
routinely posted in this newsgroup, that characterization probably does
apply to many here.

Bill

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:06:53 -0500, the following appeared

I'm not going to type in the entire damned book. If you want
to discuss it, fine; read it and list the points you want to
address. If you just want to stand on the sidelines and
catcall, have a good time. But don't then claim that no one
else is willing to hold a serious discussion.

> Maybe you really didn't understand it
>as well as you think.

Probably not; I'm not in Deutsch's class. But I suspect I
have a better notion of what it means than does someone who
hasn't read it.

> There is also the Calabi–Yau manifold which
>complicates the notion of parallel dimensions. People have been trying to
>figure out the slit experiments for years, without much success. I would
>agree that other dimensions seem plausible but there is no explanatory value
>since it can't be tested.

That's why I used the term "suggests".

>In fact, invoking other dimensions seem to postpone resolution since we then
>need to determine why its affects only appear in very restricted
>experimental conditions. Why, for instance, do the dimensions only interfere
>in the one instance for which they are proposed?

No one, including Deutsch, says they do. Try reading the
book.

> Maybe your summary needs work.

It's not a summary, it's a reference to a published work,
with enough detail to indicate its nature. Reading and
thinking about is for *you* to do *if* you're actually
interested, but I suspect you have zero actual interest in
the subject and are only interested in whining.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:27:55 -0500, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

>Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 19:16:07 -0500, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>Vincent Maycock wrote:
>>
>>>> I think you're projecting your own thought processes onto other
>>>> people. That is, you have this paradigm called theism that forces
>>>> you to view the world in a certain way; the idea that scientists are
>>>> forced to this or that because of some paradigm or philosophy is
>>>> really just projection on your part.
>>
>>>A tediously shallow refrain, common here. When non-mechanistic phenomena
>>>are explained mechanistically, the result is nonsense. When these
>>>explanations are defended simply to obscure alternatives, they are worse
>>>than nonsense. When this nonsense is exposed, it must be some theist
>>>conspiracy since any good non-theist will never admit to defending
>>>nonsense. Thanks for making my point.
>>
>> He didn't, but you made his.
>>
>> First of all, define "non-mechanistic phenomena", and show
>> why they *must* be "non-mechanistic", i.e., not the result
>> of physical processes, since that'sthe only way in which
>> they can be considered "nonsense" a priori.
>
>An obvious example is any human artifact. As I've mentioned before, The
>pyramids of Giza are just limestone, automobiles are just iron, people are
>just proteins. Why do we make things? Why do we value things?

So you're definition of "non-mechanistic" is anything
involving thoughts or ideas, even though those thoughts and
ideas can't exists except within the physical framework of
the brain?

>Most of human reality exists only in the human mind. Gears, levers, bridges,
>plumbing, political boundaries, currency, society, laws, value, are
>additions to the physical existence in the physical environment. They are
>not real in the same way as dirt clods or rain puddles or clouds and they
>only exist to humans. By every sensible definition of physical existence,
>human artifacts are non-mechanistic phenomena.

>> Second, demonstrate how you know that the only reason the
>> cited explanations are defended is due to the desire to
>> avoid what I assume you regard as inconvenient (for science)
>> knowledge, when no such evidence as requested above has been
>> presented. Note that "It's obvious" isn't evidence.

>Dismissing my remarks as theistic reveals a base assumption of atheism and
>distorts the points made. My posts are not anti-atheist or pro-theist so the
>mention of either is just a sleazy dodge.

Then it should be no problem to actually address what I
wrote, and stop employing the "discrimination" dodge. Note
that at no point did I claim your remarks are theistic,
atheistic or otherwise; I only asked for one piece of
information, which you failed to address.

>> Third, present an alternative to the assumption of theism as
>> an explanation of "non-mechanistic" influence, but only
>> *after* showing why such influence exists and *must* be
>> non-physical.
>
>See above. Humans are the best evidence of the insufficiency of mechanistic
>explanations. We can explain what humans are in a mechanistic context but we
>can't explain what we do or why or why our creations matter to us. Most of
>human reality is in the human mind, there is nothing in nature that requires
>it and nothing in nature that predicts it. Human reality is in addition to
>and other than the mechanistic, physical existence from which it emerges.

If some characteristic traits emerge consistently from a
physical structure and *only* from that structure, thoughts
and ideas from brains, for instance, it's a pretty safe bet
that there's no deus ex machina responsible. Until you can
demonstrate that thoughts and ideas can arise *without* a
brain in the loop there's no reason to hypothesize anything
more than the usual laws of physics and chemistry at work.

>Why is this so difficult to understand; it's right there in front of us.

Yes, it is. And some of us seem determined to inject occult
mystery where there's no evidence of its existence.

[Bill]

So, you can't provide a useful summary of the book. Here's one that I ran
across a while back, "The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in
the Twilight of the Scientific Age" John Horgan. It's no good anymore of
course since it was published in 1996 and reality has changed since then but
you have to read it since we're throwing books at each other.

Bill

[Bill]

So I've gone from a new-agey, plagiarist, theist spouting woo, to a
proponent of occult mystery. Ironically, you deny that you characterize my
posts as theistic in the same post that you claim I am theistic (occultist).
You need to proofread your own posts before misreading mine.

A brain is the physical vehicle for the non-physical mind. The obvious fact
that the mind can conjure up just about anything, physical and otherwise, is
evidence that it is not "just" an electro-chemical process. We see no
evidence of programming, no limitation on what we can imagine or how we can
understand what we imagine. There is no evidence that we are "mere"
automatons, reacting to external stimuli without free choice or thought.

To reapply my analogy of an automobile: the existence of a machine, a car,
does not fully explain it. The machine itself does not explain its design or
purpose or utility or value; it's just a collection of precisely machined
parts, precisely fitted together. No other living thing on this planet knows
what a car is for, so its physical presence is not all there is to it. This
same distinction applies to the mind.

Pretending to understand the brain well enough to determine what it isn't,
is just an empty boast with no substance and zero evidence. The attempt
itself is only made because a preexisting philosophical bias requires it.
You want all of reality to be fully explainable in mechanistic terms so
that's how you interpret all phenomena. I think that is just fluff, shallow
and specious so I interpret phenomena differently. Neither of us can know if
the other is right or even wrong. The necessary information is just not
there.

Bill

[erik simpson]

No, you haven't gone anywhere. You're a troll, still under the same bridge.

[Vincent Maycock]

On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 13:56:36 -0500, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

snip

>> If some characteristic traits emerge consistently from a
>> physical structure and *only* from that structure, thoughts
>> and ideas from brains, for instance, it's a pretty safe bet
>> that there's no deus ex machina responsible. Until you can
>> demonstrate that thoughts and ideas can arise *without* a
>> brain in the loop there's no reason to hypothesize anything
>> more than the usual laws of physics and chemistry at work.
>>
>>>Why is this so difficult to understand; it's right there in front of us.
>>
>> Yes, it is. And some of us seem determined to inject occult
>> mystery where there's no evidence of its existence.
>
>So I've gone from a new-agey, plagiarist, theist spouting woo, to a
>proponent of occult mystery.

Here Bill pretends to have enough courage to describe his own history,
but of course if you read it carefully you find he's just saying
people's opinions about him have changed over time in that way, not
that he has.

>Ironically, you deny that you characterize my
>posts as theistic in the same post that you claim I am theistic (occultist).
>You need to proofread your own posts before misreading mine.

The evidence indicates that you're not particularly interested in the
occult. As far as I can tell, you're some kind of semi-conservative
Christian.

>A brain is the physical vehicle for the non-physical mind. The obvious fact
>that the mind can conjure up just about anything, physical and otherwise, is
>evidence that it is not "just" an electro-chemical process. We see no
>evidence of programming, no limitation on what we can imagine

Imagine the proof of a difficult math theorem.

>or how we can
>understand what we imagine. There is no evidence that we are "mere"
>automatons, reacting to external stimuli without free choice or thought.
>
>To reapply my analogy of an automobile: the existence of a machine, a car,
>does not fully explain it. The machine itself does not explain its design or
>purpose or utility or value; it's just a collection of precisely machined
>parts, precisely fitted together. No other living thing on this planet knows
>what a car is for, so its physical presence is not all there is to it. This
>same distinction applies to the mind.
>
>Pretending to understand the brain well enough to determine what it isn't,
>is just an empty boast with no substance and zero evidence. The attempt
>itself is only made because a preexisting philosophical bias requires it.

What's this bias? Atheism?

>You want all of reality to be fully explainable in mechanistic terms

No, the only thing that makes this alternate seems attractive is that
it's more plausible, and indeed seems to correspond to the way the
world actually works.

> so
>that's how you interpret all phenomena.

It's the best way to interpret the phenomena.

>I think that is just fluff, shallow
>and specious so I interpret phenomena differently.

Here we see a possible instance of Bill's theism slipping into one of
his supposedly non-theist posts. I think we're supposed to understand
that the way he interprets phenomena is through the lens of theism.

>Neither of us can know if
>the other is right or even wrong.

No, it's usually quite clear when you're wrong.

[Bill]

I noticed that you said nothing about either the topic of my post or even
the topic of this thread. Instead you talked about me. I have decided to
interpret your inability to supply a cogent remark as either: you're unable
to follow the discussion, you're afraid of where an open discussion might
lead, you disagree but can't figure out why, you have no rational rebuttal
or you're an idiot. It could be any one or more of these, in any combination
but the main point is that you didn't address the points being discussed.

What you did do however was bring in irrelevancies about my alleged motives
hoping to smear me with a guilt by association fallacy. You might seem
marginally less dim if you could show how these alleged motives affect the
point I was discussing. You might even appear somewhat intelligent if you
can show how that my points are only possible in a theist perspective.

Bill

[Bill]

Show your corrections. In what way was I mistaken? What are the facts that
show my error?

Bill

[Vincent Maycock]

No, I talked about the post (notice where I challenged you to tell me
what pre-existing philosophical bias you were talking about, and where
I challenged you to "imagine" a difficult math theorem proof (if in
fact our minds can imagine anything, as you suggested)).

As for the thread topic, yes I think the multiverse is science.

> Instead you talked about me.

Well, you're not a boring individual. There are lots of nuances,
subtleties, and implications on your part that may lead curious
posters to try and unravel them -- even if that leads to outcomes that
you're afraid to deal with.

>I have decided to
>interpret your inability to supply a cogent remark as either: you're unable
>to follow the discussion, you're afraid of where an open discussion might
>lead,

You mean ... lead towards theism, and the supposed unpleasantness for
what theists say God commands in my life?

>you disagree but can't figure out why, you have no rational rebuttal
>or you're an idiot. It could be any one or more of these, in any combination
>but the main point is that you didn't address the points being discussed.
>
>What you did do however was bring in irrelevancies about my alleged motives
>hoping to smear me with a guilt by association fallacy.

I haven't said anything about your motives; I've dealt strictly with
what sorts of evidence I found in your posts.

Maybe it would help if you would explain in detail how you think
you're being smeared.

> You might seem
>marginally less dim if you could show how these alleged motives affect the
>point I was discussing.

Well, you keep saying that people are trying to avoid the
"implications" of your posts. On its own, the statement makes no
sense.

But in the light of the theory that you see the discussion as a
conflict between theism and non-theism, it all makes sense, because
theists are known to think exactly that about atheists: that we don't
want to follow God's rules. So putting your statements into the
context of theism vs. atheism solves a puzzle relating to why you
claim what you claim.

>You might even appear somewhat intelligent if you
>can show how that my points are only possible in a theist perspective.

I don't think they are; you just happen to be using them from that
perspective.

[Bill]

Vincent Maycock wrote:

...

>>I noticed that you said nothing about either the topic of my post or even
>>the topic of this thread.
>
> No, I talked about the post (notice where I challenged you to tell me
> what pre-existing philosophical bias you were talking about, and where
> I challenged you to "imagine" a difficult math theorem proof (if in
> fact our minds can imagine anything, as you suggested)).

Materialism, even methodological, is philosophy, ontology in the case talked
about here. A somewhat extreme version is mechanistic materialism and it's
this that I see as the bias most common here. It's the notion that
everything reduces to its component parts and the parts are exactly the same
as what they comprise. Or, put another way, the universe is a vast machine
and everything is a cog.

This is assumed but not examined, it's just the way things are. This works
for the sciences and the engineers and the guys who stock groceries. There
are times throughout the day when a mechanistic view is useful. It does not
follow that because this variety of materialism has value in one case that
it applies in every case. People here insist that this is the whole story.
That is bias I refer to.

>
> As for the thread topic, yes I think the multiverse is science.
>
>> Instead you talked about me.
>
> Well, you're not a boring individual. There are lots of nuances,
> subtleties, and implications on your part that may lead curious
> posters to try and unravel them -- even if that leads to outcomes that
> you're afraid to deal with.

I try to be clear and avoid slang and catch phrases and other inane page
fillers so I really don't see that much subtlety. Granted, there are those
who couldn't comprehend an idea regardless how well it's expressed, but I
believe others deliberately misunderstand, chasing after some rhetorical
advantage. The bias of materialism runs deep, forcing those who defend it to
appear grievously dim and simple. I believe I've made all the major points
necessary to parse my posts.

>
>>I have decided to
>>interpret your inability to supply a cogent remark as either: you're
>>unable to follow the discussion, you're afraid of where an open discussion
>>might lead,
>
> You mean ... lead towards theism, and the supposed unpleasantness for
> what theists say God commands in my life?

That pertains to nothing. It doesn't address anything I've said. It is
laughable non sequitur.

>
>>you disagree but can't figure out why, you have no rational rebuttal
>>or you're an idiot. It could be any one or more of these, in any
>>combination but the main point is that you didn't address the points being
>>discussed.
>>
>>What you did do however was bring in irrelevancies about my alleged
>>motives hoping to smear me with a guilt by association fallacy.
>
> I haven't said anything about your motives; I've dealt strictly with
> what sorts of evidence I found in your posts.
>
> Maybe it would help if you would explain in detail how you think
> you're being smeared.
>
>> You might seem
>>marginally less dim if you could show how these alleged motives affect the
>>point I was discussing.
>
> Well, you keep saying that people are trying to avoid the
> "implications" of your posts. On its own, the statement makes no
> sense.
>
> But in the light of the theory that you see the discussion as a
> conflict between theism and non-theism, it all makes sense, because
> theists are known to think exactly that about atheists: that we don't
> want to follow God's rules. So putting your statements into the
> context of theism vs. atheism solves a puzzle relating to why you
> claim what you claim.

Yet another irrelevancy. It might disappoint you to know that no one takes
atheists seriously. Atheism isn't about some special knowledge, known only
to atheists, that God(s) don't exist. It's a claim of superiority based on
the atheist's certainty that he is superior, it's a pose. It doesn't take a
theist to see the absurdity.

This has not been a discussion about "a conflict between theism and non-
theism". To me it was about a multiverse hypothesis and where that thought
led. The fact that this is all you saw in these posts, suggests that the
real discussion was over you head. In order to participate you had to change
the subject to, "a conflict between theism and non-theism" since it requires
no real thought.

If I'm wrong, address the topic in your next post and suppress the urge to
disorient yourself.

Bill

[Mark Isaak]

On 9/17/15 11:32 AM, Bill wrote:
> Bob Casanova wrote:
>

>> [...]

>> It's not a summary, it's a reference to a published work,
>> with enough detail to indicate its nature. Reading and
>> thinking about is for *you* to do *if* you're actually
>> interested, but I suspect you have zero actual interest in
>> the subject and are only interested in whining.
>
> So, you can't provide a useful summary of the book.

So, you have no interest in the book in the first place.

> Here's one that I ran
> across a while back, "The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in
> the Twilight of the Scientific Age" John Horgan. It's no good anymore of
> course since it was published in 1996 and reality has changed since then but
> you have to read it since we're throwing books at each other.

Has it escaped your notice that twenty years have passed since Horgan
wrote his book, and science is going as strong or stronger than ever?

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel

[Mark Isaak]

That is not a move.

> A brain is the physical vehicle for the non-physical mind. The obvious fact
> that the mind can conjure up just about anything, physical and otherwise, is
> evidence that it is not "just" an electro-chemical process.

Just as obvious as the fact that televisions can conjure up just about
anything, physical and otherwise, is evidence that they are not "just"
an electrical process.

But, I expect you to argue, the images on TV need to be created first.
Well, the same is true of what the mind conjures up. The mind does not
create any significant ideas which did not come from outside of it.
Oftentimes it *rearranges* those outside ideas in new ways that people
count as new ideas, but the mind, like television, does not make up new
stuff out of nothing.

> We see no evidence of programming,

Um, we most certainly do. Ever heard of "learning"?

> no limitation on what we can imagine or how we can
> understand what we imagine.

Get real. Anyone reading your posts sees nothing *but* limitations on
imagination. And you yourself have said much the same about others.

> There is no evidence that we are "mere"
> automatons, reacting to external stimuli without free choice or thought.

Why do theists always want to reduce humans to "mere" something?
Automatons too can be glorious.

> To reapply my analogy of an automobile: the existence of a machine, a car,
> does not fully explain it. The machine itself does not explain its design or
> purpose or utility or value; it's just a collection of precisely machined
> parts, precisely fitted together. No other living thing on this planet knows
> what a car is for, so its physical presence is not all there is to it. This
> same distinction applies to the mind.

Now the question is, Why do you want to keep it that way? Why do you
want the functions and operations and values of the mind to remain
forever unknown?

> Pretending to understand the brain well enough to determine what it isn't,
> is just an empty boast with no substance and zero evidence.

You don't have the faintest idea what evidence exists regarding the
mind. Are you aware that it is possible to remotely trigger or suppress
very small groups of neurons in a brain, and that doing so can
predictably trigger, e.g., aggression or craving? Your shallow
philosophizing does not take that into account, nor any of a thousand
other observations about the mind. That is why you have doomed yourself
to be wrong.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 13:32:25 -0500, the following appeared

No? Didn't think so.

> If you just want to stand on the sidelines and
>> catcall, have a good time. But don't then claim that no one
>> else is willing to hold a serious discussion.
>>
>>> Maybe you really didn't understand it
>>>as well as you think.
>>
>> Probably not; I'm not in Deutsch's class. But I suspect I
>> have a better notion of what it means than does someone who
>> hasn't read it.
>>

>>> There is also the Calabi?Yau manifold which

>>>complicates the notion of parallel dimensions. People have been trying to
>>>figure out the slit experiments for years, without much success. I would
>>>agree that other dimensions seem plausible but there is no explanatory
>>>value since it can't be tested.
>>
>> That's why I used the term "suggests".
>>
>>>In fact, invoking other dimensions seem to postpone resolution since we
>>>then need to determine why its affects only appear in very restricted
>>>experimental conditions. Why, for instance, do the dimensions only
>>>interfere in the one instance for which they are proposed?
>>
>> No one, including Deutsch, says they do. Try reading the
>> book.
>>
>>> Maybe your summary needs work.
>>
>> It's not a summary, it's a reference to a published work,
>> with enough detail to indicate its nature. Reading and
>> thinking about is for *you* to do *if* you're actually
>> interested, but I suspect you have zero actual interest in
>> the subject and are only interested in whining.
>
>So, you can't provide a useful summary of the book.

Read the damn book; as I said, I'm not going to type
hundreds of lines just to have you claim either to not
understand it or to disagree without giving a reasoned
argument why.

> Here's one that I ran
>across a while back, "The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in
>the Twilight of the Scientific Age" John Horgan. It's no good anymore of
>course since it was published in 1996 and reality has changed since then but
>you have to read it since we're throwing books at each other.

Your summary needs work.Maybe you don't understand it as
well as you think you do. And reality doesn't change; only
our understanding of it does. HAND.