Finding an explanation for our Universe
S D Rodrian
than is provided by the post quoted below of
why it's ALWAYS better to look upon reality
with one's own eyes... rather than through the
assembled puzzles of formal logic's painstakingly
deliberately blind "arrangements & arrays" of "all
related minutia/details" (supposedly to "see" the
"big picture" objectively) and/or mathematics [&
every other formal discipline whose function most
properly lies with instituting internal agreements
in their own equations]. In effect, their purpose is
to resolve all "their" internal self-contradictions
rather than to explain anything of the universe
which may appear contradictory to us---That is:
"There are no paradoxes in Nature, only in our
minds." And the true purpose of all such formal
disciplines ought to be to help us understand why
we may not be understanding (interpreting) reality
correctly... rather than the pretense (fallacy) that
they can resolve "the paradoxes inherent to reality"
for our benefit (or, better put, to our gratification
... as if it were the mind that is the true reality and
the universe but merely a puzzled "mirage" which
must inevitably yield (answer) to us once we come
close enough to it). [And you can read in the poster's
appendix the strength of his superstition that he has
eliminated human biases by looking at the matter
NOT with his eyes, but with his formal discipline.]
It is hardly surprising, therefore, that... the Book of
Genesis boasts how language itself ("the word" that
is really "our words") created Heaven and Earth. And
why --to this day-- persons who really ought to "know
better" keep proposing physical impossibilities merely
because they are metaphysically possible (and all so
very "real")... in their dreams.
S D Rodrian
http://web.sdrodrian.com
http://www.sdrodrian.com
http://music.sdrodrian.com
re:
In article <93pf3t$hiu$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>,
"Alastair Malcolm" <amal...@physica.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
There may be some interest here in the following key points of a
little publicized explanation of our universe, variations of which
several professional researchers are starting to take very seriously.
>
This post takes as its starting point an objective world, and the
absence of any God/Creator (a justification for this starting point
is in the website given below). The Anthropic Principle can then be
used to reject the case for a single universe: the odds of the
physical laws being precisely tuned by luck to give life as we know
it are extremely remote (for other life-types see web site below,
p102); moreover a similar argument can be used to dismiss the case of
many universes falling under one set of overarching physical laws
(eg many worlds theory of quantum mechanics) as an ultimate
explanation: why should the underlying physical laws happen
to be just right to generate a large number of universes, with a
conveniently wide range of physical conditions? And why this
*particular* set of overarching physical laws?
>
Which only leaves us with the case of many worlds, *not* constrained
by an overarching set of physical laws: all logically possible
universes exist. The lesson of the likely infinities of space and
time in *our* universe should have taught us that nature does not
pander to the limitations of our minds, so the slight mind stretching
that is needed to accommodate this case should come as no surprise.
>
A little further mind stretching is needed to refute the main objection
to the All-Logically-Possible-Universes (ALPU) hypothesis, which is:
why do I happen to be in one of the few possible worlds governed solely
by the relatively simple physical laws - why not in one of the far more
numerous worlds where crazy things happen, like a dragon suddenly
swooping by? To refute this objection, we need a human-bias-free way of
representing our world that automatically encapsulates the physical
laws (rather than the survival-geared image that is created by our
minds), such as some mathematical model based on the (yet to be found)
'Theory of Everything', or a minimal length bit string containing all
the information about the universe. Using these, it can soon be shown
(see web pages p105, p112; or the Appendix below for a brief summary)
that (perceptibly) simple universes predominate, so we should not
expect to see dragons or other paranormal events: ALPU is the only
reasonable explanation for our universe.
>
More details starting at
http://www.physica.freeserve.co.uk/p101.htm
>
(For anyone interested in fundamental questions in general, please
start at http://www.physica.freeserve.co.uk/p001.htm)
>
Alastair Malcolm
>
APPENDIX: If we break down the human-bias-free representation
of our universe into logical units (such as the axioms of a
mathematical representation, or the bits of a minimal informational
representation), and let our universe be minimally specifiable by
n such logical units and an alternative universe containing a dragon
by n+d units (more units because dragons add complexity), then we
can say that for all logically possible universes specifiable by
m units (where m is any number one likes n+d), there will be far
more possible combinations of units containing the particular n units
of our universe (with the excess m-n units specifying entities and
space-time regions invisible to us), than those containing the
particular n+d units of dragon-containing universes (which only have
m-n-d extra units for combinations). (Note the number of possible
invisible entities, including those in other space-time regions, will
vastly outweigh possible visible entities like dragons.) Hence we
should be in the simplest possible universe (in terms of visible
entities) consistent with the existence of thinking beings - no dragons
or other paranormal events will occur. (Hence the success of induction,
and Occam's Razor, as applied to the physical world.)
-- 30 --
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
SDRodrian
"Joe Martin" <joe.w....@nospam-att.net> wrote:
>
> S D Rodrian <SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message
> news:93sd62$dif$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > It's just human nature to avoid admitting
> > we just don't know (and have no idea how to
> > go about finding out)... apparently at ANY cost.
> >
>
> Religion is a perfect example. People make up
> stories along the years that
> sound good and then with all their energy,
> convince themselves that their
> idea and stories are fact (self brainwashing
... not to mention mass-hysteria cases where
a crowd will actually convince itself it is
witnessing a miracle of some sort or other.
> is a funny thing) when there
> isn't one good shred of 'real' evidence
> to support the 'fact' and then even
> fabricate 'fuzzy evidence' that can't
> really be knocked down because there
> is a disclaimer in their 'bible' which
> says that no matter what anyone else
> says, the reader and believer is right
> and the non believers are wrong.
> Blind faith is a very weak personality trait.
Actually, it's THE normal personality, as
I do not know of, nor have I ever met anyone
who does not "believe" in the supernatural
and/or is religious:
People "believe" in God (say), but if asked
how/why the know God exists (necessarily as
a three-dimensional "body") they will either
simply say "He's not physical BUT he does
exist" (an absurdity) and/or may simply explain
that they KNOW God exists, "because the flowers
bloom in the Spring" (a non sequitur).
Am I somehow exempt from this universal human
"trait" (which we might be too hasty in condemning
it as a "flaw")...? Absolutely not: I too believe
in God, even though I KNOW not only that there is
NO God, but that there could NEVER have been a God.
It's irrational, true. But it's the way it is; and
a good lesson... about going with your almost always
gung-ho gut-feelings instead of your dispassionate
intellectual skepticism. [i.e. Ignore what you
believe is THERE (there is) and look with your eyes.
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
sdrodrian.com
music.sdrodrian.com
> I believe in nothing religiously because
> there has been no proof offered to
> me to think otherwise logically. To think
> that there are thousands of
> religions that all believe themselves
> the one and only correct one proves my
> point. I trust science more than I trust
> the guy down the street that wants
> me to call him 'Father'.
> Joe
S D Rodrian
scientists play with things, the superstitious
are just... playing with their minds.
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
sdrodrian.com
re:
In article <93t64p$9ip$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com>,
"Steven Vranch" <Steven...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> I agree with Swipper. People believe in religion, they have "blind
faith" of
> a sort. To them however, it is not so blind, they have their faith
proved
> and rewarded in a way that conforms to their interpretation of truth -
of
> reality. To stand upon science and say "What I call proof is the real
> proof, what I call truth, the truest of truth!" is just as bad - if
you
> consider it to be bad, which I don't - as standing upon the bible and
saying
> the same. It is all about your personal paradigm - your personal set
of
> rules. You cannot prove that god exists within the set of rules for
> interpretation of fact that a scientist uses, but by the same token
you
> cannot prove many scientific values which contradict religious
values, with
> the set of rules a religious man might use. A scientist is a religion
man of
> sorts, he follows the religion of science. However some men do not
follow
> the religion of science in a scientific fashion - science requires
that you
> can prove something in repeatable experiment. For a scientist to
say "God
> does not exist" with certainty, he must prove it in a repeatable
experiment,
> or else say he does not know for sure. I am unaware of any such
proof, and
> as I follow - or attempt to - the religion of science, I am forced to
say
> that I do not know for sure. To go over an idea from an earlier reply
to
> this thread - about fear of not knowing - a scientist attacking
religion
> without proof one way or the other, is guilty of that same fear. It
does
> seem that religion is a characteristic of the growth of society. That
a
> stage is reached when man has opened his eyes enough to fear the
skies as
> unknown. To lessen this fear, he invents a new paradigm with which to
deal
> with it. However this has not been proven, and so it is a belief. I
believe
> that is true, as my mother believes that god exists. Religion
questions
> science, and vice versa. Science is kept alive by questions, so I say
that
> this is healthy. A weak character trait is fear of the unknown, fear
of that
> which you convince yourself must be impossible. If that is true, then
many
> so-called scientists have weak characters too. We all have beliefs,
but they
> are just that - beliefs - not facts.
>
> You will excuse me please for deviating from the original subject.
> --
> |x|-._.-~-._.-fuzzlekazoom.-_.-~-._.-|x|
David Whitmore
Gordon D. Pusch
> Does the mind exist?
You certainly wouldn't know it from crackpot usenet-posters like SDRodrian...
-- Gordon D. Pusch
perl -e '$_ = "gdpusch\@NO.xnet.SPAM.com\n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'
S D Rodrian
David Whitmore <c4d...@flash.net> wrote:
> Does the mind exist?
I can only speak of your mind:
If you think... you are. --Descartes
SDR
Andy
>Religion is a perfect example. People make up
>stories along the years that
>sound good and then with all their energy,
>convince themselves that their
>idea and stories are fact (self brainwashing
To have a discussion you need to know the other side of the coin, that
usually means studying your opponents argument. In your case religion,
the Bible, Torah, Quran, Gita ect, ect.
I have never met a 'non-believing' person yet that has even bothered
to pick up any of these or at least have an open mind on the subject.
Any religious person will say ' I don't believe in the 'big bang'
theory and walk away, just as a non-believing person does with
religion.
I do think that the people behind science and religion do have a lot to
answer to the human race for.
i.e the atomic bomb and fanatical religions.
Small wonder human kind is still the most dangerous singular thing on
this planet.
Just playing the devils advocate on this one (for lack of a better
phrase)
Andy
In article <9435o9$1an$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, S D Rodrian