U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-30-2015, 05:03 AM
 
39,242 posts, read 10,913,531 times
Reputation: 5100

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Thanks, Curithne. I value your friendship. I realize that my perspective is not typical and I have failed miserably to explain it . . . or my use of analogy. I will try yet again (using more analogies) to explain what I was analogizing (it was NOT the physics). I see physics and its mathematics like a very complex camera taking pictures of our reality. The processes and mechanisms of how the "physics camera" works are very important and useful to physicists. But to ME . . . the "pictures"(formulations) it produces are what reveal the ontology of our reality. You and my other critics here are arguing about how the "physics camera" works and what its mechanisms and processes really ARE. Most people would not need to know that to appreciate the "pictures" it takes.

I am concerned with the "pictures" the "physics camera" has already produced and what they can tell us about reality. My analogies are targeted at explaining what the "pictures" reveal to me . . . NOT how the "physics camera" works or what the processes actually ARE, etc. I am losing faith that I can ever communicate my perspective or what I was analogizing adequately. You may in fact be right. It may be a lost cause. Still . . . I am not that disappointed because my Synthesis was an off-the-cuff explanation of the reasons for my beliefs to a very persistent friend.

My Synthesis is NOT remotely targeted at teaching physics (few people care about that) . . . but at explaining what the physics says to me about the structure of reality in ways that are accessible to a lay audience . . . and why I think so. Ontology is not a widespread concern of most people . . . nor is trying to discern it from physics. My analogies are targeted to achieve that goal . . . NOT teaching physics. It does seem to satisfy my tenacious friend (and some others) . . . so I am satisfied with that.
Count me in there, old mate. Yes, I do understand that your idea is seeing physics or we might say 'reality'...no, that's God, isn't it...let's just say what we think of material stuff and its workings...as like the human senses. We get a conventionalized image of the world outside which is presented by the way our sensory organs work and is interpreted in terms of information and indeed 'experience' by our mind (I am using my view of the matter of course, rather than yours). It is a very stylized and conventionalized image, and of course open to error and misinterpretation, but it nevertheless conveys information about reality. You may recall that used the analogy of a radar screen. It present to our mind (the operator of the radar set) an image that is nothing like the world outside but nevertheless presents correct information about the reality.

I that same way physics and the workings of matter reflect the greater reality that if God. Or at least I get the idea that is how the synthesis works. I have to say that I remain unconvinced, and I don't see that quoting physics incorrectly (if indeed Morbert, Cruithne and others are correct in saying so - they seem to agree on that) is helping very much in conveying, let alone convincing about, your synthesis.

If I may make a simple analogy, it comes across rather like Creationists using incorrect presentations of geological and palaeontological data in order to explain how Eden and the flood is real. Though they simply deny the facts rather than argue that they are just an analogy of the fact used to tell us how the flood and Eden happened.

You can perhaps step outside your area of bewilderment at us not understanding you and try to understand why we find it hard to understand you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-30-2015, 05:22 AM
 
39,242 posts, read 10,913,531 times
Reputation: 5100
Yes, analogy is - I have noticed - a favourite tool of the bamboozler. In all areas of debate, not just religion. In my post about Woodmorrappe's review of Miller's book, he used the analogy of aliens finding a piece of mechanism and arguing about whether it was natural or artificial. This was a pretty blatant example of a loaded example designed to lead the reader in one direction - to see the naturalist as stupidly failing to recognize obvious design.

Other analogies are loose analogies that are used to to prove a point. This is not what an analogy should do. It should be a known and proven situation used to illustrate another (which also ought to be known and proven, but hard to understand) in order to make it comprehensible. It can be that a known analogy can be used to prove or substantiate a more difficult hypothesis, but then the analogy has to be pretty exact. If it isn't it is invalid as proof.

It can also be used to make a suggestion or hypothesis comprehensible (which is what Mystic is trying to do, it seems), though it still leaves the synthesis without any shred of good evidential support, just faith that the feelings about God are true.

Very often what we get is the business of using a loose analogy used to try to validate a hypothetical claim. The 'Barber shop' analogy is a good one. It is objected that God could cure or heal or forgive everyone if he wanted. The analogy says that a lot of people don't have haircuts, but that doesn't mean there are no barbers. It only means that some people don't go to the barber.

Therefore some people don't get cured, healed, forgiven, because they don't go to God.

This analogy is used to prove something. That it is not God's fault if some people don't get cured, healed, forgiven, because they didn't go to him. But barbers are not gods. If they were, they could give everyone a haircut by snapping a finger. That God requires people to 'Go to him' is only a condition imposed by him for his own purposes. This means that yet again 'Free will' does not ge God off the hook. His game, his rules, his responsibility, why do we get the blame and punishment. It stinks.

This is the sort of invalid use of analogy that theist apologetics -and I regret to say - other areas of argument - use. Which is why I maintain that religion in the classroom should be replaced by critical and logical thinking.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2015, 06:15 AM
 
5,462 posts, read 5,944,384 times
Reputation: 1804
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
I realize that my perspective is not typical
That's not true. It's a variation of Quantum mysticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and as you can see, is common enough to have its own wiki page. The references posted on that page aren't particularly flattering, but the analysis of the scientific rigor of this kind of faith is consistent with what we've seen in this thread.

Heck, the task of writing this kind of woo are so mundane that it has been relegated to computers : http://sebpearce.com/bull****/ (CD is filtering the link, but everyone can guess what the URL is). Here's some examples of the computerized version of this kind of writing :

"Consciousness consists of morphogenetic fields of quantum energy."
"The grid is full of four-dimensional superstructures. "
"The quantum matrix is electrified with vibrations."

Sound similar to anything presented in this thread? Looks like automation may put someone out of a job if they're not careful.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2015, 06:20 AM
 
39,242 posts, read 10,913,531 times
Reputation: 5100
Quantum Mysticism.. I learn something new every day. Now I understand the Theist apologist dabbling in the murky waters of Quantum in hopes of tickling up a gap for God. Are the computers programmed to sneer at those who are incapable of understanding what they are churning out?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2015, 09:11 AM
 
93 posts, read 66,451 times
Reputation: 40
I thought I'd comment on the topic at hand. From the original post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by .EL. View Post
Some atheists depend upon “The Nothing Theory” because they have been traumatized by theist ideology. Just saying, “We come from nothing, we are nothing, and we will be nothing” isn’t good enough. This is a tedious theory that closes your mind and inspires no one. We need a new theory. We need intelligent innovative ideas. We need to extrapolate from what is known to what is unknown.
"Nothing" is used a lot in pop-science descriptions of quantum gravity, and even in some papers (see Hawking et al). But its use is a little misleading. What follows is a short description of the relevant issue.

Our scientific models fail to be even approximately true if we try to use them to extrapolate too far back. General relativity stops being capable of correctly describing the universe because we do not have a quantum mechanical version of general relativity. I.e. We do not have a quantum-mechanical description of gravity, and gravity is very important at the big bang, so we do not have a good physical description of the big bang.

One attempt to produce such a description was undertaken by Hawking and Hartle. They employ a mathematical device called an instanton to describe the early universe as emerging from a Hartle-Hawking state. In their model, the universe, including time and space and everything in it, emerges from a pointlike three-geometry with no matter, energy, momentum, space, or time. This is what Hawking refers to as "nothing". But it is a quantum mechanical nothing. It is something which can be described with an element in Hilbert space.

It is a difficult model to work with. It involves lots of complicated integration over complicated spacetime manifolds, but it at least suggest that an approximate description of the universe, from beginning to end, can be described with the laws of physics.

But what it doesn't do is address nothingness in the Heideggerian sense. It does not answer the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" All it does is give a (potentially) complete description of the universe that is consistent with philosophical positions like materialism or naturalism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2015, 10:30 AM
 
40,168 posts, read 26,797,761 times
Reputation: 6056
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Thanks, Curithne. I value your friendship. I realize that my perspective is not typical and I have failed miserably to explain it . . . or my use of analogy. I will try yet again (using more analogies) to explain what I was analogizing (it was NOT the physics). I see physics and its mathematics like a very complex camera taking pictures of our reality. The processes and mechanisms of how the "physics camera" works are very important and useful to physicists. But to ME . . . the "pictures"(formulations) it produces are what reveal the ontology of our reality. You and my other critics here are arguing about how the "physics camera" works and what its mechanisms and processes really ARE. Most people would not need to know that to appreciate the "pictures" it takes.

I am concerned with the "pictures" the "physics camera" has already produced and what they can tell us about reality. My analogies are targeted at explaining what the "pictures" reveal to me . . . NOT how the "physics camera" works or what the processes actually ARE, etc. I am losing faith that I can ever communicate my perspective or what I was analogizing adequately. You may in fact be right. It may be a lost cause. Still . . . I am not that disappointed because my Synthesis was an off-the-cuff explanation of the reasons for my beliefs to a very persistent friend.

My Synthesis is NOT remotely targeted at teaching physics (few people care about that) . . . but at explaining what the physics says to me about the structure of reality in ways that are accessible to a lay audience . . . and why I think so. Ontology is not a widespread concern of most people . . . nor is trying to discern it from physics. My analogies are targeted to achieve that goal . . . NOT teaching physics. It does seem to satisfy my tenacious friend (and some others) . . . so I am satisfied with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morbert View Post
Dude, you absolutely were. I recognised it almost instantly. Two examples are below. The text from your post is in red, the text from the article is in blue.<snip>
You just changed some words.
I was going to continue to drive home why your excuse was nonsense, but after seeing the other replies to your post, I am now confident others are aware of the mistakes you were making, and know to take anything you say about physics with a grain of salt.
What was the purpose of this post, Morbert? How does it advance the discussion?

What about it shows that I am wrong in my knowledge of the material?
What about it shows that I am wrong in my understanding of the material?
What about it shows that the material is NOT supportive of my views?

The post does NONE of that revealing that your true and only agenda is to attack me personally in any way possible. Ask yourself why you want to do that? The use of ad hominem is the tool of choice for intellectual lightweights . . . not scholars and philosophers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2015, 11:26 AM
 
Location: Somewhere out there.
6,872 posts, read 3,797,576 times
Reputation: 4613
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCfromNC View Post
That's not true. It's a variation of Quantum mysticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and as you can see, is common enough to have its own wiki page. The references posted on that page aren't particularly flattering, but the analysis of the scientific rigor of this kind of faith is consistent with what we've seen in this thread.

Heck, the task of writing this kind of woo are so mundane that it has been relegated to computers : http://sebpearce.com/bull****/ (CD is filtering the link, but everyone can guess what the URL is). Here's some examples of the computerized version of this kind of writing :

"Consciousness consists of morphogenetic fields of quantum energy."
"The grid is full of four-dimensional superstructures. "
"The quantum matrix is electrified with vibrations."

Sound similar to anything presented in this thread? Looks like automation may put someone out of a job if they're not careful.

Awesome. I had no idea there was an umbrella term for the world of quantum and pseudo-science.
Interesting page.

I would however point out that people should read that page in context and that not all that is quantum is 'mystical' nor that just because we don't understand it yet, the exploration of it is not necessarily pseudo-science.
Many of the giant names in physics are mentioned in that article as having questioned the mysterious elements of the quantum world. Pauli, Schrodinger, Wigner, Penrose and even Einstein himself who coined the phrase "spooky action at a distance' in reference to quantum entanglement.

Deepak Chopra on the other hand I'd take with a pinch of salt since he has no scientific experience in the field.
I thought one of the most entertaining arguments recently, has been between Chopra and Brian Cox on twitter in which this happened:

Quote:
Deepak Chopra: No scientific cause can be ascribed to the Big Bang the sudden appearance of energy & matter or cosmological constants. #CosmicConsciousness

Brian Cox:@DeepakChopra: No scientific cause can be ascribed to the Big Bang … " Yes it can, read about eternal inflation #CosmicConsciousnessmyarse

Deepak Chopra: Real scientists have epistemic humility,reverence for existence, value transcendence, have healthy skepticism @allforafairsoc @ProfBrianCox

Brian Cox: The most important attribute for a 'real scientist', as you put it @DeepakChopra , is to actually understand some science.
Kind of sums it up really.
You can read about it here:

Deepak Chopra doesn't understand quantum physics, so Brian Cox wants $1,000,000 from him

Brilliant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2015, 11:38 AM
 
40,168 posts, read 26,797,761 times
Reputation: 6056
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
If you wish. Most of my critics lack intellectual integrity and seek only to denigrate me. They are quite willing to lie and misrepresent my prior posts, my knowledge, my understanding, and then inflate their unsubstantiated criticisms with deceit. It is quite tiresome.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monumentus View Post
Part of that failure comes from your refusal to use analogy correctly.
In other words rather than use analogy to render something understandable - you contrive quite deliverately to use it to bamboozle even further in a Deepak Chopra way of attempting to be less understood in the hopes people will consider your points complex and true.

As another user pointed out in the thread already - those that understand the science see what you are doing as nonsense - it is those that do not understand science that are going to be bamboozled - not assisted - by your obfuscation and nonsense science "analogies". And like Chopra I believe this to be your target - to be happily misunderstood by people who would not buy what you are saying if they did understand it - just like those of us on the thread who do understand it do not.
QEDI am NOT Deepak Chopra and have no desire to bamboozle anyone.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2015, 11:52 AM
 
Location: Northeastern US
14,197 posts, read 9,102,293 times
Reputation: 6081
Here's a web site that uses Deepak's phrases and terminology to generate random sentences of "wisdom" in the form of fake Deepak Chopra quotes.

Random Deepak Chopra Quote Generator - Wisdom of Chopra
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2015, 11:55 AM
 
3,404 posts, read 2,254,644 times
Reputation: 1317
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
QEDI am NOT Deepak Chopra and have no desire to bamboozle anyone.
It was an analogy...

-NoCapo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top