The Atheism Thread

[scraglor]

infinity is easy to define, no beggining and no end, although in math infinity has limits, but that is the talking about how close you can get to something, so yes there are more than one infinities, how close you can get and how far you can move away from a point, in time, space, counting, whichever dimension. media you choose. we can define infinity, just not truly comprehend it. everything must start somewhere right? except a beginning is a paradox

[Guest grandad]

wow

[Arnold Layne]

Being aint the same as existing.

The universe exists. God may "be". We don't "know", because "knowing" is a finite event, and flawed too.

Its enough to ask the question. Questioning is human. Maybe there is no anwer. But the question will always remain. It is existential, defining and confining.

However, all is interpretation, so all is fragile. We know nothing, believe everything, and live with doubt.

[arcane]

Further reply to arcane. You have the thick skinned temerity to impugn the intelligence of the entire human race and when I ask what gives you the right to do so you make a mealy mouthed excuse about 'only expressing your opinion' and imply that I'm a zealot. The big difference between me and a religious zealot is that I back my statements up with hard facts. What is the difference between you and an ignoramus?

It's always interesting to me that people feel so emboldened by anonymity of the internet; I've had absoloutely no interactions with you before as far as I know and yet you attack me for stating a simple point of view contrary to your own.

Why? Honestly, why? What do you gain by it?

[weed_G]

you might need a coffee and for this

one could say the universe is not infinite, the fact that everything in space is moving away from a specific point (big bang)would mean it is expanding, and will eventually expand to the point where it can no longer, and the universe will shrink back to what it was before the big bang.

expanding into what tho? ...doesn't it seem more likely the empty space was there before matter/energy expanded into it ..empty space is also the universe not just matter/energy, ...empty space can be observed and measured ...there cant be more than one Infinity, to have 2 or more would require each quantity or infinity to have finite properties(by definition) ..very difficult concept Infinity ..on one hand if the universe is finite then what lies on the other side of the edge , how is it possible for there to be nothing ..not even empty space ..on the other hand if the universe is infinite ..how is it possible that empty space can go forever without limit ....that sound you hear in the far distance is the big electron choking on popcorn

------

quantum physics is probably the 'best attempt to date' by science to ascertain the nature and reality of the universe, the main idea being that classical physics doesn't necessarily correlate with whats happening 'at the atomic level of matter (molecules and atoms) and the subatomic (electrons, protons, and even smaller particles).'

Quantum mechanics (QM) is a set of principles describing physical reality at the atomic level of matter (molecules and atoms) and the subatomic (electrons, protons, and even smaller particles). These descriptions include the simultaneous wave-like and particle-like behavior of both matter[1] and radiation[2] ("wave–particle duality"). In the quantum mechanics of a subatomic particle, one can never specify its state, such as its simultaneous location and velocity, with complete certainty (this is called the Heisenberg uncertainty principle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

the implications of quantum science, might suggest the physical world being nothing more than an illusion of the mind, when I look out my window I can see trees, buildings, washing line etc ..but in quantum reality they don't exist ...there is no trace of these words.forms or concepts at atomic level ..everything is pure energy ..trillions of bonded atoms and other active particles that my limited senses cant see ...but in order to get by ..the looking mind has to enforce deconstruction ..apply labels and arbitrary forms to lumps of sub-atomic superstructures make sense of raw sensory input data ..a technique partly hard wired through millions of years of evolution and partly, learned in childhood or more accurately babyhood ...and if we go in the other direction far enough the earth going round the sun might be mistaken for an electron orbiting the nucleus of an atom(also see galaxy)

Unsolved problems in physics: In the correspondence limit of quantum mechanics: Is there a preferred interpretation of quantum mechanics? How does the quantum description of reality, which includes elements such as the "superposition of states" and "wavefunction collapse", give rise to the reality we perceive?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mecha...ntific_theories

that's last bit in bold is key, in suggesting a disparity between 'classical science'/'modern human' perception and atomic and sub-atomic reality,

this is where UFT comes in or unifying field theory

In physics, a unified field theory is a type of field theory that allows all of the fundamental forces between elementary particles to be written in terms of a single field. There is no accepted unified field theory yet, and this remains an open line of research. The term was coined by Albert Einstein who attempted to unify the general theory of relativity with electromagnetism. A Theory of Everything is closely related to unified field theory, but differs by not requiring the basis of nature to be fields, and also attempts to explain all physical constants of nature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_field_theory

pause ... ...I don't know about anyone else, but for me(in places) quantum science is starting to sound a lot like millennial old zen buddism

huxley's term 'divine ground', his use of the 'ground' metaphor ...is meant in the sense of the electrical ground/earth

The Perennial Philosophy

Introduction to the Bhagavad-Gita (Translation of Bhagavad-Gita by Swami Prabhavananda and Christopher Isherwood.) by Aldous Huxely.

More than twenty-five centuries have passed since that which has been called the Perennial Philosophy was first committed to writing; and in the course of those centuries it has found expression, now partial, now complete, now in this form, now in that, again and again. In Vedanta and Hebrew prophecy, in the Tao Teh King and the Platonic dialogues, in the Gospel according to St. John and Mahayana theology, in Plotinus and the Areopagite, among the Persian Sufis and the Christian mystics of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance--the Perennial Philosophy has spoken almost all the languages of Asia and Europe and has made use of the terminology and traditions of every one of the higher religions. But under all this confusion of tongues and myths, of local histories and particularist doctrines, there remains a Highest Common Factor, which is the Perennial Philosophy in what may be called its chemically pure state. This final purity can never, of course, be expressed by any verbal statement of the philosophy, however undogmatic that statement may be, however deliberately syncretistic. The very fact that it is set down at a certain time by a certain writer, using this or that language, automatically imposes a certain sociological and personal bias on the doctrines so formulated. It is only the act of contemplation when words and even personality are transcended, that the pure state of the Perennial Philosophy can actually be known. The records left by those who have known it in this way make it abundantly clear that all of them, whether Hindu, Buddhist, Hebrew, Taoist, Christian, or Mohammedan, were attempting to describe the same essentially indescribable Fact.

The original scriptures of most religions are poetical and unsystematic. Theology, which generally takes the form of a reasoned commentary on the parables and aphorisms of the scriptures, tends to make its appearance at a later stage of religious history. The Bhagavad-Gita occupies an intermediate position between scripture and theology; for it combines the poetical qualities of the first with the clear-cut methodicalness of the second. The book may be described, writes Ananda K. Coomaraswamy in his admirable Hinduism and Buddhism, “as a compendium of the whole Vedic doctrine to be found in the earlier Vedas, Brahmanas and Upanishads, and being therefore the basis of all the later developments, it can be regarded as the focus of all Indian religion” is also one of the clearest and most comprehensive summaries of the Perennial Philosophy ever to have been made. Hence its enduring value, not only for Indians, but for all mankind.

At the core of the Perennial Philosophy we find four fundamental doctrines.

First: the phenomenal world of matter and of individualized consciousness--the world of things and animals and men and even gods--is the manifestation of a Divine Ground within which all partial realities have their being, and apart from which they would be non-existent.

Second: human beings are capable not merely of knowing about the Divine Ground by inference; they can also realize its existence by a direct intuition, superior to discursive reasoning. This immediate knowledge unites the knower with that which is known.

Third: man possesses a double nature, a phenomenal ego and an eternal Self, which is the inner man, the spirit, the spark of divinity within the soul. It is possible for a man, if he so desires, to identify himself with the spirit and therefore with the Divine Ground, which is of the same or like nature with the spirit.

Fourth: man’s life on earth has only one end and purpose: to identify himself with his eternal Self and so to come to unitive knowledge of the Divine Ground.

In Hinduism the first of these four doctrines is stated in the most categorical terms. The Divine Ground is Brahman, whose creative, sustaining and transforming aspects are manifested the Hindu trinity. A hierarchy of manifestations connects inanimate matter with man, gods, High Gods, and the undifferentiated Godhead beyond.

In Mahayana Buddhism the Divine Ground is called Mind or the Pure Light of the Void, the place of the High Gods is taken by the Dhyani-Buddhas.

parvati.tripod.com/perennial.html

getting back to our large hardon collider,

The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is the world's largest and highest-energy particle accelerator, intended to collide opposing particle beams, of either protons at an energy of 7 TeV per particle, or lead nuclei at an energy of 574 TeV per nucleus. The Large Hadron Collider was built by the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) with the intention of testing various predictions of high-energy physics, including the existence of the hypothesized Higgs boson[1] and of the large family of new particles predicted by supersymmetry.[2] It lies in a tunnel 27 kilometres (17 mi) in circumference, as much as 175 metres (570 ft) beneath the Franco-Swiss border near Geneva, Switzerland. It is funded by and built in collaboration with over 10,000 scientists and engineers from over 100 countries as well as hundreds of universities and laboratories.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_hadron_collider

It might seem that even at the cutting edge of science, understanding even the basic building blocks ..is proving difficult ..apparently there is a large family of new particles that haven't even been seen yet ..only predicted

The Large Hadron Collider was built by the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) with the intention of testing various predictions of high-energy physics, including the existence of the hypothesized Higgs boson[1] and of the large family of new particles predicted by supersymmetry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_hadron_collider

[scraglor]

surely it's just an infinite search for smaller and smaller units, with the limit being non existence, then it seems like a futile search. although i guess with each smaller particle found opens up a new branch of technology, as for finding the basic building blocks, what are THEY made out of?

Edited September 16, 2009 by scraglor

[ratdog]

I back my statements up with hard facts. What is the difference between you and an ignoramus?

I don`t see many `hard facts` A, just aggression and a willingness to argue.

[groovelick]

if the universe is infinite

one could say the universe is not infinite, the fact that everything in space is moving away from a specific point (big bang)would mean it is expanding, and will eventually expand to the point where it can no longer, and the universe will shrink back to what it was before the big bang.

i personally believe the universe was created by matter and anti-matter colliding, which makes it entirely possible that our universe is just a tiny bubble in a huge sea of universes ( therefore making a multiverse) in an everlasting ocean of matter and anti-matter. it could also be possible that this is not the first time this universe has existed; it may have been many times before, expanding from and shrinking back to the same singular point.

Why what force would cause it to contract back in on itself?

[scraglor]

gravity, same force that edit: could have made it condense into a singularity for it to explode in the first place

Edited September 16, 2009 by scraglor

[weed_G]

surely it's just an infinite search for smaller and smaller units, with the limit being non existence, then it seems like a futile search. although i guess with each smaller particle found opens up a new branch of technology, as for finding the basic building blocks, what are THEY made out of?

I guess it makes sense from a science point of view, to deal with the 'small' as they are things that can be physically captured or manipulated apparently in their entirety, unlike the big stuff like black holes etc, which are a bit harder to experiment with ..not to mention the atomic world is maybe the only constant form or pattern among the various forms of matter, laws, physics etc.. being able to correlate the building blocks with the overall structure would be a good starting point ..even if it means the perception of the overall structure at least in the abstract need serious overhauling ...but your right ...what are the base units made of ..there is a very good chance the process of discovery will be infinite ..like a russian doll with no end

check this out...physical matter appears to change composition if someone 'looks' at it, or observes its state..

In quantum mechanics, wave function collapse (also called collapse of the state vector or reduction of the wave packet) is the process by which a wave function, initially in a superposition of different eigenstates, appears to reduce to a single one of the states after interaction with an observer. It is one of two processes by which quantum systems evolve in time according to the laws of quantum mechanics as presented by John von Neumann.[1] The reality of wave function collapse has always been debated, i.e., whether it is a fundamental physical phenomenon in its own right or just an epiphenomenon of another process, such as quantum decoherence[2]. In recent decades the quantum decoherence view has gained popularity. Collapse may be understood as a change in conditional probabilities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavefunction_collapse

even though there is still much debate, there's a good reason why physicists would rather believe in 'quantum decoherence' over 'wave function collapse', apparently if they didn't, it would be difficult to justify the framework and intuition of classical physics as an acceptable approximation ..moving further away from the goal of 'unifying field'

In quantum mechanics, quantum decoherence is the mechanism by which quantum systems interact with their environments to exhibit probabilistically additive behavior. Quantum decoherence gives the appearance of wave function collapse and justifies the framework and intuition of classical physics as an acceptable approximation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence

Edited September 16, 2009 by weed_G

[scraglor]

i'm lucky enough to have a brother who is a Ph.D particle physicist, so i know a bit about physics (although admittedly not much) i have particle duality wave transient flying midgets smoking neutrinos thrown at me all the time. i know it makes sense to study particle physics, like i said, it opens up new technologies, quantum computers, quantum coding, observing the data changes it etc, it's just i hear people say they are searching for the basic block that all things are made of, which seems a bit stupid. but anyway, bit off topic now

Edited September 16, 2009 by scraglor

[Alf4lf4]

I back my statements up with hard facts. What is the difference between you and an ignoramus?

I don`t see many `hard facts` A, just aggression and a willingness to argue.

If you've a leg in the deists camp you probably wouldn't recognize a hard fact if it bit you on the ass. Wooly headed thinking and obscurantist claptrap are the stock in trade of the god squad. They can't abide hard facts. Thats why some schools in the USA have tried to ban the teaching of evolutionary theory. And that's a fact.

[weed_G]

Alf4lf4, we know you don't believe in god, so what do you believe in?

[Alf4lf4]

Alf4lf4, we know you don't believe in god, so what do you believe in?

I believe that Charles Darwin was a brilliant scientist and that his evolutionary theories are correct. But I think you already knew that.

[groovelick]

gravity, same force that edit: could have made it condense into a singularity for it to explode in the first place

Oh right I thought the big crunch theory had allreday been discounted due to garvity being such a weak force when compared to the other basic forces and the theoretical application of dark energy I'm more minded to the big rip theory my self where expasion keeps accelerating up to the point where even the sub atomic particle's eventually seperate from each other in to the cold empty vacuum of space with infinite distance between them

e2a Ignostic

Edited September 16, 2009 by groovelick