The joy of not knowing

[ken_behrendt]

I saw a cute bumper sticker on a local "born again's" car. It said, "Inscription on an atheist's gravestone: 'All dressed up with nowhere to go!".

I think, ultimately, that people will believe in whatever they find comforting whether or not it is "logical" or can be shown to be scientifically "valid" (whatever that means). I have no problem with this...it's part of being a fallible and limited human being. The tragedy of this world is when one group's beliefs convince its members that they are infallible and in possession of cosmic truths that require them to impose their beliefs on others. Every religion I've ever encountered has tended to suggest that they are the only hope for mankind and this world. Only in recent times have we seen some of the major organized religions begin to moderate this message.

Because of the area I live in, I interact with a lot of religious folk and some of them have even read the Bible! They tend to be well meaning people, but not very critical of the view of reality that they have had handed down to them from childhood. I tend to be, perhaps, overly critical of most things like religion, science, politics, etc.

I like to think that there is only one final reality to the universe and I am constantly striving to know it. Right now, I'm not convinced that reality will involve the prophetic world view of the traditional religions, yet I think it will be far more amazing then anything conceived of in our world's present day physics.

I guess I do not really belong to any particular religion, but I do believe in the Buddist principle of "karma". I think that if a person tries to do "good", then good will come back to him. And, if they try to do "evil", then it will also be returned to him. I do not know if there is a God out there that is behind this "principle" or if it is the consequence of the complex laws of physics that describe the cosmos. But, I am sure its generally valid (tsunami's not considered) and try to adjust my behavior accordingly. Interestingly, one does not really have to be "religious" to do this. I've know a few openly avowed atheists in my time who were quite moral and ethical by my standards.


ken

[Fletcher]

Leaving any individual's personal beliefs aside I see all religions as social constructs that conveniently do away with countries physical & political borders.

It's man's nature to possess inanimate objects & covert the necessities of life. This selfishness or survival instinct is tempered by our need for social interaction, protection & contact. Social hierarchy's are loosely formed by this need ala, tribes, villages, towns, ... countries, where your worth to society is calculated on your resources, be they physical, intellectual or spiritual. Common belief systems form. This is fine if it wasn't escalatory. Trouble is that half of the world wants to separate church & state & convert the other & the other half wants to combine it.

It's not to hard to imagine that a religious movement can effect change & influence outside political or physical boundaries to get 'around' other man made constructs that might by design be geared to limiting your individual or ethic freedoms & opportunities. Is it good or bad, right or wrong ? I don't know, just another form of group dynamics in action.





Ralph - so that explains why many women once 'going steady' develop bid arses. They must be holding 'em in.

[Michael]

Woah, wait a sec. Jonathan. As a physics student wouldn't you say it is irresponsible for you to say this?
>>Modern science does not require the existence of a God to rationalize the universe<
As student of physcis I can tell you with as much certainty as I have in anything that this is not true.


There are a lot of world class physicists that don't need a belief in a god to understand the universe.

[Michael]

>I don't know, just another form of group dynamics in action.


I see religions as clever marketing. What kind of a shopper are you? Do you believe the commercials when they say, buy our can of tuna! It's the best. No dolphins were killed in the production of our tuna. It's good for you, with a label of in god we trust on the side. Or are you a wise shopper? Do you research tuna. Find out if it is in fact good for you. And how so? Do you research the companies that are putting out their tuna? Do you research their production facilities? Do you research their personal history? Find out their exact orgins? Find out who their partners are? Where they have invested their money? How they got their start up capitol? How they treat their employees? Etc? Most people don't. They believe the commercials or choose what looks best based on limited information. The reason isn't so much that people are gullible, but because a person only has so much energy and time to their day. It takes effort to look into the sources of things. A lot if a person were to do this to everything that they encountered. A person generally want's an easy life, one that is pleasent and happy. Its easier to be happy by believeing, ánd by trusting in handmedown systems that others say is right because there is less work to be done. A persons life should be filled with happyness, but there are costs though walking around unaware, even if it's just a form of ignorance. Costs not only to the individual, but to the collective whole.

[Jonathan]

>Woah, wait a sec. Jonathan. As a physics student wouldn't you say it is irresponsible for you to say this?
>>Modern science does not require the existence of a God to rationalize the universe<
As student of physcis I can tell you with as much certainty as I have in anything that this is not true.<
There are a lot of world class physicists that don't need a belief in a god to understand the universe.<
No. The proof that I'm not being irresponsible is that all of physics is founded on the assumption that the universe is self-consistent and conducive to the application of inference. Now, there is not a single case where anything has been observed to cause itself to exist or change. And when I say "anything", that literally means "any thing", and so what I said applies to all things that have ever been observed. But most things ever observed were not singular entities, but rather were groups of smaller things, and yet what I said holds anyway. It is then reasonable to infer that what I said holds in the case of the whole universe, considering it to be a thing. Therefore the universe didn't create itself, there must be a god to have created it.

[Michael]

Or Jonathan, it was never created.

[ovyyus]

The proof that I'm not being irresponsible is that all of physics is founded on the assumption that the universe is self-consistent and conducive to the application of inference. Now, there is not a single case where anything has been observed to cause itself to exist or change...

I agree.

...Therefore the universe didn't create itself, there must be a god to have created it.

Assuming for a moment that the universe was in fact created at some point in the distant past (I'm far from certain) then how many possible explanations could there be to account for it's creation? The proposal of a creating God is one explanation, but why have you limited the total number of possible explanations to just that one?

When faith limits our options to freely question and consider, does it impede progress?

[SeaWasp]

Having Faith in Creation does not impede progress! It is a belief in a pre defined dogma. That is God created everything! How that everything operates and functions is the role of science. In essence, understanding science could be thought by some as understanding God! Anyone with curiosity, knowledge and drive can progress humanity! Whether believing in God or the "BIG BANG" both concepts are as plausible as the other from a scientific standpoint (And there are scientists who believe that God created the big bang) Both idealogies are bigger than we could hope to understand! Each to their own!

[jim_mich]

Accounting for the Creation of our Universe

I try to stay away from two types of discussions, Religion and Politics, because both are beliefs. I feel each person should have the freedom and right to believe what he/she wants to believe without pressure from others. With this disclaimer I'd like to venture into this discussion, not to try to persuade but to give my different point of view.

Our world is made entirely from energy. Matter is made from energy. A simple description of matter could be 'organized energy'. If you break down the organization of matter you get E=MC^2. When you look at energy it has many forms. All energy forms can me reduced down to the atomic level where atomic particles push on each other. We can mentally picture two particles pushing each other because they can't both occupy the same space. Some may say there is both push and pull. A pull requires a connection between the particles. Many physics phenomenon such as gravity and magnetism demonstrate what we observe as pulling. So then the question becomes what is the pulling connection? It seems that there is 'something' that provides the 'pulling' effects that we observe. Without an understanding of this 'something' it becomes difficult to understand what energy is and in turn what matter is. This 'something' seems to hold matter together. It seems to control how matter interacts with other matter. So it becomes quite apparent that this 'something' plays a very big roll. What is this 'something'?

Many turn to a belief in a God to fill the roll of this 'something'. They say God made the universe. God keeps the universe moving. They say a creation requires an intelligent creator. Who and what is this God? (This is a rhetorical question. Please don't reply to it.) I propose another possibility. I'm not sure how many here might understand what I mean if I refer to an 'ethereal world'? I propose that there is an 'ethereal world' composed of ethereal energy, or Ether Energy. Our world is but an 'image' within this 'ethereal world'. Our world is slowly growing as is absorbs Ether Energy and turns it into matter and energy. This creation of new matter has been happening for millions of years. Without this understanding we erroneously think that the universe had to start all at once with a big bang or by a sudden command from some all intelligent benevolent God.

So what is my point? My point is that there is a lot more to our universe than a simplistic belief in a creator God. By closing ones mind and not looking at the bigger picture of our world as a subset of a larger unseen 'ethereal world' we fail to grow in understanding and knowledge.

These a just my opinions. I don't force my beliefs down other people's throats. I expect other to refrain from gagging me by pushing their views down my throat.

[ovyyus]

Our world is slowly growing as is absorbs Ether Energy and turns it into matter and energy. This creation of new matter has been happening for millions of years.

Thanks Jim. Belief is such an interesting subject.

I have a question, if I may, about your above quote. If our World is continually growing as it absorbs Ether Energy, then can we observe this growth and where does it take place?

[Jonathan]

>it was never created.<
That doesn't make sense. If the universe was never created, then it has existed for an infinity of time before now. But if that were the case, then the portion of the universe which is currently visible to us would encompass the entire universe, and could not possibly be increasing as we observe it to, even if the universe were infinite in size, because it would have already reached the 'outer limits' of infinity.
>why have you limited the total number of possible explanations to just that one?<
I couldn't think of any others, but maybe I lack imagination.

[jim_mich]

Bill,

If our earth is continually growing (as I believe it is) then it might show 'stretch' marks. With our oceans and atmosphere shielding our planet from cosmic erosion these stretch marks are plainly visible on our ocean floors.



I believe matter is a 'standing wave' pattern in the background ether energy that flows or vibrates in all directions. As such each tiny atomic 'standing wave' pattern has the tendency to cause nearby ether energy to start vibrating in sync. This slowly creates more standing wave energy patterns, which we observe as new matter. Scientists have observed 'spontaneous' creation of very small quantities of matter from time to time during experiments. They usually try to explain away these observations.



P.S. If there really was an Atlantis then it most likely sunk below the ocean in the area north of Australia and east of Japan.

[ovyyus]

Thanks Jim - an interesting hypothesis. If the creation of matter can ever be directly observed then it's one that can be tested.

I couldn't think of any others, but maybe I lack imagination.

You've demonstrated that you do not lack imagination. Therefore, IMO, there must be some other explanation that's more plausible.

[rlortie]

Bill,

I have a question, if I may, about your above quote. If our World is continually growing as it absorbs Ether Energy, then can we observe this growth and where does it take place?

I am sure that Jim will have an answer for you. In the meantime I suggest you consider how sod over a period of years will grow in height exceeding the original level with a sidewalk. The answer is light. the sun shining on plant life is absorbed and is then passed along the food chain causing the planet to increase in diameter.

This does not imply that our little ball is getting heavier as Geomorphology tells us that as the earths crust grows it is reducing in density.

One very old example it to bury a heavy coin just under your lawn and leave it there for a period of years. Then dig it up and measure the depth.

Ralph

[ken_behrendt]

This is turning into an interesting discussion about the nature of reality and the cosmos. I've also contemplated this subject and it was the subject of the first article on my website (see "An Ultimate Model for the Multiverse").

Basically, I came to the conclusion that we live in an eternal and infinite cosmos that, periodically, undergoes an infinite number of "local" Big Bands and Big Crunches. Between these extremes we have two possible states: the cosmos we observe or an infinity wherein all matter and energy are, temporarily, locked up within an infinite array of Super Black Holes (each with singularities several times the diameter of our Solar System!).

The bottom line of all of my theorizing is that the cosmos really has no beginning or end and that all of the laws of physics and chemistry that we observed are the outward manifestation of the ultimate and unchangeable properties of energy at the level where it becomes subatomic matter.

This view does not require an eternal deity for it to exist. Since the cosmos always existed and always will, there is no need for a God to provide the "first cause" to get things going. One either has the cosmic system I envision or one does not. Either Or. However, I have also contemplated the ramifications of what the consequences of not having our cosmos would be and reached another profound conclusion. A non existent cosmos is NOT possible. It would be a state of no matter or energy anywhere. But, without matter and energy, one can not have space and time. Thus, a non existent cosmos would have zero extent in space and an infinitesimal duration. It would instantly annihilate itself and be replaced by an infinite and eternal cosmos...which is, of course, what we observe.

Got that everybody? :^)


ken