The Boundaries of Reality

Originally posted by no1marauder
There are two things in the original C & P that are interesting as well as being scientifically correct:

1) That if the strength of the basic forces in the universe was even slightly different, then life would be impossible (so would galaxy formation). Fact 1 does seem to have metaphysical implications;

2) Bell's Theorem does show that locality fai ...[text shortened]... What explanations are there for this fact besides superluminal connections and/or synchroncity?

Let's not confuse the facts.

Quantum Physics is a set of laws that matter-energy appear to follow after we pass Planck's length, not a foundation for metaphysics.

In terms of cosmology, the fact that the earth is the perfect distance for OUR existence is within statistical probability.
Let's not make the assumption that our planet's distance from a sun of certain age is what makes life possible.

It's what makes OUR particular life possible. Science is never going to claim that that *life* cannot exist in various formats in other planetoid configurations.

Now, Bell's theorem ONLY applies to Quantum Physics.
Not Newtonian Physics. Okay?
That's where these "fantastical" jumps keep appearing.

So, non-locality can happen on a Quantum level does not equal non-locality on a Newtonian level.

I cannot be in two places at the same time, but a wave can.

There is a lot of work in Physics going on to make QP apply to objects larger than Planck's Length, but until they do, locality is very much real for us here in Newtonian land.

I like reading on this subject, so if you have links to papers that state otherwise, please post them.

Originally posted by no1marauder
(after all there are billions of planets so some were bound to be a proper distance from a proper star)

Almost certainly more than a billion billion actually.

Originally posted by mdhall
Let's not confuse the facts.

Quantum Physics is a set of laws that matter-energy appear to follow after we pass Planck's length, not a foundation for metaphysics.

In terms of cosmology, the fact that the earth is the perfect distance for OUR existence is within statistical probability.
Let's not make the assumption that our planet's distance from a sun n this subject, so if you have links to papers that state otherwise, please post them.

A) I specifically told you to disregard the arguments relating to the "specialness" of Earth. Instead, you focused on them and ignored the facts regarding the strengths of the basic forces! But vary those even a small amount and life would be impossible in the universe. I'll get links if you want.

B) Your second objection makes little sense; Bell's Theorem doesn't apply only to quantum mechanics. If locality failed in the experiments of Bell and Aspect, it fails; it doesn't work in "Newtonian land" (which doesn't exist anyway).

EDIT: Here's an article on Bell's Theorem that might be informative: http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/BellsTheorem/BellsTheorem.html

Most experiments proving Bell's Theorem are done with photon pairs and a single photon can be observed by the human eye.

Originally posted by no1marauder
A) I specifically told you to disregard the arguments relating to the "specialness" of Earth. Instead, you focused on them and ignored the facts regarding the strengths of the basic forces! But vary those even a small amount and life would be impossible in the universe. I'll get links if you want.

B) Your second objection makes little sense; Bell's Th ...[text shortened]... and Aspect, it fails; it doesn't work in "Newtonian land" (which doesn't exist anyway).

You're going to have to I'm afraid.
This is complicated stuff so we need to go slowly and show precisely what we mean.

In your previous post, I did not understand what you meant by "basic forces"; can you please explain?

Additionally I would like links for where Bell's theorem has worked in large objects.

Originally posted by mdhall
You're going to have to I'm afraid.
This is complicated stuff so we need to go slowly and show precisely what we mean.

In your previous post, I did not understand what you meant by "basic forces"; can you please explain?

Additionally I would like links for where Bell's theorem has worked in large objects.

Strong and weak nuclear, electromagnetic and gravity are the 4 basic forces last I checked.

Define "large". Bell's Inequality works for all objects. And your claim was that Bell's Theorem only applied to Quantum Mechanics, not that it only applied to things that were "non-large".

Here's an article from the New Scientist presenting the view that there is NO real division between the quantum and classical worlds. http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/reality_forever_quantum.asp

Originally posted by mdhall
Your sarcasm isn't lost on me... rather heavy-handed really.

I answered the challenge to show some of why the book-posting is bad science. Do you want me to continue with why it's bad theology and bad metaphysics too?

What would you like to discuss with me?

Your sarcasm isn't lost on me... rather heavy-handed really.
Hey, I'm typing as lightly as possible. Must be something lost in translation.

I answered the challenge to show some of why the book-posting is bad science.
Not yet and not really. Your first few retorts rely too heavily on the insignificantly small chance that the universe may be infinite. With such a precarious foundation, the rest of the argument so based starts off virtually unhinged.

Do you want me to continue with why it's bad theology and bad metaphysics too?
Oh, hell. Let's just cut to the chase where you tell us how such a view as relayed is indicative of bad theology.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Your sarcasm isn't lost on me... rather heavy-handed really.
Hey, I'm typing as lightly as possible. Must be something lost in translation.

I answered the challenge to show some of why the book-posting is bad science.
Not yet and not really. Your first few retorts rely too heavily on the insignificantly small chance that the universe ...[text shortened]... cut to the chase where you tell us how such a view as relayed is indicative of bad theology.[/b]

If the Universe is finite, what is on the other side: More Universes?
I just don't see anyone in Science pretending to be able to answer that magnitude of a question with any certainty.

Bad Theology: Western Christianity has long relied on shaky grounds to explain the many holes in their chosen interpretation of their own events.
Example 1: Mary had a virgin birth. Classic example of an allegory misinterpreted as literal fact. It's unnecessary for Christianity to hold onto it, but, they have chosen to stick to it as a "miracle".
Example 2: Christ rose from the dead. There's really no religious need for this claim, but "it's a miracle!"
Example 3: The holy trinity. They're 3, they're 1, they're indivisible, they're individual... Another miracle with no rationale behind it.
Example 4: A personal god. God is perfect, infallible, and eternal, YET - sometimes things go wrong and he (He-would be example 5) steps in and "fixes" things... I'm not sure that's a miracle but it's certainly bad logic.
Example 5: God has a penis. Wow.
Example 6: Heaven is on a VIP waiting list: it has nothing to do with goodness, just accepting his dead human son as a savior (admittedly, this was/is a great gimmick for the evangelists since actually changing bad people into good people takes a lifetime of work, whereas brainwashing them to say a few prayers is relatively time efficient).

So, calling Western Christian bad theology is pretty much a gimme.
We didn't really even touch Catholicism.

That's not specific to this article, but you have to admit that a Christian Scientist has got a lot of pre-work before they can start tapping into modern Physics.

Originally posted by mdhall
If the Universe is finite, what is on the other side: More Universes?
I just don't see anyone in Science pretending to be able to answer that magnitude of a question with any certainty.

Bad Theology: Western Christianity has long relied on shaky grounds to explain the many holes in their chosen interpretation of their own events.
Example 1: Mary had a vi has got a lot of pre-work before they can start tapping into modern Physics.

Actually, I think there are defensible interpretations of the trinity (triune) conceptualization, for example:

(1) Linguistic: Given our (or a similar) language structure, we tend to think in terms of subject-verb-object. I think this is the basis for Paul Tillich’s “pre-trinitarian” formula of ground-of-being, power-of-being and being-itself (or form of being). The Stoics, who were pretty much pantheistic, for whom god = nature, also had theos, pneuma and logos: all aspects of the same reality.

The Creek Christians hypostasized these symbolically as pater, pneuma hagion and uios (father, holy spirit, son; the latter, of course, also referring to the incarnation, whether just Jesus specifically, or more generally perhaps—e.g. St. Gregory of Nyssa). Three hypostases (substances) of one essence (ousia). The Latins translated hypostasis as persona (after the masks that actors wore), from which we get “person.”* What these terms meant was debated and variously worked out through the early centuries of the church. [The Orthodox East, while accepting the term as the general English translation, tend to be still a bit leery of the word “person”.]

The Kashmiri Shaivites, though at bottom as strictly monistic as the Advaita Vedantists, also describe the One Being in the symbolism of Shiva-Shakti-Spanda (the latter being the vibration of shakti-energy that manifests as forms).

So, anyway, there are several versions of a “trinitarian” theological approach, not all of which even presume that theos is a being, let alone a “person.” A process philosophy/theology might offer up a whole other one.

* The Greek word prosopon—face, outward appearance; also translated as “person”—also factors in here somewhere; but I don’t recall all the details of the early debates over developing terminology. Orthodox theologian John Meyendorff covers it in great detail in his Christ in Eastern Christian Thought.

(2) Relational: Simply that the ground-of-being and being-itself is inherently relational, rather than monadic. One can at least, I think, imagine this as a metaphysical claim, whether religious/theistic or not.

Originally posted by mdhall
If the Universe is finite, what is on the other side: More Universes?
I just don't see anyone in Science pretending to be able to answer that magnitude of a question with any certainty.

Bad Theology: Western Christianity has long relied on shaky grounds to explain the many holes in their chosen interpretation of their own events.
Example 1: Mary had a vi has got a lot of pre-work before they can start tapping into modern Physics.

If the Universe is finite, what is on the other side: More Universes?
What reality there sits is unknown; hinted at but otherwise unknown. We know that life in this space/time relates to it in degrees more or less equal to how dreams relate to life.

I just don't see anyone in Science pretending to be able to answer that magnitude of a question with any certainty.
Science isn't now capable of describing such a reality, as it lies beyond its scope of mastery. Where science leaves off and conjecture begins, however, we are more and more seeing folks traditionally aligned with science beginning to traipse. For instance, I think it was Albert hisself who posited:

"There remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion."

Example 1: Mary had a virgin birth. Classic example of an allegory misinterpreted as literal fact. It's unnecessary for Christianity to hold onto it, but, they have chosen to stick to it as a "miracle".
Too many misconceptions parading around as fact here, but let's give it a shot. Christ's virgin conception is allegorical to what, exactly? You are deluded if you truly think that orthodox Christianity holds to the virgin conception simply owing to its supernatural underpinnings. Christianity holds to it based upon fact, not necessity wrought by a miracle.

The very fact that it was announced in such juxtaposition of scientific understanding of the B.C.E. period is one of the most compelling evidences of veracity. Why proclaim something so perposterous which would most likely guarantee rejection by thinking people? Before you answer for its beguiling impact on superstitious/naive simpletons, remember that His death was an equal part of the equation. You can't suggest that one part of the story was to induce shadowy-mysticism when all other parts--- including His humilation and loss--- were so achingly real.

Example 2: Christ rose from the dead. There's really no religious need for this claim, but "it's a miracle!"
Again, no need other than truth. If He was the person He claimed, rising from the dead would be expected, not a miracle.

Example 3: The holy trinity. They're 3, they're 1, they're indivisible, they're individual... Another miracle with no rationale behind it.
Although it's been said that three is a magic number, the truth is, three is one of the most basic numbers. No miracle, per se.

Example 4: A personal god. God is perfect, infallible, and eternal, YET - sometimes things go wrong and he (He-would be example 5) steps in and "fixes" things... I'm not sure that's a miracle but it's certainly bad logic.
Prevalent thinking, yes. Orthodox thinking, no.

Example 5: God has a penis. Wow.
Now who's spouting bad theology? Not once in the entire realm of Scripture does the Bible speak of God having a body. The Lord Jesus Christ took on human form (a man with a penis), but God Himself is spirit--- not physical.

Example 6: Heaven is on a VIP waiting list: it has nothing to do with goodness, just accepting his dead human son as a savior...
Actually, entrance to heaven has everyting to do with goodness. Those who accept the work that Jesus Christ did on the cross are imputed with God's righteousness. So imputed, they are acceptable to be in His presence... regardless of their personal success and/or failure.

So, calling Western Christian bad theology is pretty much a gimme.
Well, that's a nice sentiment. However, you haven't here done anything beyond rail against "Western Christianity." Not a word of how any of the original post was connected to bad theology, as promised. To assert bad theology is to infer possession of good theology.

Again, do tell.

... a Christian Scientist has got a lot of pre-work before they can start tapping into modern Physics.
I agree, but for reasons other than suggested. The Christian scientist ought to spend more time immersed in truth than speculation, as what covers most of what comprises science these days. In understanding the universe from God's perspective rather than from man's, the scientist is not subject to the ebb and flow of clear understanding. Scientific understanding is under constant flux: this point today, that point tomorrow, neither of them the day following. God's word never changes. A man whose mind is stayed on doctrine never worries about being left in the dark. Eventually, the sun comes around and finds him in the same spot, calm as ever.

No response, Mr. Hall? Curious...

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
No response, Mr. Hall? Curious...

Let's see...
You said the virginal birth was a fact.
You said Christ's resurrection was a fact.
Vistesd has the best explanation for the Holy Trinity.
You dodged the God's gender question.
You confirmed the VIP to Heaven silliness.

I'm sorry, but you don't really leave me anywhere to go. You'll refute anything to defend your security blanket concept of god through Christianity.

I enjoy having honest debates about these things, but there's really nothing to say to a zealot, no matter how educated you are.

So, have a coke and a smile 🙂
I'll leave you to your own path now.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
The author is really s-t-r-e-t-c-h-i-n-g by using quantum physics/cosmology to indicate the existence of God. I think these subjects are interesting enough without using them as a cheap religious persuasion tool.

Why is it a cheap tool? It seems to me that some of quantum physics is confirming what mystics have intuited about reality for thousands of years. This whole area raises very deep questions. The idea that the physical world is transient or illusionary and secondary to a greater reality behind it is hardly a dagger thrust to the heart of Christian thinking is it? Why should it not be pointed out when science confirms spiritual/religious thinking ? You would not hesitate to use quantum physics to bash religion if it came up with something opposite so why object when it confirms it? Or is it that you just don't like the idea that the spiritual view of life does have some grounding in scientific exploration?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Why is it a cheap tool? It seems to me that some of quantum physics is confirming what mystics have intuited about reality for thousands of years. This whole area raises very deep questions. The idea that the physical world is transient or illusionary and secondary to a greater reality behind it is hardly a dagger thrust to the heart of Christian think ...[text shortened]... ke the idea that the spiritual view of life does have some grounding in scientific exploration?

You're missing the point.

I have a great love of the spiritual life and long for meaningful conversations and relationships with other deeply spiritual beings.

However, religions attract those spiritual people and brainwash them into total nonsensical Us-Them mind sets; and that's it! No more deep, meaningful conversations, because they always have to beat their gd drum.

Frankly, it pisses me off. When I was involved with churches, and outreach programs, I kept reading how Christ was this great spiritual leader, and NO WHERE was he interested in having people worship him or focus on the old concept of the hebrew god. He taught people to understand that they are all powerful beings; not whimpering sinners.
But these churches and outreach programs just can't make a living on that message... So they train you to constantly barrage everyone with messages of guilt and promises of eternal sunshine. What a joke.

What's more, is if you study other religions, they're all saying the same good things with their own selfish twist. The point, to me, of a spiritual life is to not judge others; to not focus on things that don't matter; but to be a better person and know yourself and try to live a good life; and not because Santa Claus/God/Yahweh/etc is going to spank you and send you to your room (hell), but because that is what a "good life" really is: being good (not worshiping an Us|Them belief system).

So, there's my beef. It's got little to do with anyone being Christian|Muslim|Jewish|Bhuddist|Taoist|etc. It's got a lot to do with throwing out all that minutia that divides us and makes us fight and skipping to the heart of the matter: How do we heal and love ourselves so we may spread positive energy back into the universe?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Why is it a cheap tool? It seems to me that some of quantum physics is confirming what mystics have intuited about reality for thousands of years. This whole area raises very deep questions. The idea that the physical world is transient or illusionary and secondary to a greater reality behind it is hardly a dagger thrust to the heart of Christian think ...[text shortened]... e the idea that the spiritual view of life does have some grounding in scientific exploration?

The problem is that science and religion are different fields. Science doesn\'t really prove that a religion is more, or less, likely to be true. The \"underlying reality\" from QP theory could indicate anything from the Christian spiritual realm to the Tao. It fits in with just about any religion that has some sort of belief in the metaphysical.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Why is it a cheap tool? It seems to me that some of quantum physics is confirming what mystics have intuited about reality for thousands of years. This whole area raises very deep questions. The idea that the physical world is transient or illusionary and secondary to a greater reality behind it is hardly a dagger thrust to the heart of Christian think ...[text shortened]... ng is it? Why should it not be pointed out when science confirms spiritual/religious thinking ?

I actually don't agree that quantum physics does any of the things you are saying. The world we perceive in our every day lives does not take in individual atoms or whole universes and so at a stretch one could say that the 'real' world consists of atoms and our large scale world is illusionary but I don't see it that way myself. Similarly, if atoms are also made up from sub atomic particles or quantum effects why would we declare them to be illusory?
And I don't believe that mystics have intuited about quantum physics at all. Essentially you are claiming:
1. Mystics have some vague notions
2. Quantum physics still seems vague to you.
Therefore mystics must have been talking about quantum physics.

You would not hesitate to use quantum physics to bash religion if it came up with something opposite so why object when it confirms it? Or is it that you just don't like the idea that the spiritual view of life does have some grounding in scientific exploration?
Quantum physics does not in any way confirm religion and I don't see how the spiritual view of life has any grounding in science.