On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 1:42 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 9/4/2011 8:32 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 8:25 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi <use...@rudnyi.ru> wrote: > >> On 04.09.2011 07:51 meekerdb said the following: >> >> ... >> >> >> If that's what you're trying you're giving aid and comfort to the >>> enemy. Every religious fundamentalist in America hates materialism >>> and believes in an immaterial spirit, distinct from brain processes, >>> which is responsible for our thoughts and actions. >>> >> >> You know, I was raised in the USSR where the official religion was >> atheism and materialism. The results were disastrous. >> >> Hence you could take the existence of people in the USA who "believe in an >> immaterial spirit, distinct from brain processes" positively. After all, >> they are working hard and contribute to prosperity. >> >> In any case, I do not think that the ideology should affect reasoning. >> > > Evgenii, > > The kind of atheism and materialism which stood as the official religion of > the Soviet Union, and that held by most atheists today is naive. The > leading scientific explanations for conscious are mechanistic, but taken to > its logical end mechanism leads to remarkable conclusions: consciousness is > not attached to the body, it survives death of the body, it continues > forever, it may be reincarnated into different forms, it may switch between > realms. In this respect, science leads directly to something very much like > a soul. > > > Only by taking partial theories and over extending them. > If you accept the first few steps of the UDA regarding duplication / survivability with clones (digital mechanism), and you accept any of the following: 1. the universe is infinitely big, 2. many worlds interpretation, 3. string theory landscape, 4. ultimate ensemble or 5. mathematical realism, then it can be clearly demonstrated. I think the only reason you call it "over extended" is that you are uncomfortable with the conclusion. > > > Similarly, the materialist effort to explain the existence of this universe > without invoking God ends up pointing to the existence of something that has > no cause, exists timelessly, contains infinite variation (perhaps everything > possible), may be identical to the sum of all truth, is everywhere and > everything. While not every scientist or person on this list agrees with > this, it is the conclusion of any rational effort to explain the fine tuning > of this universe. > > > I don't think any scientists agrees with all of that. > 1. Something exists without a cause (Any Platonist believes this. Also, it is inconsistent to believe that nothing exists without cause, unless you believe something can come from nothing) 2. Exists timelessly (Again, every platonist accepts mathematical truth exists timelessly) 3. Contains infinite variation, perhaps everything possible (Mathematical truth is infinite in scope, and math contains all possible structures, again according to the platonist philosophy of mathematics (which is the most popular)) 4. Is everywhere and everything (This follows from digital mechanism and platonism. Most today are unaware of this of course, but I think if all the choices were well defined and described most rational people would identify with platonism and finite mechanism.) For no scientist to agree with all of the above means means you think no scientist is both platonist and mechanist and consistent in his or her beliefs. > It is just armchair philosophizing based on hypotheses like "everything > exists". It is certainly not the *only* possible explaination of the > alleged fine tuning of some physical parameters. > > I indicated that not everyone accepts the universe is fine tuned. Again I think you are uncomfortable with the premise of fine tuning because of where it inevitably leads. > > > Beware of those materialists who say all we can see is all that there is. > > > Beware of those who say they can see what you can't be shown. > > There is an inconsistency in seeing what cannot be seen. There is no inconsistency in there existing something which cannot be seen. This list is founded to discuss the idea that the theory that everything exists can explain more, while assuming less, and remain consistent with observations. If you reject this, then how large a concept of reality do you think is scientifically justified? The Hubble Volume? The Block Time Hubble Volume? The minimum 10^23 - 10^26 * the hubble volume implied by inflationary theories? Infinitely large volume of spacet-time? Any of the previous with CI or with MWI? Thanks, Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.