Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: When Worlds Collide....

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 11/20/2014 8:07 PM, fleetwood_macncheese wrote:
>


Glad to hear it - I am a Red Box kind of guy, and will definitely grab 
a copy.



>
/That's the funny thing about Brian the dog on Family Guy - he's a dog, 
but talks just like a normal person with a normal voice, while all the 
other family members have cartoon voices. I mean, that's funny when the 
only sane character in the whole family is the pet dog. Go figure./

>



---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

On 11/20/2014 7:21 PM, fleetwood_macncheese wrote:

>


Wasn't he walking his enlightened dog, too? Its a wonder he kept
track of it all...


>
His dog is probably like Brian on /The Family Guy/ - the smartest
one in the whole house.

But I still don't get why Barry would post a review of a pirated
copy of /Intersteller/ that he watched on a 14 inch laptop, with
Dutch captions.

We saw it on the IMAX screen in 70 mm in Dolby Surround Sound and
it was great.

He didn't seem to enjoy the movie very much - something probably
got lost in the translation. Go figure.
>



---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>, 
<mailto:steve.sundur@...> wrote :

that's cool, Michael. One of the informants here went in and out
of dimensions while simply walking through the city in which he
lives.

We were all so envious, wishing we could be special like that.

The rest of us, sigh, can only take simple, uneventful walks, sigh.


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>, 
<mailto:mjackson74@...> wrote :


There is no evidence for there being any multiverses

That's not true - there are any number of channels and New Age-y
types who claim there are multiple dimensions all over the place.


*From:* salyavin808 
<mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com>
*To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
    *Sent:* Thursday, November 20, 2014 3:18 AM
*Subject:* [FairfieldLife] Re: When Worlds Collide




---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>, 
<mailto:s3raphita@...> wrote :

Re"The multiverse is a theory . . . I don't see why atheists
would use this theory to support their idea that there is no God.":


There is no evidence for there being any multiverses - it is as
much a leap of faith as believing in God. The "God option" really
means you have trust in whatever is unfolding.

There might be soon. David Deutsch, who runs the quantum
computing lab at Oxford, makes the case that multiverse theories
are the simplest way of explaining quantum theory. Most other
physicists disagree due to lack of evidence but he intends to
prove it using a virtual reality program of an atom running on a
quantum computer.

I don't fully get what he's going on about but apparently there
is a way that quantum computers can reveal how they work while
they are doing computations about themselves (!), this will tell
us a lot about what sort of universe we live in. All we need is a
computer we don't have yet that exploits Qbits, the ability of
things in the quantum world to be in potentially two, or more,
places at once. But they are on the way. I get the impression
that if he pulls it off he'll be the most famous scientist since
Einstein but it's a long way away. But quantum computing is the
future whatever it tells us.

But as I said in another post, this in't the multiverse you are
talking about but they might be provable - should they exist.
Maybe cosmologists should just start again. Wouldn't be the first
time...

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: When Worlds Collide....

[awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 that's cool, Michael. One of the informants here went in and out of dimensions 
while simply walking through the city in which he lives. 

 We were all so envious, wishing we could be special like that.
 

 The rest of us, sigh, can only take simple, uneventful walks, sigh.
 

 I think MJ will have a memory lapse about that one, Steve. Just watch, there 
will be no comment. Maybe you only exist in the "no read" file. 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 

 There is no evidence for there being any multiverses 

 

 That's not true - there are any number of channels and New Age-y types who 
claim there are multiple dimensions all over the place.

 

 From: salyavin808 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 3:18 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: When Worlds Collide
 
 
   

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Re "The multiverse is a theory . . . I don't see why atheists would use this 
theory to support their idea that there is no God.":
 

 

 There is no evidence for there being any multiverses - it is as much a leap of 
faith as believing in God. The "God option" really means you have trust in 
whatever is unfolding.
 

 There might be soon. David Deutsch, who runs the quantum computing lab at 
Oxford, makes the case that multiverse theories are the simplest way of 
explaining quantum theory. Most other physicists disagree due to lack of 
evidence but he intends to prove it using a virtual reality program of an atom 
running on a quantum computer. 
 

 I don't fully get what he's going on about but apparently there is a way that 
quantum computers can reveal how they work while they are doing computations 
about themselves (!), this will tell us a lot about what sort of universe we 
live in. All we need is a computer we don't have yet that exploits Qbits, the 
ability of things in the quantum world to be in potentially two, or more, 
places at once. But they are on the way. I get the impression that if he pulls 
it off he'll be the most famous scientist since Einstein but it's a long way 
away. But quantum computing is the future whatever it tells us.
 

 But as I said in another post, this in't the multiverse you are talking about 
but they might be provable - should they exist. Maybe cosmologists should just 
start again. Wouldn't be the first time...



 


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: When Worlds Collide....

[awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 On 11/20/2014 9:05 AM, Michael Jackson wrote:
 >
 
   ...there are any number of channels and New Age-y types who claim there are 
multiple dimensions all over the place.
 


 >
 Thanks for posting this. You have really contributed a lot to this 
conversation. Very impressive. Good work. Apparently you are very familiar with 
this subject, one of the favorite themes in science fiction and fantasy, by 
some of our greatest writers.
 
 You do realize that one of the main supporters of the multiverse hypotheses is 
Stephen Hawking, right?
 

 Richard, evidently you ate your Wheaties this morning.

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: When Worlds Collide....

[fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Glad to hear it - I am a Red Box kind of guy, and will definitely grab a copy.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 On 11/20/2014 7:21 PM, fleetwood_macncheese wrote:
 >
 
   Wasn't he walking his enlightened dog, too? Its a wonder he kept track of it 
all...


 >
 His dog is probably like Brian on The Family Guy - the smartest one in the 
whole house. 
 
 But I still don't get why Barry would post a review of a pirated copy of 
Intersteller that he watched on a 14 inch laptop, with Dutch captions. 
 
 We saw it on the IMAX screen in 70 mm in Dolby Surround Sound and it was 
great. 
 
 He didn't seem to enjoy the movie very much - something probably got lost in 
the translation. Go figure.
 >
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:steve.sundur@... wrote :
 
 that's cool, Michael. One of the informants here went in and out of dimensions 
while simply walking through the city in which he lives. 
 
 We were all so envious, wishing we could be special like that.
 
 
 The rest of us, sigh, can only take simple, uneventful walks, sigh.
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:mjackson74@... wrote :
 
 

 There is no evidence for there being any multiverses 
 
 
 
 That's not true - there are any number of channels and New Age-y types who 
claim there are multiple dimensions all over the place.
 
 
 
 From: salyavin808  mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 3:18 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: When Worlds Collide
 
 
   

 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:s3raphita@... wrote :
 
 Re "The multiverse is a theory . . . I don't see why atheists would use this 
theory to support their idea that there is no God.":
 
 
 

 There is no evidence for there being any multiverses - it is as much a leap of 
faith as believing in God. The "God option" really means you have trust in 
whatever is unfolding.
 
 
 There might be soon. David Deutsch, who runs the quantum computing lab at 
Oxford, makes the case that multiverse theories are the simplest way of 
explaining quantum theory. Most other physicists disagree due to lack of 
evidence but he intends to prove it using a virtual reality program of an atom 
running on a quantum computer. 
 
 
 I don't fully get what he's going on about but apparently there is a way that 
quantum computers can reveal how they work while they are doing computations 
about themselves (!), this will tell us a lot about what sort of universe we 
live in. All we need is a computer we don't have yet that exploits Qbits, the 
ability of things in the quantum world to be in potentially two, or more, 
places at once. But they are on the way. I get the impression that if he pulls 
it off he'll be the most famous scientist since Einstein but it's a long way 
away. But quantum computing is the future whatever it tells us.
 
 
 But as I said in another post, this in't the multiverse you are talking about 
but they might be provable - should they exist. Maybe cosmologists should just 
start again. Wouldn't be the first time...






 
 













 
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: When Worlds Collide....

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 11/20/2014 7:21 PM, fleetwood_macncheese wrote:
>


Wasn't he walking his enlightened dog, too? Its a wonder he kept track 
of it all...



>
His dog is probably like Brian on /The Family Guy/ - the smartest one in 
the whole house.


But I still don't get why Barry would post a review of a pirated copy of 
/Intersteller/ that he watched on a 14 inch laptop, with Dutch captions.


We saw it on the IMAX screen in 70 mm in Dolby Surround Sound and it was 
great.


He didn't seem to enjoy the movie very much - something probably got 
lost in the translation. Go figure.

>



---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

that's cool, Michael. One of the informants here went in and out of 
dimensions while simply walking through the city in which he lives.


We were all so envious, wishing we could be special like that.

The rest of us, sigh, can only take simple, uneventful walks, sigh.


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :


There is no evidence for there being any multiverses

That's not true - there are any number of channels and New Age-y types 
who claim there are multiple dimensions all over the place.



*From:* salyavin808 
*To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
*Sent:* Thursday, November 20, 2014 3:18 AM
*Subject:* [FairfieldLife] Re: When Worlds Collide




---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

Re"The multiverse is a theory . . . I don't see why atheists would use 
this theory to support their idea that there is no God.":



There is no evidence for there being any multiverses - it is as much a 
leap of faith as believing in God. The "God option" really means you 
have trust in whatever is unfolding.


There might be soon. David Deutsch, who runs the quantum computing lab 
at Oxford, makes the case that multiverse theories are the simplest 
way of explaining quantum theory. Most other physicists disagree due 
to lack of evidence but he intends to prove it using a virtual reality 
program of an atom running on a quantum computer.


I don't fully get what he's going on about but apparently there is a 
way that quantum computers can reveal how they work while they are 
doing computations about themselves (!), this will tell us a lot about 
what sort of universe we live in. All we need is a computer we don't 
have yet that exploits Qbits, the ability of things in the quantum 
world to be in potentially two, or more, places at once. But they are 
on the way. I get the impression that if he pulls it off he'll be the 
most famous scientist since Einstein but it's a long way away. But 
quantum computing is the future whatever it tells us.


But as I said in another post, this in't the multiverse you are 
talking about but they might be provable - should they exist. Maybe 
cosmologists should just start again. Wouldn't be the first time...

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: When Worlds Collide....

[fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Wasn't he walking his enlightened dog, too? Its a wonder he kept track of it 
all...
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 that's cool, Michael. One of the informants here went in and out of dimensions 
while simply walking through the city in which he lives. 

 We were all so envious, wishing we could be special like that.
 

 The rest of us, sigh, can only take simple, uneventful walks, sigh.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 

 There is no evidence for there being any multiverses 

 

 That's not true - there are any number of channels and New Age-y types who 
claim there are multiple dimensions all over the place.

 

 From: salyavin808 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 3:18 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: When Worlds Collide
 
 
   

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Re "The multiverse is a theory . . . I don't see why atheists would use this 
theory to support their idea that there is no God.":
 

 

 There is no evidence for there being any multiverses - it is as much a leap of 
faith as believing in God. The "God option" really means you have trust in 
whatever is unfolding.
 

 There might be soon. David Deutsch, who runs the quantum computing lab at 
Oxford, makes the case that multiverse theories are the simplest way of 
explaining quantum theory. Most other physicists disagree due to lack of 
evidence but he intends to prove it using a virtual reality program of an atom 
running on a quantum computer. 
 

 I don't fully get what he's going on about but apparently there is a way that 
quantum computers can reveal how they work while they are doing computations 
about themselves (!), this will tell us a lot about what sort of universe we 
live in. All we need is a computer we don't have yet that exploits Qbits, the 
ability of things in the quantum world to be in potentially two, or more, 
places at once. But they are on the way. I get the impression that if he pulls 
it off he'll be the most famous scientist since Einstein but it's a long way 
away. But quantum computing is the future whatever it tells us.
 

 But as I said in another post, this in't the multiverse you are talking about 
but they might be provable - should they exist. Maybe cosmologists should just 
start again. Wouldn't be the first time...



 


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: When Worlds Collide....

[steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

that's cool, Michael. One of the informants here went in and out of dimensions 
while simply walking through the city in which he lives. 

 We were all so envious, wishing we could be special like that.
 

 The rest of us, sigh, can only take simple, uneventful walks, sigh.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 

 There is no evidence for there being any multiverses 

 

 That's not true - there are any number of channels and New Age-y types who 
claim there are multiple dimensions all over the place.

 

 From: salyavin808 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 3:18 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: When Worlds Collide
 
 
   

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Re "The multiverse is a theory . . . I don't see why atheists would use this 
theory to support their idea that there is no God.":
 

 

 There is no evidence for there being any multiverses - it is as much a leap of 
faith as believing in God. The "God option" really means you have trust in 
whatever is unfolding.
 

 There might be soon. David Deutsch, who runs the quantum computing lab at 
Oxford, makes the case that multiverse theories are the simplest way of 
explaining quantum theory. Most other physicists disagree due to lack of 
evidence but he intends to prove it using a virtual reality program of an atom 
running on a quantum computer. 
 

 I don't fully get what he's going on about but apparently there is a way that 
quantum computers can reveal how they work while they are doing computations 
about themselves (!), this will tell us a lot about what sort of universe we 
live in. All we need is a computer we don't have yet that exploits Qbits, the 
ability of things in the quantum world to be in potentially two, or more, 
places at once. But they are on the way. I get the impression that if he pulls 
it off he'll be the most famous scientist since Einstein but it's a long way 
away. But quantum computing is the future whatever it tells us.
 

 But as I said in another post, this in't the multiverse you are talking about 
but they might be provable - should they exist. Maybe cosmologists should just 
start again. Wouldn't be the first time...



 


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: When Worlds Collide....

[s3raph...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Response to salyavin808
 

 Thanks for your considered replies.
 

 Re "I don't get why consciousness is reserved such a pedestal just because it 
is currently unexplained.":

 

 Lots of things are unexplained. But what they all have in common is that they 
are occurrences we witness *in consciousness* - the consciousness of you, me or 
scientists. What makes "awareness" itself unique is that in this case we are 
talking about what is registering all the other (explained or unexplained) 
phenomena. How we make the jump from an objective world *out there* to our 
experience of colour, sound, warmth, love, beauty, . . . , is a question of a 
completely different order than those other queries. We don't even know what 
kind of answer we're looking for. 
 

 If awareness is fundamental or basic, and so irreducible to other facts, that 
puzzlement over how to engage with the issue evaporates. From the get-go, 
consciousness is the *inner* aspect of what exists; just as space and time are 
the *outer* aspects. (Spinoza)
 

 Re "All design arguments are pointless because they require all the potential 
intelligence and complexity in the universe to have existed before the universe 
did because God must know what he wanted.":

 

 I no-doubt misled you by using the term "design argument". That's the label 
used for arguments which are sceptical of purely materialist explanations for 
how the order we see arose. I don't think "God" did know what He wanted in 
advance! God is better seen as the Supreme Artist. He didn't know how things 
would turn out in future; He's adapting the artwork as it evolves over time 
(see "process theology"). 
 

 (It would take the discussion too far afield but you have to distinguish 
between "God immanent" - Who is learning as He goes along; and "God 
transcendent" - to Whom all past, present and future "present moments" are 
available and so He knows that all things shall be well.)
 

 

[FairfieldLife] Re: When Worlds Collide....

[lengli...@cox.net [FairfieldLife]]

Theory and belief aren't exactly the same thing, usually. 

 L
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 The Type I multiverse isn't a belief, but merely the inescapable conclusion 
that you simply MUST draw given a few assumptions about the nature of the 
universe.
 

 If you have to rely on assumptions it is still "just" a theory. We simply 
don't know yet if the universe is infinite in extent.
 

 In a sense, a Type 1 multiverse is merely an extension of Bolzmann's Brain, 
which is where a nervous system spontaneously arises somewhere in the universe 
due to random quantum events that has an illusory past history that makes said 
nervous system believe that it is a typical living creature with a 
human/martian/vulcan/whatever background -at least for that brief instant 
before it expires due to lack of anything that would normally keep such a 
nervous system alive.

 

 Futurama had at least one episode where the characters encounter an entire 
colony of such brains floating in space.

 

 In that case I believe it.
 

 

 

 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Re "The multiverse is a theory . . . I don't see why atheists would use this 
theory to support their idea that there is no God.":
 

 The multiverse theory - the idea that there are a possibly infinite number of 
universes - is uncannily like the idea of the medieval scholastics that in God 
there were an infinite number of potential worlds that He(?) could actualize. 
The big difference - and it is a really, really big difference - is that in the 
multiverse theory all possible universes *must* exist - including the most 
hideous. For the theologians, God would *only* bring into existence those 
worlds he felt were good (good in the long run - and for the majority of us).
 

 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.

 (Genesis 1:31)
 

 Also in this He shewed me a little thing, the quantity of an hazel-nut, in the 
palm of my hand; and it was as round as a ball. I looked thereupon with eye of 
my understanding, and thought: What may this be? And it was answered generally 
thus: It is all that is made. I marvelled how it might last, for methought it 
might suddenly have fallen to naught for little[ness]. And I was answered in my 
understanding: It lasteth, and ever shall [last] for that God loveth it. And so 
All-thing hath the Being by the love of God.

 (Julian of Norwich)
 

 There is no evidence for there being any multiverses - it is as much a leap of 
faith as believing in God. The "God option" really means you have trust in 
whatever is unfolding.
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: When Worlds Collide....

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 11/20/2014 9:05 AM, Michael Jackson wrote:
>
...there are any number of channels and New Age-y types who claim 
there are multiple dimensions all over the place.

>
/Thanks for posting this. You have really contributed a lot to this 
conversation. Very impressive. Good work. Apparently you are very 
familiar with this subject, one of the favorite themes in science 
fiction and fantasy, by some of our greatest writers.


You do realize that one of the main supporters of the multiverse 
hypotheses is Stephen Hawking, right?///

>



*From:* salyavin808 
*To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
*Sent:* Thursday, November 20, 2014 3:18 AM
*Subject:* [FairfieldLife] Re: When Worlds Collide




---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

Re"The multiverse is a theory . . . I don't see why atheists would use 
this theory to support their idea that there is no God.":



There is no evidence for there being any multiverses - it is as much a 
leap of faith as believing in God. The "God option" really means you 
have trust in whatever is unfolding.


There might be soon. David Deutsch, who runs the quantum computing lab 
at Oxford, makes the case that multiverse theories are the simplest 
way of explaining quantum theory. Most other physicists disagree due 
to lack of evidence but he intends to prove it using a virtual reality 
program of an atom running on a quantum computer.


I don't fully get what he's going on about but apparently there is a 
way that quantum computers can reveal how they work while they are 
doing computations about themselves (!), this will tell us a lot about 
what sort of universe we live in. All we need is a computer we don't 
have yet that exploits Qbits, the ability of things in the quantum 
world to be in potentially two, or more, places at once. But they are 
on the way. I get the impression that if he pulls it off he'll be the 
most famous scientist since Einstein but it's a long way away. But 
quantum computing is the future whatever it tells us.


But as I said in another post, this in't the multiverse you are 
talking about but they might be provable - should they exist. Maybe 
cosmologists should just start again. Wouldn't be the first time...

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: When Worlds Collide....

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 11/20/2014 7:18 AM, steve.sundur wrote:
>


just another, "IDNNS"  __


>
/So far today, Barry has posted about Chinese culture, God, 
Enlightenment, and The Big Bang Theory - all of which he claims to have 
no interest in. Apparently his only interest is button pushing. //

//
//I mean, if he has no interest in these topics, why does he keep 
opening his big pie hole?


A cry for attention - just trolling, or is there something else going on 
in his mind? It's beginning to look like he is even an embarrassment to 
Xeno and Salya.

>
/



---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

*/This is fascinating, and helps me to clarify something I wrote 
before. I completely *understand* how this kind of speculation is 
interesting to some people, but for me it falls into the category of 
theoretical speculation that just holds no interest for me.

/*
*/
/*
*/For a scientist who wants to feel as if he or she has some kind of 
handle on what happened at the time of the theoretical creation of the 
universe, it all must be thrilling. But for me, I cannot get past, 
"WTF does this or *could* this have to do with anything in my real, 
everyday life?"/*

*/
/*
*/Big Bang, schmang. Why should I care?
/*
*/
/*
*/*By definition* (since no one will ever know for sure), any theory 
of what happened at the moment of the Big Bang will be just that -- a 
theory. Heck, I am not even convinced that there ever *was* a Big Bang 
(meaning a single "beginning" of the universe). So I leave 
speculations about such things to those who (like Salyavin and 
presumably s3raphita) are fascinated by the science of it all.

/*
*/
/*
*/Others (such as JohnR or other religionists) glom onto theories 
about the Big Bang as support for their medieval ideas about God, and 
I find that even less interesting. /*

*/
/*
*/I'm not complaining, just explaining why none of this interests me 
terribly much.../*

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: When Worlds Collide....

[Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

There is no evidence for there being any multiverses 

That's not true - there are any number of channels and New Age-y types who 
claim there are multiple dimensions all over the place.

  From: salyavin808 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 3:18 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: When Worlds Collide
   
    


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

Re "The multiverse is a theory . . . I don't see why atheists would use this 
theory to support their idea that there is no God.":


There is no evidence for there being any multiverses - it is as much a leap of 
faith as believing in God. The "God option" really means you have trust in 
whatever is unfolding.
There might be soon. David Deutsch, who runs the quantum computing lab at 
Oxford, makes the case that multiverse theories are the simplest way of 
explaining quantum theory. Most other physicists disagree due to lack of 
evidence but he intends to prove it using a virtual reality program of an atom 
running on a quantum computer. 
I don't fully get what he's going on about but apparently there is a way that 
quantum computers can reveal how they work while they are doing computations 
about themselves (!), this will tell us a lot about what sort of universe we 
live in. All we need is a computer we don't have yet that exploits Qbits, the 
ability of things in the quantum world to be in potentially two, or more, 
places at once. But they are on the way. I get the impression that if he pulls 
it off he'll be the most famous scientist since Einstein but it's a long way 
away. But quantum computing is the future whatever it tells us.
But as I said in another post, this in't the multiverse you are talking about 
but they might be provable - should they exist. Maybe cosmologists should just 
start again. Wouldn't be the first time...  #yiv7650488904 #yiv7650488904 -- 
#yiv7650488904ygrp-mkp {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 
0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv7650488904 #yiv7650488904ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid 
#d8d8d8;}#yiv7650488904 #yiv7650488904ygrp-mkp #yiv7650488904hd 
{color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px 
0;}#yiv7650488904 #yiv7650488904ygrp-mkp #yiv7650488904ads 
{margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv7650488904 #yiv7650488904ygrp-mkp .yiv7650488904ad 
{padding:0 0;}#yiv7650488904 #yiv7650488904ygrp-mkp .yiv7650488904ad p 
{margin:0;}#yiv7650488904 #yiv7650488904ygrp-mkp .yiv7650488904ad a 
{color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}#yiv7650488904 #yiv7650488904ygrp-sponsor 
#yiv7650488904ygrp-lc {font-family:Arial;}#yiv7650488904 
#yiv7650488904ygrp-sponsor #yiv7650488904ygrp-lc #yiv7650488904hd {margin:10px 
0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}#yiv7650488904 
#yiv7650488904ygrp-sponsor #yiv7650488904ygrp-lc .yiv7650488904ad 
{margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}#yiv7650488904 #yiv7650488904actions 
{font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}#yiv7650488904 
#yiv7650488904activity 
{background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}#yiv7650488904
 #yiv7650488904activity span {font-weight:700;}#yiv7650488904 
#yiv7650488904activity span:first-child 
{text-transform:uppercase;}#yiv7650488904 #yiv7650488904activity span a 
{color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;}#yiv7650488904 #yiv7650488904activity span 
span {color:#ff7900;}#yiv7650488904 #yiv7650488904activity span 
.yiv7650488904underline {text-decoration:underline;}#yiv7650488904 
.yiv7650488904attach 
{clear:both;display:table;font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;padding:10px 
0;width:400px;}#yiv7650488904 .yiv7650488904attach div a 
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv7650488904 .yiv7650488904attach img 
{border:none;padding-right:5px;}#yiv7650488904 .yiv7650488904attach label 
{display:block;margin-bottom:5px;}#yiv7650488904 .yiv7650488904attach label a 
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv7650488904 blockquote {margin:0 0 0 
4px;}#yiv7650488904 .yiv7650488904bold 
{font-family:Arial;font-size:13px;font-weight:700;}#yiv7650488904 
.yiv7650488904bold a {text-decoration:none;}#yiv7650488904 dd.yiv7650488904last 
p a {font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}#yiv7650488904 dd.yiv7650488904last p 
span {margin-right:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}#yiv7650488904 
dd.yiv7650488904last p span.yiv7650488904yshortcuts 
{margin-right:0;}#yiv7650488904 div.yiv7650488904attach-table div div a 
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv7650488904 div.yiv7650488904attach-table 
{width:400px;}#yiv7650488904 div.yiv7650488904file-title a, #yiv7650488904 
div.yiv7650488904file-title a:active, #yiv7650488904 
div.yiv7650488904file-title a:hover, #yiv7650488904 div.yiv7650488904file-title 
a:visited {text-decoration:none;}#yiv7650488904 div.yiv7650488904photo-title a, 
#yiv7650488904 div.yiv7650488904photo-title a:active, #yiv7650488904 
div.yiv7650488904photo-title a:hover, #yiv7650488904 
div.yiv7650488904photo-title a:visited {

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: When Worlds Collide....

[steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

just another, "IDNNS"  __
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 This is fascinating, and helps me to clarify something I wrote before. I 
completely *understand* how this kind of speculation is interesting to some 
people, but for me it falls into the category of theoretical speculation that 
just holds no interest for me. 

 

 For a scientist who wants to feel as if he or she has some kind of handle on 
what happened at the time of the theoretical creation of the universe, it all 
must be thrilling. But for me, I cannot get past, "WTF does this or *could* 
this have to do with anything in my real, everyday life?"
 

 Big Bang, schmang. Why should I care? 

 

 *By definition* (since no one will ever know for sure), any theory of what 
happened at the moment of the Big Bang will be just that -- a theory. Heck, I 
am not even convinced that there ever *was* a Big Bang (meaning a single 
"beginning" of the universe). So I leave speculations about such things to 
those who (like Salyavin and presumably s3raphita) are fascinated by the 
science of it all. 

 

 Others (such as JohnR or other religionists) glom onto theories about the Big 
Bang as support for their medieval ideas about God, and I find that even less 
interesting. 
 

 I'm not complaining, just explaining why none of this interests me terribly 
much...


 From: salyavin808 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 When I first looked into the question of whether something approximating to 
"God" existed, my intuition told me that the idea that conscious, intelligent, 
moral beings - like my good self - could arise as result of an accidental Big 
Bang was so obviously absurd I couldn't understand how supposedly bright people 
(scientists) could accept such a conclusion (even throwing natural selection 
into the mix). 
 In those days the "argument from design" for God's existence was pooh-poohed 
by philosophers. Since then we've been struck by the amount of "fine tuning" 
that must have existed at the time of the Big Bang to allow for the development 
of life as we know it. Check out the details: the ratio of the strengths of 
gravity to that of electromagnetism; the strength of the force binding nucleons 
into nuclei; the relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the 
Universe; the cosmological constant; etc; etc. Any slight variation = no life.
 

 Apparent fine tuning is interesting and needs an explanation but we don't know 
what sort of explanation, meaning that it could have been a pure coincidence 
first time or that there is a limit to the amount of possible universes that 
have to exist. We just happen to be in the right one for us. Currently, no one 
knows how much of a mystery it is.
 

 And whether it will always be a mystery is unknown but it comes down to the 
amount of matter/anti-matter at the start of the universe and the speed of 
expansion. The trouble that the religious people have trying to fit god in at 
this point of creation is that there isn't any way anything complex enough to 
be called intelligent and creative could have existed. That is a vastly harder 
problem for them to explain than the apparent fine tuning is for us.
 

 This has led defenders of atheism to postulate we inhabit a multiverse. If 
there were an infinite number of worlds then we don't need "God" as an 
hypothesis for why we find ourselves living in a human-friendly environment. 
That's true - but here's the thing: the idea of many worlds didn't come up back 
in the day when I had my "intuition" - everyone assumed we were living in a 
one-shot, one-off universe.
 

 If the multiverse theory is correct (a big if) then, yes, it means we don't 
need God, but it also shows how gullible Dawkins and co were to have rejected 
the original design argument.
 

 The multiverse is one idea among many and there are undoubtably loads of ideas 
about it no one has had yet. But it depends what multiverse theory we are 
talking about. The one you mention here sounds like the idea that there are a 
great many bubbles of universes that are physically seperate to ours, in a 
vaster space than our own, each of them slightly different with different start 
points of atomic weight etc. Some favoured this idea but it fails as science 
because it's untestable and is the same as saying that there have been and 
endless number of almost universes that arose one form the other until the 
"correct" one appeared. That really is just an idea to hopefully explain 
something even though it might even be true!
 

 The most interesting multiverse ideas involve a vast amount of universes in 
the same place and using the same atoms. The so-called "many worlds" 
interpretations of quantum theory. But these don't explain the fine tuning at 
the big bang because the atoms that they are made of are structures that formed 
after the point of creation (you know I don;t use that word religiously right? 
yeah, course you do...)
 

 I don't see how any of i

[FairfieldLife] Re: When Worlds Collide....

[salyavin808]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 The Type I multiverse isn't a belief, but merely the inescapable conclusion 
that you simply MUST draw given a few assumptions about the nature of the 
universe.
 

 If you have to rely on assumptions it is still "just" a theory. We simply 
don't know yet if the universe is infinite in extent.
 

 In a sense, a Type 1 multiverse is merely an extension of Bolzmann's Brain, 
which is where a nervous system spontaneously arises somewhere in the universe 
due to random quantum events that has an illusory past history that makes said 
nervous system believe that it is a typical living creature with a 
human/martian/vulcan/whatever background -at least for that brief instant 
before it expires due to lack of anything that would normally keep such a 
nervous system alive.

 

 Futurama had at least one episode where the characters encounter an entire 
colony of such brains floating in space.

 

 In that case I believe it.
 

 

 

 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Re "The multiverse is a theory . . . I don't see why atheists would use this 
theory to support their idea that there is no God.":
 

 The multiverse theory - the idea that there are a possibly infinite number of 
universes - is uncannily like the idea of the medieval scholastics that in God 
there were an infinite number of potential worlds that He(?) could actualize. 
The big difference - and it is a really, really big difference - is that in the 
multiverse theory all possible universes *must* exist - including the most 
hideous. For the theologians, God would *only* bring into existence those 
worlds he felt were good (good in the long run - and for the majority of us).
 

 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.

 (Genesis 1:31)
 

 Also in this He shewed me a little thing, the quantity of an hazel-nut, in the 
palm of my hand; and it was as round as a ball. I looked thereupon with eye of 
my understanding, and thought: What may this be? And it was answered generally 
thus: It is all that is made. I marvelled how it might last, for methought it 
might suddenly have fallen to naught for little[ness]. And I was answered in my 
understanding: It lasteth, and ever shall [last] for that God loveth it. And so 
All-thing hath the Being by the love of God.

 (Julian of Norwich)
 

 There is no evidence for there being any multiverses - it is as much a leap of 
faith as believing in God. The "God option" really means you have trust in 
whatever is unfolding.
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: When Worlds Collide....

[TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

From: salyavin808 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

This is fascinating, and helps me to clarify something I wrote before. I 
completely *understand* how this kind of speculation is interesting to some 
people, but for me it falls into the category of theoretical speculation that 
just holds no interest for me. 

For a scientist who wants to feel as if he or she has some kind of handle on 
what happened at the time of the theoretical creation of the universe, it all 
must be thrilling. But for me, I cannot get past, "WTF does this or *could* 
this have to do with anything in my real, everyday life?"
Big Bang, schmang. Why should I care? 

*By definition* (since no one will ever know for sure), any theory of what 
happened at the moment of the Big Bang will be just that -- a theory. Heck, I 
am not even convinced that there ever *was* a Big Bang (meaning a single 
"beginning" of the universe). So I leave speculations about such things to 
those who (like Salyavin and presumably s3raphita) are fascinated by the 
science of it all. 

Others (such as JohnR or other religionists) glom onto theories about the Big 
Bang as support for their medieval ideas about God, and I find that even less 
interesting. 
I'm not complaining, just explaining why none of this interests me terribly 
much...

For me it's about answering the fundamental question, the greatest mystery: Why 
is there something rather than nothing? When I sit and ponder that it gets more 
amazing rather than less and just demands to be understood. Sure, it won't help 
pay the mortgage but there's a satisfaction in solving problems for their own 
sake. And they don;t come much bigger than why are we here?
This would seem to be the essential difference between thee and me. I am just 
not drawn that way. I have a more Buddhist approach (although I've always had 
it, and didn't get it *from* Buddhism, as a kind of dogma that I was taught or 
came to believe in). For me the Great Mystery is *not* the "Why?" of life, but 
the "What now?" of life. 

Why I found somewhat of a resonance with Buddhism is that they, too, don't 
really expend much energy trying to figure out why and how Here And Now 
happened. That is looked upon as a waste of time, because nothing you learn can 
actually *affect* Here And Now. The Buddhist approach (and mine, long before I 
ever heard of Buddhism) is more, "What is the nature of Here And Now, and how 
can I make the best of it?"

Consciousness is the other biggie. I'm not a woo woo believer, unless there's 
something we really haven't understood it's obviously something that happens in 
the brain and that's that.  But how? Bit of a puzzle how we have this vast 
inner space with feelings and colour and desires and a constant babble of ideas 
and questions. How does it work, and like the fine tuning problem, is it 
actually difficult or have we just not had the simple but bright idea that 
explains it yet? 
Again, for me this is more of a non-issue. Wondering "What is consciousness?" 
strikes me as akin to a fish wondering "What is water?" The answer -- if there 
ever is one -- doesn't help you swim or avoid sharks.  :-) 

I predict it will be simple because the greatest ideas that explain the most 
always are. How could it be any other way when everything else has got here 
under its own steam with no divine guidance? You just can't have complexity 
coming first. If anyone says you can then we may as well not bother trying to 
understand anything because everything we've got so far must make no sense and 
be completely wrong. And as it seems to make rather good sense the mystics must 
be mistaken. QED surely.
And that's my tea break over...
And my lunch break over...
  From: salyavin808 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

When I first looked into the question of whether something approximating to 
"God" existed, my intuition told me that the idea that conscious, intelligent, 
moral beings - like my good self - could arise as result of an accidental Big 
Bang was so obviously absurd I couldn't understand how supposedly bright people 
(scientists) could accept such a conclusion (even throwing natural selection 
into the mix).
In those days the "argument from design" for God's existence was pooh-poohed by 
philosophers. Since then we've been struck by the amount of "fine tuning" that 
must have existed at the time of the Big Bang to allow for the development of 
life as we know it. Check out the details: the ratio of the strengths of 
gravity to that of electromagnetism; the strength of the force binding nucleons 
into nuclei; the relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the 
Universe; the cosmological constant; etc; etc. Any slight variation = no life.
Apparent fine tuning is interesting and needs an explanation but we don't know 
what sort of explanation, meaning that it could have been a pure coincidence 
first time or that there is a limit to the amount of possible universes that 
have to

[FairfieldLife] Re: When Worlds Collide....

[lengli...@cox.net [FairfieldLife]]

The Type I multiverse isn't a belief, but merely the inescapable conclusion 
that you simply MUST draw given a few assumptions about the nature of the 
universe. 

 Basically, a Type I multiverse exists (simply MUST exist) if there is an 
infinite physical expanse. In other words, our observable universe is merely a 
bubble of observable space-time embedded in an infinitely vast physical space 
where, by nature of Quantum Mechanics, an infinite number of bubbles of locally 
observable space-time have arisen, are arising and will arise.
 

 Each bubble has potentially its own unique state from the inception of its 
local Big Bang onward.
 

 Given a finite number of particles in our own local space-time bubble and such 
an infinite expanse, there must be an infinite number of 100% identical copies 
of our universe existing at any given moment, along with an infinite number of 
all other possible manifestations as well. 
 

 Tegmark has written quite a few essays about this theory which are available 
online.
 

 In a sense, a Type 1 multiverse is merely an extension of Bolzmann's Brain, 
which is where a nervous system spontaneously arises somewhere in the universe 
due to random quantum events that has an illusory past history that makes said 
nervous system believe that it is a typical living creature with a 
human/martian/vulcan/whatever background -at least for that brief instant 
before it expires due to lack of anything that would normally keep such a 
nervous system alive.
 

 Futurerama had at least one episode where the characters encounter an entire 
colony of such brains floating in space.
 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Re "The multiverse is a theory . . . I don't see why atheists would use this 
theory to support their idea that there is no God.":
 

 The multiverse theory - the idea that there are a possibly infinite number of 
universes - is uncannily like the idea of the medieval scholastics that in God 
there were an infinite number of potential worlds that He(?) could actualize. 
The big difference - and it is a really, really big difference - is that in the 
multiverse theory all possible universes *must* exist - including the most 
hideous. For the theologians, God would *only* bring into existence those 
worlds he felt were good (good in the long run - and for the majority of us).
 

 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.

 (Genesis 1:31)
 

 Also in this He shewed me a little thing, the quantity of an hazel-nut, in the 
palm of my hand; and it was as round as a ball. I looked thereupon with eye of 
my understanding, and thought: What may this be? And it was answered generally 
thus: It is all that is made. I marvelled how it might last, for methought it 
might suddenly have fallen to naught for little[ness]. And I was answered in my 
understanding: It lasteth, and ever shall [last] for that God loveth it. And so 
All-thing hath the Being by the love of God.

 (Julian of Norwich)
 

 There is no evidence for there being any multiverses - it is as much a leap of 
faith as believing in God. The "God option" really means you have trust in 
whatever is unfolding.
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: When Worlds Collide....

[salyavin808]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 This is fascinating, and helps me to clarify something I wrote before. I 
completely *understand* how this kind of speculation is interesting to some 
people, but for me it falls into the category of theoretical speculation that 
just holds no interest for me. 

 

 For a scientist who wants to feel as if he or she has some kind of handle on 
what happened at the time of the theoretical creation of the universe, it all 
must be thrilling. But for me, I cannot get past, "WTF does this or *could* 
this have to do with anything in my real, everyday life?"
 

 Big Bang, schmang. Why should I care? 

 

 *By definition* (since no one will ever know for sure), any theory of what 
happened at the moment of the Big Bang will be just that -- a theory. Heck, I 
am not even convinced that there ever *was* a Big Bang (meaning a single 
"beginning" of the universe). So I leave speculations about such things to 
those who (like Salyavin and presumably s3raphita) are fascinated by the 
science of it all. 

 

 Others (such as JohnR or other religionists) glom onto theories about the Big 
Bang as support for their medieval ideas about God, and I find that even less 
interesting. 
 

 I'm not complaining, just explaining why none of this interests me terribly 
much...

 

For me it's about answering the fundamental question, the greatest mystery: Why 
is there something rather than nothing? When I sit and ponder that it gets more 
amazing rather than less and just demands to be understood. Sure, it won't help 
pay the mortgage but there's a satisfaction in solving problems for their own 
sake. And they don;t come much bigger than why are we here?
 

 Consciousness is the other biggie. I'm not a woo woo believer, unless there's 
something we really haven't understood it's obviously something that happens in 
the brain and that's that.  But how? Bit of a puzzle how we have this vast 
inner space with feelings and colour and desires and a constant babble of ideas 
and questions. How does it work, and like the fine tuning problem, is it 
actually difficult or have we just not had the simple but bright idea that 
explains it yet? 
 

 I predict it will be simple because the greatest ideas that explain the most 
always are. How could it be any other way when everything else has got here 
under its own steam with no divine guidance? You just can't have complexity 
coming first. If anyone says you can then we may as well not bother trying to 
understand anything because everything we've got so far must make no sense and 
be completely wrong. And as it seems to make rather good sense the mystics must 
be mistaken. QED surely.
 

 And that's my tea break over...
 

 
 From: salyavin808 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 When I first looked into the question of whether something approximating to 
"God" existed, my intuition told me that the idea that conscious, intelligent, 
moral beings - like my good self - could arise as result of an accidental Big 
Bang was so obviously absurd I couldn't understand how supposedly bright people 
(scientists) could accept such a conclusion (even throwing natural selection 
into the mix). 
 In those days the "argument from design" for God's existence was pooh-poohed 
by philosophers. Since then we've been struck by the amount of "fine tuning" 
that must have existed at the time of the Big Bang to allow for the development 
of life as we know it. Check out the details: the ratio of the strengths of 
gravity to that of electromagnetism; the strength of the force binding nucleons 
into nuclei; the relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the 
Universe; the cosmological constant; etc; etc. Any slight variation = no life.
 

 Apparent fine tuning is interesting and needs an explanation but we don't know 
what sort of explanation, meaning that it could have been a pure coincidence 
first time or that there is a limit to the amount of possible universes that 
have to exist. We just happen to be in the right one for us. Currently, no one 
knows how much of a mystery it is.
 

 And whether it will always be a mystery is unknown but it comes down to the 
amount of matter/anti-matter at the start of the universe and the speed of 
expansion. The trouble that the religious people have trying to fit god in at 
this point of creation is that there isn't any way anything complex enough to 
be called intelligent and creative could have existed. That is a vastly harder 
problem for them to explain than the apparent fine tuning is for us.
 

 This has led defenders of atheism to postulate we inhabit a multiverse. If 
there were an infinite number of worlds then we don't need "God" as an 
hypothesis for why we find ourselves living in a human-friendly environment. 
That's true - but here's the thing: the idea of many worlds didn't come up back 
in the day when I had my "intuition" - everyone assumed we were living in a 
one-shot, one-off u

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: When Worlds Collide....

[TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

This is fascinating, and helps me to clarify something I wrote before. I 
completely *understand* how this kind of speculation is interesting to some 
people, but for me it falls into the category of theoretical speculation that 
just holds no interest for me. 

For a scientist who wants to feel as if he or she has some kind of handle on 
what happened at the time of the theoretical creation of the universe, it all 
must be thrilling. But for me, I cannot get past, "WTF does this or *could* 
this have to do with anything in my real, everyday life?"
Big Bang, schmang. Why should I care? 

*By definition* (since no one will ever know for sure), any theory of what 
happened at the moment of the Big Bang will be just that -- a theory. Heck, I 
am not even convinced that there ever *was* a Big Bang (meaning a single 
"beginning" of the universe). So I leave speculations about such things to 
those who (like Salyavin and presumably s3raphita) are fascinated by the 
science of it all. 

Others (such as JohnR or other religionists) glom onto theories about the Big 
Bang as support for their medieval ideas about God, and I find that even less 
interesting. 
I'm not complaining, just explaining why none of this interests me terribly 
much...

  From: salyavin808 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

When I first looked into the question of whether something approximating to 
"God" existed, my intuition told me that the idea that conscious, intelligent, 
moral beings - like my good self - could arise as result of an accidental Big 
Bang was so obviously absurd I couldn't understand how supposedly bright people 
(scientists) could accept such a conclusion (even throwing natural selection 
into the mix).
In those days the "argument from design" for God's existence was pooh-poohed by 
philosophers. Since then we've been struck by the amount of "fine tuning" that 
must have existed at the time of the Big Bang to allow for the development of 
life as we know it. Check out the details: the ratio of the strengths of 
gravity to that of electromagnetism; the strength of the force binding nucleons 
into nuclei; the relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the 
Universe; the cosmological constant; etc; etc. Any slight variation = no life.
Apparent fine tuning is interesting and needs an explanation but we don't know 
what sort of explanation, meaning that it could have been a pure coincidence 
first time or that there is a limit to the amount of possible universes that 
have to exist. We just happen to be in the right one for us. Currently, no one 
knows how much of a mystery it is.
And whether it will always be a mystery is unknown but it comes down to the 
amount of matter/anti-matter at the start of the universe and the speed of 
expansion. The trouble that the religious people have trying to fit god in at 
this point of creation is that there isn't any way anything complex enough to 
be called intelligent and creative could have existed. That is a vastly harder 
problem for them to explain than the apparent fine tuning is for us.
This has led defenders of atheism to postulate we inhabit a multiverse. If 
there were an infinite number of worlds then we don't need "God" as an 
hypothesis for why we find ourselves living in a human-friendly environment. 
That's true - but here's the thing: the idea of many worlds didn't come up back 
in the day when I had my "intuition" - everyone assumed we were living in a 
one-shot, one-off universe.
If the multiverse theory is correct (a big if) then, yes, it means we don't 
need God, but it also shows how gullible Dawkins and co were to have rejected 
the original design argument.
The multiverse is one idea among many and there are undoubtably loads of ideas 
about it no one has had yet. But it depends what multiverse theory we are 
talking about. The one you mention here sounds like the idea that there are a 
great many bubbles of universes that are physically seperate to ours, in a 
vaster space than our own, each of them slightly different with different start 
points of atomic weight etc. Some favoured this idea but it fails as science 
because it's untestable and is the same as saying that there have been and 
endless number of almost universes that arose one form the other until the 
"correct" one appeared. That really is just an idea to hopefully explain 
something even though it might even be true!
The most interesting multiverse ideas involve a vast amount of universes in the 
same place and using the same atoms. The so-called "many worlds" 
interpretations of quantum theory. But these don't explain the fine tuning at 
the big bang because the atoms that they are made of are structures that formed 
after the point of creation (you know I don;t use that word religiously right? 
yeah, course you do...)
I don't see how any of it means Dawkins was gullible not to go for the design 
argument. All design arguments are pointless because they require all the

[FairfieldLife] Re: When Worlds Collide....

[salyavin808]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 

 "Consciousness" can't be explained by science because it is fundamental. Any 
ultimate explanation has to come down to some essential elements - otherwise 
you have an infinite regress. I claim that "awareness" is just such an 
irreducible element and so can't be explained in terms of anything more 
fundamental.
 

 Things don't have to be explained in a reducible physical sense for them to be 
fundamental. Consciousness is an emergent phenomena that relies on a certain 
level of complexity among types of brain cells, exactly what is required is the 
fundamental level of consciousness. There really is no evidence that anything 
else is required. That should be the emphasis here. 
 

 Fundamentalism can apply to emergent things, you can't tell from looking at a 
carbon atom whether life will exist if it joins up with some others but we 
don't dispute the existence of life or claim it needs a special non-physical 
explanation. Therefore life occurs at a different fundamental level with its 
own laws and requirements.
 

 I don't get why consciousness is reserved such a pedestal just because it is 
currently unexplained. It is part of reality and so it will have a realist 
explanation just like everything else. Be a funny old state of affairs if it 
doesn't...
 

 Science is how it will be explained because science doesn't just rely on 
reductionism as people seem to think. But you will need to demonstrate you are 
correct about the explanation in a scientific way otherwise we are just 
waffling.
 

 I think the problem with consciousness will be adapting the eventual 
explanation to our own experience.
 

 The only alternatives to materialism are pantheism; pan-psychism or idealism. 
I have a soft spot for the latter. But I'm definitely *not* just a lump of 
organic matter.
 

 No you aren't. "We" are defined as being what the organic matter does.  
Greater than the sum of our parts but ultimately dependent on them. The only 
way you'll prove otherwise is by showing that brains aren't necessary for 
consciousness, which is their evolved purpose, among other things obviously.
 

 


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 The counter argument to this is the anthropic principle: 

 'In astrophysics and cosmology, the anthropic principle (from Greek anthropos, 
meaning "human") is the philosophical consideration that observations of the 
physical Universe must be compatible with the conscious and sapient life that 
observes it. Some proponents of the anthropic principle reason that it explains 
why the Universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary 
to accommodate conscious life. As a result, they believe it is unremarkable 
that the universe's fundamental constants happen to fall within the narrow 
range thought to be compatible with life.'
 

 'The strong anthropic principle (SAP) as explained by John D. Barrow and Frank 
Tipler states that this is all the case because the Universe is compelled, in 
some sense, to eventually have conscious and sapient life emerge within it. 
Critics of the SAP argue in favor of a weak anthropic principle (WAP) similar 
to the one defined by Brandon Carter, which states that the universe's 
ostensible fine tuning is the result of selection bias: i.e., only in a 
universe capable of eventually supporting life will there be living beings 
capable of observing and reflecting upon any such fine tuning, while a universe 
less compatible with life will go unbeheld. Most often such arguments draw upon 
some notion of the multiverse for there to be a statistical population of 
universes to select from and from which selection bias (our observance of only 
this Universe, apparently compatible with life) could occur.'
 

 So that the universe seems fine-tuned for us would be an illusion, multiverse 
or not. The conditions for us exist in this universe, and we are here, but that 
tells us nothing about what lies behind that fact.
 

 Dawkins is hardly gullible though I think he would hardly be as popular if he 
were merely indifferent to theism. People like a good scrap. Complex design can 
arise out of very simple conditions, as some mathematicians have demonstrated. 
The idea that design is the result of deliberate intelligence is an analogue to 
the way we think of ourselves and our creative abilities, but that does not 
mean such a view applies to the universe as a whole. Darwin led the way in 
showing how design can arise without a designer, by blind and impersonal 
forces. Now, 155 years later quite a lot of evidence has been marshalled for 
this view.
 

 Other than the fact of its existence, what may or may not lie 'behind' this 
universe of ours is a mystery. Maybe we will never know, but not knowing, it is 
infantile to make up explanations when in fact we do not know, unless there is 
some factual reason to speculate. Enlightenment tells us nothing about this 
either, all it can show us is th

[FairfieldLife] Re: When Worlds Collide....

[salyavin808]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Re "The multiverse is a theory . . . I don't see why atheists would use this 
theory to support their idea that there is no God.":
 

 

 There is no evidence for there being any multiverses - it is as much a leap of 
faith as believing in God. The "God option" really means you have trust in 
whatever is unfolding.
 

 There might be soon. David Deutsch, who runs the quantum computing lab at 
Oxford, makes the case that multiverse theories are the simplest way of 
explaining quantum theory. Most other physicists disagree due to lack of 
evidence but he intends to prove it using a virtual reality program of an atom 
running on a quantum computer. 
 

 I don't fully get what he's going on about but apparently there is a way that 
quantum computers can reveal how they work while they are doing computations 
about themselves (!), this will tell us a lot about what sort of universe we 
live in. All we need is a computer we don't have yet that exploits Qbits, the 
ability of things in the quantum world to be in potentially two, or more, 
places at once. But they are on the way. I get the impression that if he pulls 
it off he'll be the most famous scientist since Einstein but it's a long way 
away. But quantum computing is the future whatever it tells us.
 

 But as I said in another post, this in't the multiverse you are talking about 
but they might be provable - should they exist. Maybe cosmologists should just 
start again. Wouldn't be the first time...

[FairfieldLife] Re: When Worlds Collide....

[salyavin808]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 When I first looked into the question of whether something approximating to 
"God" existed, my intuition told me that the idea that conscious, intelligent, 
moral beings - like my good self - could arise as result of an accidental Big 
Bang was so obviously absurd I couldn't understand how supposedly bright people 
(scientists) could accept such a conclusion (even throwing natural selection 
into the mix). 
 In those days the "argument from design" for God's existence was pooh-poohed 
by philosophers. Since then we've been struck by the amount of "fine tuning" 
that must have existed at the time of the Big Bang to allow for the development 
of life as we know it. Check out the details: the ratio of the strengths of 
gravity to that of electromagnetism; the strength of the force binding nucleons 
into nuclei; the relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the 
Universe; the cosmological constant; etc; etc. Any slight variation = no life.
 

 Apparent fine tuning is interesting and needs an explanation but we don't know 
what sort of explanation, meaning that it could have been a pure coincidence 
first time or that there is a limit to the amount of possible universes that 
have to exist. We just happen to be in the right one for us. Currently, no one 
knows how much of a mystery it is.
 

 And whether it will always be a mystery is unknown but it comes down to the 
amount of matter/anti-matter at the start of the universe and the speed of 
expansion. The trouble that the religious people have trying to fit god in at 
this point of creation is that there isn't any way anything complex enough to 
be called intelligent and creative could have existed. That is a vastly harder 
problem for them to explain than the apparent fine tuning is for us.
 

 

 This has led defenders of atheism to postulate we inhabit a multiverse. If 
there were an infinite number of worlds then we don't need "God" as an 
hypothesis for why we find ourselves living in a human-friendly environment. 
That's true - but here's the thing: the idea of many worlds didn't come up back 
in the day when I had my "intuition" - everyone assumed we were living in a 
one-shot, one-off universe.
 

 If the multiverse theory is correct (a big if) then, yes, it means we don't 
need God, but it also shows how gullible Dawkins and co were to have rejected 
the original design argument.
 

 The multiverse is one idea among many and there are undoubtably loads of ideas 
about it no one has had yet. But it depends what multiverse theory we are 
talking about. The one you mention here sounds like the idea that there are a 
great many bubbles of universes that are physically seperate to ours, in a 
vaster space than our own, each of them slightly different with different start 
points of atomic weight etc. Some favoured this idea but it fails as science 
because it's untestable and is the same as saying that there have been and 
endless number of almost universes that arose one form the other until the 
"correct" one appeared. That really is just an idea to hopefully explain 
something even though it might even be true!
 

 The most interesting multiverse ideas involve a vast amount of universes in 
the same place and using the same atoms. The so-called "many worlds" 
interpretations of quantum theory. But these don't explain the fine tuning at 
the big bang because the atoms that they are made of are structures that formed 
after the point of creation (you know I don;t use that word religiously right? 
yeah, course you do...)
 

 I don't see how any of it means Dawkins was gullible not to go for the design 
argument. All design arguments are pointless because they require all the 
potential intelligence and complexity in the universe to have existed before 
the universe did because god must know what he wanted. But however you want to 
imagine that scenario it does involve an infinite regress because you are 
trying to explain complexity by relying on further pre-existing complexity 
which is pointless as it provides no answer. God theories are the same the same 
as refusing to think about it. 
 

 Dawkins knows that ideas about god are stupid as explanations and grasped at 
the evolving universe idea to fit in with that. But he may still be right, 
what's needed is a fuller understanding of the initial state of everything 
which is what cosmologists are up to at the moment mapping the cosmic microwave 
background, the after glow of the big bang - still a few degrees hotter than 
absolute zero, 14 billion years later! - if you could look close enough at that 
you could see the first atoms in our universe form. Doubt we'll ever be that 
clever but fine tuning has to be solvable and that'll be the best way to go 
about it.
 

 

 

 

 

 


 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 There appears to be a common misconception that science and 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: When Worlds Collide....

[TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

From: "s3raph...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 

Good post.Re "We are here, but that tells us nothing about what lies behind 
that fact.":
It tells me that the universe is where I belong - I am not a alien stranger but 
a natural growth out of a benign background.
With all due respect, anyone who believes that they live in a world that 
provides a "benign background" has never spent any time in a war zone, in the 
jungle, or in Detroit.  :-)



  

[FairfieldLife] Re: When Worlds Collide....

[s3raph...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Re "The multiverse is a theory . . . I don't see why atheists would use this 
theory to support their idea that there is no God.":
 

 The multiverse theory - the idea that there are a possibly infinite number of 
universes - is uncannily like the idea of the medieval scholastics that in God 
there were an infinite number of potential worlds that He(?) could actualize. 
The big difference - and it is a really, really big difference - is that in the 
multiverse theory all possible universes *must* exist - including the most 
hideous. For the theologians, God would *only* bring into existence those 
worlds he felt were good (good in the long run - and for the majority of us).
 

 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.

 (Genesis 1:31)
 

 Also in this He shewed me a little thing, the quantity of an hazel-nut, in the 
palm of my hand; and it was as round as a ball. I looked thereupon with eye of 
my understanding, and thought: What may this be? And it was answered generally 
thus: It is all that is made. I marvelled how it might last, for methought it 
might suddenly have fallen to naught for little[ness]. And I was answered in my 
understanding: It lasteth, and ever shall [last] for that God loveth it. And so 
All-thing hath the Being by the love of God.

 (Julian of Norwich)
 

 There is no evidence for there being any multiverses - it is as much a leap of 
faith as believing in God. The "God option" really means you have trust in 
whatever is unfolding.
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: When Worlds Collide....

[jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

S3, 

 Your points are excellent.  It should also be disclosed that the multiverse is 
a theory which means it is not a scientific fact.  I don't see why atheists 
would use this theory to support their idea that there is no God.
 

 It is apparent that atheists and some scientists cannot understand or would 
not accept the fact that there is connection and transition from consciousness 
to matter.  The Superstring theory attempts to show that consciousness is the 
basis of the universe.  These superstrings eventually became, through the 
creative process, the subatomic particles, atoms and energy which created the 
Big Bang.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 When I first looked into the question of whether something approximating to 
"God" existed, my intuition told me that the idea that conscious, intelligent, 
moral beings - like my good self - could arise as result of an accidental Big 
Bang was so obviously absurd I couldn't understand how supposedly bright people 
(scientists) could accept such a conclusion (even throwing natural selection 
into the mix). 
 In those days the "argument from design" for God's existence was pooh-poohed 
by philosophers. Since then we've been struck by the amount of "fine tuning" 
that must have existed at the time of the Big Bang to allow for the development 
of life as we know it. Check out the details: the ratio of the strengths of 
gravity to that of electromagnetism; the strength of the force binding nucleons 
into nuclei; the relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the 
Universe; the cosmological constant; etc; etc. Any slight variation = no life.
 

 This has led defenders of atheism to postulate we inhabit a multiverse. If 
there were an infinite number of worlds then we don't need "God" as an 
hypothesis for why we find ourselves living in a human-friendly environment. 
That's true - but here's the thing: the idea of many worlds didn't come up back 
in the day when I had my "intuition" - everyone assumed we were living in a 
one-shot, one-off universe.
 

 If the multiverse theory is correct (a big if) then, yes, it means we don't 
need God, but it also shows how gullible Dawkins and co were to have rejected 
the original design argument.
 

 

 


 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 There appears to be a common misconception that science and religion cannot 
mix.  That's not necessarily true.  
 

 But usually it is true because the mind set one needs for science and the one 
needed for religion are poles apart; science is sceptical, questioning, and the 
argument from authority simply is an impediment to finding out stuff. Religion 
is accepting often to the point of total gullibility. Science deals with facts, 
religion generally prefers to avoid them. Since the rise of scientific thought, 
religion has been backsliding against the onslaught of knowledge ever since. 
Things once thought exclusively in the realm of religion are now solidly in the 
realm of science.
 

 Some call themselves atheists, but they don't know what it really means nor 
have they logically thought out the arguments for atheism.
 

 Actually we do know what it means, and we have thought it out to the extent 
that logic is possible. But in the absence of evidence, logic has nothing to 
manipulate — all is airy speculation in the void where no facts exist. Atheism 
is really a matter of probability in comparing what we know about the world to 
what is stated in religious documents about the reality of the world, and most 
of the time, the probability that such and such is true seems slight. 
 

 The non theist position is not absolute because in the absence of facts you 
cannot posit a definitive statement, only a sliding scale of probabilities, 
that leads the non theist, or the post theist to the conclusion that the 
religious arguments lack sufficient merit to spend time pursuing. If more 
substantial evidence shows up, then the matter can be reconsidered. If 
something is not known, a non theist does not have to make up something to 
explain it. If we do not know how the world came into being (assuming it came 
in to being) we can let it ride until more information is available.
 

 On the other hand, there are some Christians who use the bible as a scientific 
proof for the history of mankind.  They fail to understand that the Bible is 
not a scientific document.  Rather, it is a book of wisdom which attempts to 
convey how Consciousness evolved in nature which resulted in the development of 
a consciousness being, which is embodied in the human mind and physiology.
 

 There is a lot in the Bible that has some value, but there is also a lot of 
stuff that is pretty dumb; it is extraordinarily inconsistent because it is 
hobbled together from the writings and editing of many many writers, compilers, 
and revisers who had many different viewpoints. There is some nice poetry at 
least in Engl

[FairfieldLife] Re: When Worlds Collide....

[s3raph...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 Good post.
 Re "We are here, but that tells us nothing about what lies behind that fact.":
It tells me that the universe is where I belong - I am not a alien stranger but 
a natural growth out of a benign background.
 

 Re "Complex design can arise out of very simple conditions":
 Yes, but the complexity must have been *potentially* there in the initial 
conditions.
 Also - "consciousness" - or "awareness" - can't arise. Awareness is subjective 
- any scientific description of the universe is objective. You can't leap from 
one to the other. You really can't - you delude yourself if you imagine 
otherwise. (The Greeks knew that!) That's why apologists like Daniel Dennett 
try to persuade us that we are not really conscious at all. Pull the other one!
 

 "Consciousness" can't be explained by science because it is fundamental. Any 
ultimate explanation has to come down to some essential elements - otherwise 
you have an infinite regress. I claim that "awareness" is just such an 
irreducible element and so can't be explained in terms of anything more 
fundamental.
 

 The only alternatives to materialism are pantheism; pan-psychism or idealism. 
I have a soft spot for the latter. But I'm definitely *not* just a lump of 
organic matter.
 

  

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 The counter argument to this is the anthropic principle: 

 'In astrophysics and cosmology, the anthropic principle (from Greek anthropos, 
meaning "human") is the philosophical consideration that observations of the 
physical Universe must be compatible with the conscious and sapient life that 
observes it. Some proponents of the anthropic principle reason that it explains 
why the Universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary 
to accommodate conscious life. As a result, they believe it is unremarkable 
that the universe's fundamental constants happen to fall within the narrow 
range thought to be compatible with life.'
 

 'The strong anthropic principle (SAP) as explained by John D. Barrow and Frank 
Tipler states that this is all the case because the Universe is compelled, in 
some sense, to eventually have conscious and sapient life emerge within it. 
Critics of the SAP argue in favor of a weak anthropic principle (WAP) similar 
to the one defined by Brandon Carter, which states that the universe's 
ostensible fine tuning is the result of selection bias: i.e., only in a 
universe capable of eventually supporting life will there be living beings 
capable of observing and reflecting upon any such fine tuning, while a universe 
less compatible with life will go unbeheld. Most often such arguments draw upon 
some notion of the multiverse for there to be a statistical population of 
universes to select from and from which selection bias (our observance of only 
this Universe, apparently compatible with life) could occur.'
 

 So that the universe seems fine-tuned for us would be an illusion, multiverse 
or not. The conditions for us exist in this universe, and we are here, but that 
tells us nothing about what lies behind that fact.
 

 Dawkins is hardly gullible though I think he would hardly be as popular if he 
were merely indifferent to theism. People like a good scrap. Complex design can 
arise out of very simple conditions, as some mathematicians have demonstrated. 
The idea that design is the result of deliberate intelligence is an analogue to 
the way we think of ourselves and our creative abilities, but that does not 
mean such a view applies to the universe as a whole. Darwin led the way in 
showing how design can arise without a designer, by blind and impersonal 
forces. Now, 155 years later quite a lot of evidence has been marshalled for 
this view.
 

 Other than the fact of its existence, what may or may not lie 'behind' this 
universe of ours is a mystery. Maybe we will never know, but not knowing, it is 
infantile to make up explanations when in fact we do not know, unless there is 
some factual reason to speculate. Enlightenment tells us nothing about this 
either, all it can show us is that it is here, and of course we already know 
that.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 When I first looked into the question of whether something approximating to 
"God" existed, my intuition told me that the idea that conscious, intelligent, 
moral beings - like my good self - could arise as result of an accidental Big 
Bang was so obviously absurd I couldn't understand how supposedly bright people 
(scientists) could accept such a conclusion (even throwing natural selection 
into the mix). 
 In those days the "argument from design" for God's existence was pooh-poohed 
by philosophers. Since then we've been struck by the amount of "fine tuning" 
that must have existed at the time of the Big Bang to allow for the development 
of life as we know it. Check out the details: the ratio of the strengths of 
gravity to that of electromagnetism; the strength of the force binding nucleons

[FairfieldLife] Re: When Worlds Collide....

[anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

The counter argument to this is the anthropic principle: 

 'In astrophysics and cosmology, the anthropic principle (from Greek anthropos, 
meaning "human") is the philosophical consideration that observations of the 
physical Universe must be compatible with the conscious and sapient life that 
observes it. Some proponents of the anthropic principle reason that it explains 
why the Universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary 
to accommodate conscious life. As a result, they believe it is unremarkable 
that the universe's fundamental constants happen to fall within the narrow 
range thought to be compatible with life.'
 

 'The strong anthropic principle (SAP) as explained by John D. Barrow and Frank 
Tipler states that this is all the case because the Universe is compelled, in 
some sense, to eventually have conscious and sapient life emerge within it. 
Critics of the SAP argue in favor of a weak anthropic principle (WAP) similar 
to the one defined by Brandon Carter, which states that the universe's 
ostensible fine tuning is the result of selection bias: i.e., only in a 
universe capable of eventually supporting life will there be living beings 
capable of observing and reflecting upon any such fine tuning, while a universe 
less compatible with life will go unbeheld. Most often such arguments draw upon 
some notion of the multiverse for there to be a statistical population of 
universes to select from and from which selection bias (our observance of only 
this Universe, apparently compatible with life) could occur.'
 

 So that the universe seems fine-tuned for us would be an illusion, multiverse 
or not. The conditions for us exist in this universe, and we are here, but that 
tells us nothing about what lies behind that fact.
 

 Dawkins is hardly gullible though I think he would hardly be as popular if he 
were merely indifferent to theism. People like a good scrap. Complex design can 
arise out of very simple conditions, as some mathematicians have demonstrated. 
The idea that design is the result of deliberate intelligence is an analogue to 
the way we think of ourselves and our creative abilities, but that does not 
mean such a view applies to the universe as a whole. Darwin led the way in 
showing how design can arise without a designer, by blind and impersonal 
forces. Now, 155 years later quite a lot of evidence has been marshalled for 
this view.
 

 Other than the fact of its existence, what may or may not lie 'behind' this 
universe of ours is a mystery. Maybe we will never know, but not knowing, it is 
infantile to make up explanations when in fact we do not know, unless there is 
some factual reason to speculate. Enlightenment tells us nothing about this 
either, all it can show us is that it is here, and of course we already know 
that.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 When I first looked into the question of whether something approximating to 
"God" existed, my intuition told me that the idea that conscious, intelligent, 
moral beings - like my good self - could arise as result of an accidental Big 
Bang was so obviously absurd I couldn't understand how supposedly bright people 
(scientists) could accept such a conclusion (even throwing natural selection 
into the mix). 
 In those days the "argument from design" for God's existence was pooh-poohed 
by philosophers. Since then we've been struck by the amount of "fine tuning" 
that must have existed at the time of the Big Bang to allow for the development 
of life as we know it. Check out the details: the ratio of the strengths of 
gravity to that of electromagnetism; the strength of the force binding nucleons 
into nuclei; the relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the 
Universe; the cosmological constant; etc; etc. Any slight variation = no life.
 

 This has led defenders of atheism to postulate we inhabit a multiverse. If 
there were an infinite number of worlds then we don't need "God" as an 
hypothesis for why we find ourselves living in a human-friendly environment. 
That's true - but here's the thing: the idea of many worlds didn't come up back 
in the day when I had my "intuition" - everyone assumed we were living in a 
one-shot, one-off universe.
 

 If the multiverse theory is correct (a big if) then, yes, it means we don't 
need God, but it also shows how gullible Dawkins and co were to have rejected 
the original design argument.
 

 

 


 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 There appears to be a common misconception that science and religion cannot 
mix.  That's not necessarily true.  
 

 But usually it is true because the mind set one needs for science and the one 
needed for religion are poles apart; science is sceptical, questioning, and the 
argument from authority simply is an impediment to finding out stuff. Religion 
is accepting often to the point of total gullibility. Science deals with facts, 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: When Worlds Collide....

[TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

From: "anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 
    ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

There appears to be a common misconception that science and religion cannot 
mix.  That's not necessarily true.  
But usually it is true because the mind set one needs for science and the one 
needed for religion are poles apart; science is sceptical, questioning, and the 
argument from authority simply is an impediment to finding out stuff. Religion 
is accepting often to the point of total gullibility. Science deals with facts, 
religion generally prefers to avoid them. Since the rise of scientific thought, 
religion has been backsliding against the onslaught of knowledge ever since. 
Things once thought exclusively in the realm of religion are now solidly in the 
realm of science.
The "realm of religion" is as nonsensical as sitting around postulating what 
color dragons are. 

Some call themselves atheists, but they don't know what it really means nor 
have they logically thought out the arguments for atheism.
No "arguments for atheism" are needed. It's only theists who seem to have some 
emotional need to argue for the existence of something they believe in that 
they cannot prove exists. Given my example above, there is actually more 
evidence of the one-time existence of dragons than there is for the existence 
of God. 


  

[FairfieldLife] Re: When Worlds Collide....

[awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

This was just posted. I can't remember who posted it but it was just a week or 
so ago. Maybe it was me, come to think of it. But the guy seemed to have taken 
everything with relatively good humour, I'll give him that! 

[FairfieldLife] Re: When Worlds Collide....

[s3raph...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

The Future of God Debate  Sam Harris and Michael Shermer vs Deepak Chopra and 
Jean Houston.
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0E99BdOfxAE 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0E99BdOfxAE

[FairfieldLife] Re: When Worlds Collide....

[s3raph...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

When I first looked into the question of whether something approximating to 
"God" existed, my intuition told me that the idea that conscious, intelligent, 
moral beings - like my good self - could arise as result of an accidental Big 
Bang was so obviously absurd I couldn't understand how supposedly bright people 
(scientists) could accept such a conclusion (even throwing natural selection 
into the mix). 
 In those days the "argument from design" for God's existence was pooh-poohed 
by philosophers. Since then we've been struck by the amount of "fine tuning" 
that must have existed at the time of the Big Bang to allow for the development 
of life as we know it. Check out the details: the ratio of the strengths of 
gravity to that of electromagnetism; the strength of the force binding nucleons 
into nuclei; the relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the 
Universe; the cosmological constant; etc; etc. Any slight variation = no life.
 

 This has led defenders of atheism to postulate we inhabit a multiverse. If 
there were an infinite number of worlds then we don't need "God" as an 
hypothesis for why we find ourselves living in a human-friendly environment. 
That's true - but here's the thing: the idea of many worlds didn't come up back 
in the day when I had my "intuition" - everyone assumed we were living in a 
one-shot, one-off universe.
 

 If the multiverse theory is correct (a big if) then, yes, it means we don't 
need God, but it also shows how gullible Dawkins and co were to have rejected 
the original design argument.
 

 

 


 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 There appears to be a common misconception that science and religion cannot 
mix.  That's not necessarily true.  
 

 But usually it is true because the mind set one needs for science and the one 
needed for religion are poles apart; science is sceptical, questioning, and the 
argument from authority simply is an impediment to finding out stuff. Religion 
is accepting often to the point of total gullibility. Science deals with facts, 
religion generally prefers to avoid them. Since the rise of scientific thought, 
religion has been backsliding against the onslaught of knowledge ever since. 
Things once thought exclusively in the realm of religion are now solidly in the 
realm of science.
 

 Some call themselves atheists, but they don't know what it really means nor 
have they logically thought out the arguments for atheism.
 

 Actually we do know what it means, and we have thought it out to the extent 
that logic is possible. But in the absence of evidence, logic has nothing to 
manipulate — all is airy speculation in the void where no facts exist. Atheism 
is really a matter of probability in comparing what we know about the world to 
what is stated in religious documents about the reality of the world, and most 
of the time, the probability that such and such is true seems slight. 
 

 The non theist position is not absolute because in the absence of facts you 
cannot posit a definitive statement, only a sliding scale of probabilities, 
that leads the non theist, or the post theist to the conclusion that the 
religious arguments lack sufficient merit to spend time pursuing. If more 
substantial evidence shows up, then the matter can be reconsidered. If 
something is not known, a non theist does not have to make up something to 
explain it. If we do not know how the world came into being (assuming it came 
in to being) we can let it ride until more information is available.
 

 On the other hand, there are some Christians who use the bible as a scientific 
proof for the history of mankind.  They fail to understand that the Bible is 
not a scientific document.  Rather, it is a book of wisdom which attempts to 
convey how Consciousness evolved in nature which resulted in the development of 
a consciousness being, which is embodied in the human mind and physiology.
 

 There is a lot in the Bible that has some value, but there is also a lot of 
stuff that is pretty dumb; it is extraordinarily inconsistent because it is 
hobbled together from the writings and editing of many many writers, compilers, 
and revisers who had many different viewpoints. There is some nice poetry at 
least in English translations. 

 


 
 

  

[FairfieldLife] Re: When Worlds Collide....

[anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 There appears to be a common misconception that science and religion cannot 
mix.  That's not necessarily true.  
 

 But usually it is true because the mind set one needs for science and the one 
needed for religion are poles apart; science is sceptical, questioning, and the 
argument from authority simply is an impediment to finding out stuff. Religion 
is accepting often to the point of total gullibility. Science deals with facts, 
religion generally prefers to avoid them. Since the rise of scientific thought, 
religion has been backsliding against the onslaught of knowledge ever since. 
Things once thought exclusively in the realm of religion are now solidly in the 
realm of science.
 

 Some call themselves atheists, but they don't know what it really means nor 
have they logically thought out the arguments for atheism.
 

 Actually we do know what it means, and we have thought it out to the extent 
that logic is possible. But in the absence of evidence, logic has nothing to 
manipulate — all is airy speculation in the void where no facts exist. Atheism 
is really a matter of probability in comparing what we know about the world to 
what is stated in religious documents about the reality of the world, and most 
of the time, the probability that such and such is true seems slight. 
 

 The non theist position is not absolute because in the absence of facts you 
cannot posit a definitive statement, only a sliding scale of probabilities, 
that leads the non theist, or the post theist to the conclusion that the 
religious arguments lack sufficient merit to spend time pursuing. If more 
substantial evidence shows up, then the matter can be reconsidered. If 
something is not known, a non theist does not have to make up something to 
explain it. If we do not know how the world came into being (assuming it came 
in to being) we can let it ride until more information is available.
 

 On the other hand, there are some Christians who use the bible as a scientific 
proof for the history of mankind.  They fail to understand that the Bible is 
not a scientific document.  Rather, it is a book of wisdom which attempts to 
convey how Consciousness evolved in nature which resulted in the development of 
a consciousness being, which is embodied in the human mind and physiology.
 

 There is a lot in the Bible that has some value, but there is also a lot of 
stuff that is pretty dumb; it is extraordinarily inconsistent because it is 
hobbled together from the writings and editing of many many writers, compilers, 
and revisers who had many different viewpoints. There is some nice poetry at 
least in English translations. 

 


 
 

  

[FairfieldLife] Re: When Worlds Collide....

[jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

There appears to be a common misconception that science and religion cannot 
mix.  That's not necessarily true.  Some call themselves atheists, but they 
don't know what it really means nor have they logically thought out the 
arguments for atheism. 

 On the other hand, there are some Christians who use the bible as a scientific 
proof for the history of mankind.  They fail to understand that the Bible is 
not a scientific document.  Rather, it is a book of wisdom which attempts to 
convey how Consciousness evolved in nature which resulted in the development of 
a consciousness being, which is embodied in the human mind and physiology.

[FairfieldLife] Re: When Worlds Collide....

[jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]