What Religion is Book?

POSTED BY: Lukasaurus
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 21, 2025 16:38
VIEWED: 16439
PAGE 5 of 8

Quote:

---

Originally posted by zoid:
My opinion is that scientists -- those who engage in observation and discovery of God's handiwork -- do have a religious belief, a faith that underlies their profession.

---

I will say this, you are completely wrong here. If they did they would not trust the math to describe things, but, would construct as they saw fit. We will discuss this further when the wife has created what I call "the starter doc" in a more appropriate thread.

Religion, not true. This is your misconception. I'll now go over what you think you know about that light-cone, which is wrong.

Here's the deal. I will deal with only 1d space. On a xy-graph you can think of the x-axis as space and the y-axis as time, thus creating a space-time diagram. It must be noted now that such things are typically only used for pedagogical purposes.

By default we start at the origin. If someone was to go at the speed of light they would travel along a 45 degree line in this graph. The cone does not travel as you suggest. It merely marks a boundary of where a particle can exist at that certain point in time (moving along the y-axis). That mark on the graph is just some representation of where that particle is within the confines of space-time.

But, when I say "go at the speed of light", that is both right and wrong. Because the theory only states that one cannot accelerate beyond the speed of light. The theory doesn't specify anything other than that. So, if someone found away to move without accelerating, then that would be beyond the scope of this theory. Things are a touch more complicated than that, but, we'd need calculus and.few years of study to really understand it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by zoid:
... 1) describing something real, 2) that this reality is manipulable, and 3) that the universe itself is ultimately mechanistic...

---

3 is just plain wrong. No-one beyond Newton would believe this.
2 is trivial. ie I can pick up my remote control
1 is the basis for all scientific study. But, doesn't exclude the possibility of other things, like you claim.



I'd just like to throw this out there before people start believing what you have said further up - with regards to physics - is true. I can't have misinformation spread when I have the power to stop it.

----
"An airport gives a good cross section of the mentally unstable, doesn't it." -Me
"Also, I can kill you with my brain." -River

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Just to state it before you post a reply. Sorry for the tone. My mood... isn't good right now. I'd fix my last post, but, I haven't the time. Again, sorry.

----
"An airport gives a good cross section of the mentally unstable, doesn't it." -Me
"Also, I can kill you with my brain." -River

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

SigmaNunki, at al:

First, I will state that it is not now, nor has it ever been, my intention to upset anyone with metaphysical discussion.

Second, for the sake of brevity, and because I've already stated my case above and cited reference materials from which I've drawn my conclusions, I will simply let my statements stand. I am not a mathematician; I am not a physicist. I am a layman; but I am not just blowing hot air without any basis. I have read extensively the considered opinions of experts in the field. They warn -- as I warn you now -- that our spoken language cannot fully describe these concepts; only in mathematics can these be properly comprehended. Even so, if Capra, Einstein, Greene and the others I have cited have seen fit to put these ideas into words, who can say they were intrinsically wrong to do so? Certainly, I would not deign to argue their qualifications or motivations.

If we can agree on nothing else, surely we can agree that if we convince one person to delve more deeply into this issue, then our 'argument' has had a beneficial effect?

When I say that science is a system of beliefs, or at least that it engages in metaphysical investigations, please don't mistake my meaning. I am not anti-scientific. As I stated before, I believe God created the universe, and that His creation is perfect. I do not expect to lift a piece of sod and find "Made by God" written on the substrate beneath it. Our universe is a riddle, an enigma designed so that our Intellect must necessarily question it, must necessarily dig ever deeper only to find increasingly more depth. And what may ultimately lie at the furthest depth we can reach without the energy of another Big Bang?

From http://www.crystalinks.com/holographic.html :

Quote:

---

University of London physicist David Bohm, for example, believes Aspect's findings imply that objective reality does not exist(emphasis mine), that despite its apparent solidity the universe is at heart a phantasm, a gigantic and splendidly detailed hologram.

---

That's what I meant by implying that 'real', 'mechanistic' and 'manipulable' were fallacious concepts. At reality's ultimate level -- as Art and Philosophy have long held -- we are all "shadows and dust", and there is nothing solid from which The Matrix's spoon might be made.

This is right and good. I, personally, am gratified that the predictions of the early 1900's -- that we would soon have answered all the important questions of the physical world -- were stood so utterly on their ear by the successive revolutions of Relativity, then Quantum Mechanics. Yes, we can hold a remote in our hand, we can get t-boned on our motorcycle and shatter our leg and wrist. These feel distinctly real. But at the quantum level, not one single atom can be said to definitively exist, except as a mist of probability. There is no spoon...

Here are some final few thoughts:

How mutable is our reality when physicists routinely refer to "quantum strangeness" or "weirdness" in the normal conduct of their business?

How divided are scientific schools of thought when the greatest minds of modern times can engage in heated debates over how the universe actually works, what the universe actually does, or whether the universe had to create conscious observers, because without them the universe wouldn't exist? I'm talking about Einstein versus Bohr, EPR versus the entire QM school, Bohm's response and John Bell's rewrite.

There are several other intriguing arguments, which I don't have the temerity to open, that have all been posed by scientists, not theologians. Scientists challenge the beliefs of other scientists. Both sides have math and models and observation to support their theories. There are different 'schools' within the physical science community, and these schools of thought can oppose each other with as much vehemence as any Catholic v. Protestant or Christian v. Muslim ideological disagreement (although typically without the physical violence prev

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Zoid:

Having taken 4 years of University college physics, scores of comparative religions classes, anthropology classes, and studied in philosophy on my own. I offer an supporting viewpoint in a metaphysical sense. From human being's viewpoint, all Religions, in all of its ultimate glory seeks to explain nature, to in some way allow us to control nature - eventhough its thru some intermediary, and to explain why human's exist.

Science ultimately is a system of believes that allows people to do these very same things. Science comforts us in allowing us to believe that we have a beginning from the Big Bang theory (much debated within the scientific community - especially as of late), to the EM theory that allows us to build wondrous things as microwaves and cell phones, TV, satellites, etc., , to the now almost classical STR without which we can't geocache thru the use of GPS. But all of it are based on theories and models and believes in one thing - there is a grand mathematical equation that will work everything out. The entire equation balanced that will ultimately explain everything.

Today, we don't have the equation, everytime we add something to it or find something new that upsets the current approximations, there is a new fury of studies to find out what new model, what new particle to plug in that can help with the new equation.

I think someone else here said it best, I don't think we are capable of understanding the grandest truth - whatever it maybe. Our brain just isn't build to comprehend or process that type of information or models.

And neither am I saying that science don't work - the proof is right in front of my eyes - literally. But then again, to the village people in a pre-scientific age tribe, the rain chant dance worked just as well in bringing rain, the medicine man's charms worked pretty darn good in curing the sicknesses, and praying to the furtility gods worked well enough.

Every single tribe has their own explanation on why they came to be, why do all of these *weird* things around me happen, and what can I do about the rain that isn't coming? We are not much different in the need to explain things around us. Makes us feel like we have a purpose, that we are in control of nature, that we were put here to do something.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by zoid:
First, I will state that it is not now, nor has it ever been, my intention to upset anyone with metaphysical discussion.

---

Actually all the question "Is the universe real" is, is a metaphysical discussion. It has no place in science. But, scientists will routinely engage in these discussions. It gives them a chance to see the bounds of what has been done. But, this is all philosophy which I don't care to discuss and is beyond the scope of the discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by zoid:
I am not a mathematician; I am not a physicist. ... but I am not just blowing hot air without any basis.

---

No, you are not one of them. You do not live in there field nor do you interact with them. So then, how can I see anything but hot air when you talk about how they think. You have heard from the mouth of the dog that science is not a religion. Yet you stick to that way of thinking for some unknown reason.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by zoid:
If we can agree on nothing else, surely we can agree that if we convince one person to delve more deeply into this issue, then our 'argument' has had a beneficial effect?

---

Yes. But, only to a certain degree. One must understand for there to be a benefit. Reading pop books doesn't do it. You must actually learn it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by zoid:
I am not anti-scientific.

---

Never said you were.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by zoid:
As I stated before, I believe God created the universe, and that His creation is perfect...

---

God does not belong in a scientific discussion. That is theology or philosophy.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by zoid:
From http://www.crystalinks.com/holographic.html :

Quote:

---

University of London physicist David Bohm, for example, believes Aspect's findings imply that objective reality does not exist(emphasis mine), that despite its apparent solidity the universe is at heart a phantasm, a gigantic and splendidly detailed hologram.

---

---

This is a perfect example of philosophy. Just because a scientist says it, doesn't make it science.

It must also be mentioned that there are many other schools of thought as well. And they all disagree with each other to one degree or another. It is also all philosophy. I'll only talk about the science.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by zoid:
I, personally, am gratified that the predictions of the early 1900's -- that we would soon have answered all the important questions of the physical world -- were stood so utterly on their ear by the successive revolutions of Relativity, then Quantum Mechanics.

---

Me too. I love when someones arrogance ends up like that. Hmmm, I hope that isn't a self fulfilling prophesy

Quote:

---

Originally posted by zoid:
Yes, we can hold a remote in our hand, we can get t-boned on our motorcycle and shatter our leg and wrist. These feel distinctly real. But at the quantum level, not one single atom can be said to definitively exist, except as a mist of probability. There is no spoon...

---

There is no current connection between QM and GR (in fact they contradict each other), therefore one should not make such assumptions. I think we can both say that stranger things have happened.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by zoid:
How mutable is our reality when physicists routinely refer to "quantum strangeness" or "weirdness" in the normal conduct of their business?

---

Neither of us knows what is actually meant by these terms in context of the physicists work, so, I don't think that that question can be answered by either of us.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by zoid:
How divided are scientific schools of thought when the greatest minds of modern times can engage in heated debates over how the universe actually works, what the universe actually does, or whether the universe had to create conscious observers, because without them the universe wouldn't exist?

---

All this means is that we don't understand. When we d

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
But all of it are based on theories and models and believes in one thing - there is a grand mathematical equation that will work everything out. The entire equation balanced that will ultimately explain everything.

---

Going to disagree with you here. Math is all we have right now to describe things. If something better comes along then they'll use that. Currently TOE would be described by math, but, what about the future? Scientists will use what is the best way to describe what they need to describe. Nothing less. Plus our math, IMHO, is too immature to describe such a thing. Too much more needs to be done. I don't think that we are even close to the point where we should be discussing the possibility of TOE.

Wasn't it Steven Hawkins that said about 10 years ago that in 20 years we'll have TOE. But, now he says 50 years. Hmmm, which is it Steven. (These numbers have been approximated from my memory. Actual magnitude may vary.)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
I think someone else here said it best, I don't think we are capable of understanding the grandest truth - whatever it maybe. Our brain just isn't build to comprehend or process that type of information or models.

---

Conjecture, no-one knows if we can or can't. Lets let time tell.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
But then again, to the village people in a pre-scientific age tribe, the rain chant dance worked just as well in bringing rain, the medicine man's charms worked pretty darn good in curing the sicknesses, and praying to the furtility gods worked well enough.

---

Umm, bit of a difference there. The village people are waving there sticks in the air. We are making rocket fuel and watching it burn. Someone can wave there stick in the air and most of the time it does nothing, but, rocket fuel will always burn.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
We are not much different in the need to explain things around us. Makes us feel like we have a purpose, that we are in control of nature, that we were put here to do something.

---

True, for some people.

----
"An airport gives a good cross section of the mentally unstable, doesn't it." -Me
"Also, I can kill you with my brain." -River

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

SigmaNunki:

Thank you for your candid reply. I trust that it meets with your grudging approval that I continue to live in my house, even though I am not a trained architect. Although I know it may distress you, I did read some good popular books on automobiles and -- although I couldn't build one myself -- feel I made an informed decision when I purchased my current car. According to your argument, I am either/both too stupid or not classically trained enough to reside and drive based strictly upon the recommendations of my architect and a good mechanic.

The logical conclusion of your argument is that either everyone must become university-trained physicists, or else they must not worry their pretty heads with deep subjects they could not possibly hope to understand. Most of us, in the 'real' world, have jobs and lives; but we still crave some understanding of the world around us.

As far as your references are concerned, I stopped after the first. I trust others will take up your challenge, to the extent they have any interest in this conversation in the first place (which I sincerely doubt). Personally, I prefer Einstein's description of his own theory, in his own words -- which you denigrated as 'pop' -- to the in-depth mathematical dissertation in that reference.

As to your assertion that you have disproved that science is a belief system (you specified 'religion', I said 'belief system')... I am not satisfied that you have. In fact, your tenor would appear to indicate a deep emotional attachment to your belief that science is not a belief system.

There's more, but why bother? As far as your self-cited self-quote about airports is concerned: If I catch you in mine, I'll have you cavity searched. Really. I may not have a degree in abnormal psychology, but you don't have to make too many references to mental instability in an airport these days to get a 'finger wave'... Don't worry though, the marshals are gentle enough, as long as you don't provoke 'em by insulting their intelligence.

Good luck with that, and in all your future endeavors!

Farewell,

zoid
_________________________________________________

"River and me was best friends, back then. I named my first-born daughter after her. 'Course, you can't swing a dead cat 'round here on I-Day without hittin' a River..."

- Kaywinnit Tam, wife and mother of 6, A Child Shall Lead Them: A History of the Second War of Independence Wilkins, Richard

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ManiacNumberOne:
Have we ruled out Book being a Mormon? They're Christian.

---

No, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) are NOT Christian. They call themselves Christians because Jesus Christ is a part of their religion, but they have re-defined too many terms to be included in the religious designation "Christianity".

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by zoid:
Thank you for your candid reply. I trust that it meets with your grudging approval that I continue to live in my house, even though I am not a trained architect. Although I know it may distress you, I did read some good popular books on automobiles and -- although I couldn't build one myself -- feel I made an informed decision when I purchased my current car. According to your argument, I am either/both too stupid or not classically trained enough to reside and drive based strictly upon the recommendations of my architect and a good mechanic.

---

You miss my point entirely. If you have read books on automobiles, by my argument, you can't make any judgment on how they conduct themselves, how engines are manufactured or how there research is done, etc. Nothing more. You are making a direct comparison between something that is applied and something that is theoretical. In greatly different fields as well. You are comparing apples and oranges here. Yours is a moot point.

And if you're going to listen to someone that is describing physics from about a century ago, then you can live in the past. Things have changed since then you know. Even some of what Einstein did has been corrected and people have said some is wrong. And not all has been proven, frame dragging for instance.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by zoid:
The logical conclusion of your argument is that either everyone must become university-trained physicists, or else they must not worry their pretty heads with deep subjects they could not possibly hope to understand. Most of us, in the 'real' world, have jobs and lives; but we still crave some understanding of the world around us.

---

No, the logical conclusion is that people shouldn't make judgments about people in a field they don't know anything about. As I said before I know things about architecture, but, I won't even think to question an architect as I realize that (s)he knows far more than me there. I don't have the basis for any opinion of how they conduct themselves or there work.

You know nothing about the physicists that do the work. You know nothing about how they conduct themselves. This is clear. Yet you persist in saying you know and still cling to you obviously flawed beliefs.

It is also clear, by my example above, that your understanding of the subject is flawed as well. This isn't a comment on you. But, one of a couple of things is happening here:
1) You didn't understand what you read.
2) You didn't understand what you read because the book didn't describe it properly.
3) You understood at one point but that understanding has become corrupted over time. Human memory is flawed.

It's become too complicated. You need more than just pop books. You need math. That idea that you can just understand things is so Newton. The world doesn't make that kind of sense anymore.

Many Physicists say that physics is a humbling discipline. It is the fact that physics pretty much makes you think you are stupid on a daily basis. If you think you understand it, you don't and physics will show you that shortly. The subject is quite fleeting. And that's the experts talking about there field of specialty.

So, how do you think that you can pretend to understand such thinks with no background. As I have said, people can get and idea about physics from those pop books, but, they must understand that they are just ideas. It isn't true understanding.

I do encourage that though. People don't nearly know enough about the world around them. They just must accept the limitations stated above.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by zoid:
As far as your references are concerned, I stopped after the first. I trust others will take up your challenge, to the extent they have any interest in this conversation in the first place (which I sincerely doubt). Personally, I prefer Einstein's description of his own theory, in his own words -- which you denigrated as 'pop' -- to the in-depth mathematical dissertation in that reference

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME