Religulous

[Kuya]

But why would you postulate that there's a beginning to the series or how can you still call it infinite after postulating a beginning when you're unaware if there can be an end to the series of causes? I take it you think there aren't an infinity of causes? And how is Kaylia an atheist when he is skeptic; how can someone assume something true when one is skeptical of it?

[Neosutra]

He is a theist agnostic, skeptics fall into that category.

And the way I postulate universal causality is not a series of infinite causes, but rather a complex relation of relativistic reactions of space/time, where time in our universe is only a biproduct of the linear path of interacting causal partical interactions. There are so many models that offer science/math based explainations for our universe that dont rely on a series of infinite causes. Why would I want to put god there when we have some pretty good guesses already? And even if all of our theories are wrong, there is still no reason to assume magic is the cause lol.

[Kuya]

It's agnostic theism, not theist agnostic, the former postulates that the existence of a deity may be likely but lacks the solid evidence to say it is true therefore is skeptic, while on the other hand there is a agnostic atheist who postulates that the existence of a deity is unlikely but lacks the evidence to disprove it therefore remains skeptical.

If i understand what you're saying properly, and i'm over simplifying here, the only difference, if any, is that you believe (or opinionate) in a plural cause or plurality of factors within the cause instead of a singular cause? Either way, most mathematical models fall apart if they try to go before the Big Bang and hence they become highly theoretical, so everything is in a position of skepticism regardless of what you may think has the most legitimacy.

[Kaylia]

One would have to postulate that an infinite series thus had a begining, which is what theists say cant be, thus god is inserted into the equation.

And Kaylia is a theist agnostic. Oh and kaylia, does your defined god interact with this universe?

The first cause would interact with the universe through the chain of causality. Push a rock in one direction and watch it rolls.

I'm not a theist agnostic either. I already said I would consider myself strong atheist if I would be able to justify it. Only position I can justify without belief is true agnosticism because the answer to question of the universe is "undefined"

[Kaylia]

And the way I postulate universal causality is not a series of infinite causes, but rather a complex relation of relativistic reactions of space/time, where time in our universe is only a biproduct of the linear path of interacting causal partical interactions. There are so many models that offer science/math based explainations for our universe that dont rely on a series of infinite causes. Why would I want to put god there when we have some pretty good guesses already? And even if all of our theories are wrong, there is still no reason to assume magic is the cause lol.

Can the model explain itself? No.

A loop model in the first place couldn't be stable, because doing any interaction with the universe would force you to redefine everything.

[Quicklet]

But empiricism and rationalism aren't the same thing, for example, mathematics is not empiricist, it is actually rationalist; it often uses a priori reasoning, and that often, and i'm sure the physicists here can agree with me, the mathematic method is never wrong or practically never wrong, you are, same is true in deductive reasoning where your method of reasoning can be perfect and therefore your conclusion is correct, but only in so far as the principle you propose is true, which is where empiricism comes in to make sure the principle is true, even though the method itself can be flawed via bias. Same goes for the mind, social structures, and even time itself is a priori. In reality though, you would need rationalism and empiricism to really have reliable information, so while you are correct there, they aren't necessarily joined at the hip, and at times they can't be because there is simply no way to prove it via physical means.

Which is why i'm shocked that, Neosutra, being a physicist would reject arguments that aren't empirical. Since many parts of physics are theoretical. A physicist should know better than to say something can't exist because it can't be observed.

Depends what you mean by observed. If it can't be observed in any way (directly or indirectly), it may as well not exist in any realistic sense because it never comes into our scope of experience. It wouldn't exist any more than some rainbow flying unicorn somebody dreams up (and that is really just an amalgamation of objects that have existed).

Also, physicists work within a very limited mathematical scope that suits empirical prediction. Which is to say, the current best physical model of the world *needs* empirical parameters to even be able to say much a priori about the world. There's no reason to believe that the universe obeys the mathematical constructs we invent other than the fact that our empirical evidence confirms it.

There is only so far any completely axiomized system can go (Godel's incompleteness theorems, etc.). In the end all this stuff really boils down to a matter of personal taste and sociological interactions.

[Kerberoz]

Want to see this really bad, but I can't find it on Mexico anywhere, wtf D:

[Neosutra]

Can the model explain itself? No.

A loop model in the first place couldn't be stable, because doing any interaction with the universe would force you to redefine everything.

I dont agree with string theory or some of the other models, as I am working on another one myself. However it is a bit sophomoric to assume the model doesnt explain the system.

Just because we dont have a good model yet for the Unified Grand Theorem that explains everything and answers some of these questions doesnt mean it doesnt exist. There is no reason to postulate magic is the cause. Do you really believe every math problem yet to be solved has god at the end of the equation? Pretty boring for all the mathematicians out there.

Causality doesnt always mean correlation, dont oversimplify the universe.

[Kaylia]

Causality doesnt always mean correlation, dont oversimplify the universe.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. There is always a correlation between the cause and the result. If there is no correlation, then it's not a cause.


Why God has to be "magical"? It's not really different than postulating the Big Bang as the first cause. The only difference is that we know we will most likely find an explanation for the Big Bang eventually.

I dont agree with string theory or some of the other models, as I am working on another one myself. However it is a bit sophomoric to assume the model doesnt explain the system.

Just because we dont have a good model yet for the Unified Grand Theorem that explains everything and answers some of these questions doesnt mean it doesnt exist. There is no reason to postulate magic is the cause. Do you really believe every math problem yet to be solved has god at the end of the equation? Pretty boring for all the mathematicians out there.

I personally don't think we will ever find an Unified Grand Theorem, and if we do, the theorem won't be able to explains why every constant are this way, or why there was a big bang.


A model is like a box that allow you to describe what is inside. You will never be able to describe the structure of that box, or what is outside with it.

[Neosutra]

I really dont get where you are getting this idea that we will never be able to determine the GUT and explain the true model of the universe. Seems pretty naive to assume such things are "unknowable". And saying "god" is no different than a big bang explaination is very very silly, as big bang cosmology is a theory based on what we can physically observe about the universe, and god is just a wild theory tossed out by pre-tech mankind.

I just dont get your position of "we just cant ever know". Where are you getting that from?

[Bluefire]

You guys are making my brain hurt with this god mumbo jumbo. I did see the movie however and it was really funny.

[Kaylia]

I really dont get where you are getting this idea that we will never be able to determine the GUT and explain the true model of the universe. Seems pretty naive to assume such things are "unknowable". And saying "god" is no different than a big bang explaination is very very silly, as big bang cosmology is a theory based on what we can physically observe about the universe, and god is just a wild theory tossed out by pre-tech mankind.

I just dont get your position of "we just cant ever know". Where are you getting that from?

GUT explains the model of this material universe, not beyond if there is more.


You will have to postulate your particles, you won't be able to describe what their composition or state are, you won't be able to tell why it behave like this, or why it came to existence, you don't know why universe has certain parameter (light speed). No unified model is going to answer all those questions.

In sciences, there is always a "why" answer. It's not that hard to figure out you can't find an answer that doesn't have any cause. Nothing finite is unknowable, but there will always be a bigger unknowable.

It's really pretencious to say the GUT model explain everything, when it require you to make a ton of postulate to works.


[edit]
And I'm talking about the Big Bang as the first cause, not what follow the big bang. What allow you to say there was -nothing- before the big bang?


[edit2]
Could you please answer in your words how the model explains and predicts "everything" without any postulate? Without any hypothesis that we can observe every parameters in this universe?

[Neosutra]

Wow you really know alot about what we wont be able to know and what the GUT wont tell us.

Fucking amazing. Where the hell are you getting your info from? "Any model that I dont know about obviously wont explain things I dont understand haha". Rediculous.

[Kaylia]

Just fucking answer my question then. Give me 1 example of a result that explain its own cause. Write a theory that would require no postulate and would explain everything. You CAN'T.


How can you even collect data about the smallest particles if there isn't something smaller to interact with. Everyone who works with theoritical physics should know this, especially you.

[Neosutra]

Wait wait wait, you're saying because I dont have the GUT, one doesnt exist?

Are you that big of a fucking moron? Wait, ofcourse you are, why the fuck am I even asking that.

[Kaylia]

Wait wait wait, you're saying because I dont have the GUT, one doesnt exist?

Are you that big of a fucking moron?

ctrl+c, ctrl+v. Answer this.

How can you even collect data about the smallest particles if there isn't something smaller to interact with?



[edit]
and rofl@ you dodging the question with insults. You should do politics, not sciences.

[Neosutra]

You dodge better than I do, as you are the one here postulating the inability to define our system.

And you display your ignorance of partical physics the more you type. Just because a particle exists, doesnt mean there are smaller particles to explain it. What we observe as particles in this physical plane may very well be nothing more than observed reactions in another timespace. Our definition of interacting particles is just a model to explain observed reactions at specific levels. Dont be so dense to think this physical universe is only 3 dimensions, and dont be so stupid as to be caught up in causality of a system that only really sees time in a few of its dimensions.

You really dont know much about physics/the universe/science in general to be arguing so vaguely about what we can or cannot know. It's pretty pathetic.

[Kaylia]

Answer the question.

How can you collect data about the smallest particles if there isn't something smaller to interact with?

Your first particule will be postulated and theorized, not described. I can't help you if you want to pretend otherwise, but it's the case. It's what we are trying to do with higg boson, and it's the only thing any model will ever do.

[Kaliden]

There should be one thread for the purpose of discussing/disputing religion, so this wont keep happening to every thread. Also, make it a bannable offense to make a duplicate of said thread.

[Neosutra]

Answer the question.

How can you collect data about the smallest particles if there isn't something smaller to interact with?

Your first particule will be postulated and theorized, not described. I can't help you if you want to pretend otherwise, but it's the case. It's what we are trying to do with higg boson, and it's the only thing any model will ever do.

No, everything you just said is incorrect. The statement:

How can you collect data about the smallest particles if there isn't something smaller to interact with?

Doesnt even make logical sense. You have NO fucking clue what you are even saying. Why would you need smaller particles to model a system? Jesus christ you cant be this stupid and pretend to be educated.