Why I'm a Deist.

[red]

If you take photons as an analogy (they also obey an inverse-square law, as any photographer will tell you), you can see how this works. Photons travel in straight lines, and radiate out from a centre. In a one-dimensional universe, you would receive the same number of photons from a source, regardless of how much you were separated from that course, because there is only line they can travel. In a two-dimensional universe, the light falls off in direct proportion to separation, because the lines they travel are uniformly spread on a circle, and the circumference of the circle is proportional to its radius. In a three-dimensional universe, the fall-off follows an inverse-square law because again, the lines travelled are uniformly spread over the surface of a sphere whose area is proportional to the radius. In a universe with four spatial dimensions, the fall-off would be inversely proportional to the cube of the distance, for exactly the same reasons.

I admit to not getting this point, so would be grateful for help.
The number of photons emitted from a single source will be different to the number received in any space greater than one dimension - I get that bit (or, possibly, I am mistaken?)
But how will the number of photons measured at any single point on a sphere be different from the number emitted from that singe source if light travels in a straight line? As I understand it, at any equidistant point on a sphere the measured number of photons received for any similar period of time would be roughly equal. What I do not understand is what you mean when you say " the light falls off in direct proportion to separation".

 

[Deleted member 619]

I admit to not getting this point, so would be grateful for help.
The number of photons emitted from a single source will be different to the number received in any space greater than one dimension - I get that bit (or, possibly, I am mistaken?)

You have it right.

But how will the number of photons measured at any single point on a sphere be different from the number emitted from that singe source if light travels in a straight line?

We're not measuring on the surface of the sphere, we're measuring photons emitted from the sphere.

As I understand it, at any equidistant point on a sphere the measured number of photons received for any similar period of time would be roughly equal. What I do not understand is what you mean when you say " the light falls off in direct proportion to separation".

When I say that it falls off in direct proportion to separation, that's not for a sphere, but for a disc, i.e. in two dimensions. For each dimension added, the intensity falls off in proportion to an additional exponent.

1 dimension, no falloff.
2 dimensions, direct falloff.
3 dimensions, inverse-square falloff.
4 dimensions, inverse-cube falloff.

And so on.

Not sure I can simplify it much further than I have already, but perhaps an image will help:

 

[red]

When I say that it falls off in direct proportion to separation, that's not for a sphere, but for a disc, i.e. in two dimensions. For each dimension added, the intensity falls off in proportion to an additional exponent.

I know I am missing something in your explanation, and want to "get it".
As I understand it, irrespective of where in space one measures for photons from a source, that measurement is theoretically the same if it were taken from any other point in our Universe.
I therefore remain unsure of what you mean when you say "intensity", as at every point one could choose at a distance in your image, the number of photons measured should be the same (unless I am wrong?).
When you are talking about "intensity" with respect to the measurement of photons, are you using some other metric?

 

[Deleted member 619]

As I understand it, irrespective of where in space one measures for photons from a source, that measurement is theoretically the same if it were taken from any other point in our Universe.

Any point in the universe that is the same distance from the source.

When you are talking about "intensity" with respect to the measurement of photons, are you using some other metric?

Intensity refers only to photons received ÷ time.

 

[red]

As I understand it, irrespective of where in space one measures for photons from a source, that measurement is theoretically the same if it were taken from any other point in our Universe.

Any point in the universe that is the same distance from the source.

When you are talking about "intensity" with respect to the measurement of photons, are you using some other metric?

Intensity refers only to photons received ÷ time.

I did try to twice reply with no luck, so third time lucky!
If I measure photon activity one metre from the source, what causes a different intensity from the measurement made one light year from the source if the light travels in a straight line?

 

[Deleted member 619]

If I measure photon activity one metre from the source, what causes a different intensity from the measurement made one light year from the source if the light travels in a straight line?

Light doesn't travel in one single straight line, but radiates out in may straight lines. Look at that diagram again. You can see that the same photons at 2R are spread over four times the area that they are at R, and the same number of photons is spread over 9 times the area at 3R, because they're all radiating away from R over many straight lines.

Think about a photon leaving the surface of a sphere, simplified so that every single photon leaves the surface directly away from the centre. Each point on the surface is the same distance from the centre (actually, in a rotating body, that's not true, because rotating bodies tend to be oblate, but that's an unnecessary complication for our purposes) but is on a different vector, hence the photons spread out as they move away.

Any clearer?

 

[tuxbox]

You've taken the first step by recognising the fallacy ion your own argument. Of course, having a really good grasp of the most common fallacies and how to recognise them helps.

Two sources that are pretty good. The first is a brief coverage of the most common fallacies:

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/

The second is a more comprehensive treatment:

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/taxonomy.html

Thanks for the links. The first one is awesome and the second one hurts my brain.

Entities and the interactions between them.

I think I understand.

Well done, you've just encountered anthropic reasoning, although you missed the 'anthro' bit. WE must exist to put a description to things, and we are a result of the existence of those things.

I get that we are a result of Nature, and we can observe and predict how these phenomenons (things) interact with us and the observable universe. My next question my be a stupid one, but here it goes. Doesn't that put our reality into question? If we were not here to observe these phenomenons, would they still exist?

Nonsense. 'Somewhere' pertains to a spatial location. Prior to the Planck time, there was no 'somewhere'.

Does Planck time exist outside of our bubble, and if so, doesn't if follow that "somewhere" exists outside our bubble?

If they always existed, they didn't come from somewhere. Besides, quoting Kaku at me is like quoting Bill Nye ay Richard Dawkins.

Gotcha. Is it your position that they have always exist, at least in some form or another?

Well, one of the ways it could be falsified is to determine that there are no extra dimensions.

Everything, and I do mean everything, is transparent to gravity, so it is never absent. Indeed, and once again appealing to esoterica, it is postulated that the reason that gravity is comparatively weak is that even hidden dimensions are transparent to gravity, and that its weakness is due to it 'leaking' into other dimensions. There are, in principle, tests that can be carried out to confirm this. They get a little technical, but they are to do with the implications for more dimensions on the inverse-square law. In a nutshell, the inverse-square law is a consequence of our inhabiting a three-dimensional cosmos. I'll try to explain:

If you take photons as an analogy (they also obey an inverse-square law, as any photographer will tell you), you can see how this works. Photons travel in straight lines, and radiate out from a centre. In a one-dimensional universe, you would receive the same number of photons from a source, regardless of how much you were separated from that course, because there is only line they can travel. In a two-dimensional universe, the light falls off in direct proportion to separation, because the lines they travel are uniformly spread on a circle, and the circumference of the circle is proportional to its radius. In a three-dimensional universe, the fall-off follows an inverse-square law because again, the lines travelled are uniformly spread over the surface of a sphere whose area is proportional to the radius. In a universe with four spatial dimensions, the fall-off would be inversely proportional to the cube of the distance, for exactly the same reasons.

So, now we know why gravitational attraction is inversely proportional to the square of the distance in three dimensions, and surely we can't live in a universe with more than three dimensions, because we'd measure a different law for the fall-off of gravity (and photons), but we don't! However, this conclusion would be a little premature, because it only deals with the large scale of the cosmos we've been able to observe. If, for example, the extra dimension were curled up to around the Planck length, then the inverse-cube law would only hold to those distances, and from there we would experience an inverse-square law, as the propagation of gravity (and photons) would follow the three-dimensional principles.

At the smallest distances we've been able to probe, there has been no violation of the inverse-square law, but bear in mind that the smallest distances we've been able to probe for this is about a tenth of a millimetre, which is many orders of magnitude greater than the Planck length. If we ever find violations of the inverse-square law, it will provide extremely robust evidence for the existence of small dimensions.

If we can ever probe down to the Planck scale, and we fail to find a violation of the inverse-square law, M-Theory is falsified.

I have to admit most of this went way over my head. That said, have we been able to probe down to the Planck scale? If the answer is no, then it can't be falsified as of yet, correct?

I'd have to see a citation for this, not least because Greene is one of the sources that drive my formulation of the above.

I will watch the video again when I get the time, and link it here with the time stamp if I find it.

What does the evidence suggest?

This I do understand.

But on what, exactly, is such a position based? Is there any good reason to suppose that a creator exists, or is even necessary?

The problem is that the 'creator' idea, because it provides an easy explanation for everything, actually explains exactly nothing. All it does is provoke more questions, to which each answer is as unfalsifiable as the last. The notion simply has no utility.

The answer is no from a scientific point of view. But from a philosophical point of view, it is my position that there is a good reason to ask the question. How does it provoke anymore answers than an infinite Multiverse? From my point of view the Multiverse might explain how are bubble began, but it still begs the question of when did the bubble start making more bubbles? That is of course, if there ever was a first bubble. There could have been multiple bubbles always existing, but that is something that makes no sense to me.

The laws of nature exist. Do you see any reason to assume that they didn't always exist?

They very well could have always existed, but that does not seem any different than saying that a Creator has always existed as well.

Who said there was a first bubble?

I touched on this a little bit further up in this post. That said, I'm still stuck on causality.

 

[tuxbox]

Is it? Why?

How can you assign properties to something that has not been detected as of yet?

I'd say that it IS nature. Certainly that's my understanding of panendeism, although frankly it's much to woolly a concept for my taste. Why posit such an entity? This is, of course, setting aside the question of whether nature has any ontological existence.

Again this comes down to intuition and causality, which I realize you have the position that his is bollocks. hehe

This is nothing more than word salad, TBH.

lol, Let me rephrase. It is present in our bubble, but also outside (transcends) our bubble . After all it is my position that it is part Nature.

That might be more "word salad. But it is the best way I can articulate my position currently.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Doesn't that put our reality into question? If we were not here to observe these phenomenons, would they still exist?

It's really gonna bake your noodle later when you work out that we can't actually assert with anything resembling complete confidence that what we observe is,. in any ontological sense, real.Such questions are beyond the ,limits of epistemology, which is why I have no truck with metaphysical statements.

Does Planck time exist outside of our bubble, and if so, doesn't if follow that "somewhere" exists outside our bubble?

The question isn't coherent. The Planck time exists within our cosmos. It's the earliest time our theories can track to. As far as observation is concerned, we can't even get that far.

Either way, we can't assert anything about what may or may not lie outside of our cosmic bubble. All we can say with certainty is that space exists inside our bubble, thbu8s all questions of 'where' can only usefully be applied therein.

Is it your position that they have always exist, at least in some form or another?

The data support no conclusions as yet.

I have to admit most of this went way over my head. That said, have we been able to probe down to the Planck scale? If the answer is no, then it can't be falsified as of yet, correct?

That's what I meant by 'in principle', as opposed to 'in practice'. At this time, we can't test it except for mathematical consistency. As I said, the smallest scale we've been able to probe for violations of the inverse-square law is about 1/10 of a millimetre.

I'd have to see a citation for this, not least because Greene is one of the sources that drive my formulation of the above.

I will watch the video again when I get the time, and link it here with the time stamp if I find it.

What does the evidence suggest?

This I do understand.

But from a philosophical point of view, it is my position that there is a good reason to ask the question.

Two things wrong with this. The first is that there's no such thing as a philosophical point of view. Philosophy doesn't do points of view, it deals only with whether we're asking the right kinds of question. The second is that it's simply the wrong kind of question, as I've already said.

How does it provoke anymore answers than an infinite Multiverse? From my point of view the Multiverse might explain how are bubble began, but it still begs the question of when did the bubble start making more bubbles? That is of course, if there ever was a first bubble. There could have been multiple bubbles always existing, but that is something that makes no sense to me.

Why does it make no sense? If one bubble can instantiate, we have a mechanism for many, which means that ours being the only one is the true violation of Occam's Razor.

They very well could have always existed, but that does not seem any different than saying that a Creator has always existed as well.

It's very, very different, because they actually exist. There's no good reason to suppose that a creator has ever existed, let alone always. In fact, the idea of a creator of the universe is incoherent to the point of being asinine. The universe is literally everything that exists (which is one of the reasons I loathe the word 'multiverse'), so any creator entity could only ever be a subset, which kind of defeats the need for a creator, even were it not daft top think there was one.

I touched on this a little bit further up in this post. That said, I'm still stuck on causality.

I'm pretty stuck on causality, just not Aristotle's notion of it, because Aristotle was an ignoramus. He knew exactly fuck all about how the universe operates, and he was mostly wrong about thought as well. Far too much respect is given to people who were once the best thinkers around, when they couldn't measure up to primary school children today.

 

[Deleted member 619]

How can you assign properties to something that has not been detected as of yet?

Well, you could assign some skill at manipulating energy, for a start. TBH, it's not a very interesting question.

lol, Let me rephrase. It is present in our bubble, but also outside (transcends) our bubble . After all it is my position that it is part Nature.

That might be more "word salad. But it is the best way I can articulate my position currently.

I don't think you've made much difference.

 

[tuxbox]

I get that using Occam's razor we can slice off the Creator idea, correct? And we can use Occam's razor backwards to slice off our bubble being the only the only bubble, correct? If this is the case, then I'm really confused, at least with the latter.

I'm slowing coming around to the position of Agnosticism, but I'm not sure I could ever be an Atheist. At least not one that will say that there is not a Creator. I'm pretty much done with this thread, unless someone comes around and asks me more questions about my position. Thanks Hackenslash for all the patience that you have shown me.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Since I've just seen the post in the debate thread, and I don't want to kill too many neurons addressing Bernhard's A game...

I get that using Occam's razor we can slice off the Creator idea, correct? And we can use Occam's razor backwards to slice off our bubble being the only the only bubble, correct? If this is the case, then I'm really confused, at least with the latter.

It's not backwards, and I get why it would look wrong on the surface, but once we have a mechanism for the instantiation of a cosmos, then you need something to prevent it happening again, and it's that something that constitutes the additional entity, because no such something has been observed. The competing hypotheses in this instance are barrier and no barrier, in essence.

Its the same reason that positing no life in the rest of the universe a violation of parsimony. It's subtle, but it's important to know to what Occam's Razor applies, if any, in any given situation.

I'm slowing coming around to the position of Agnosticism, but I'm not sure I could ever be an Atheist.

Agnosticism isn't some kind of neutral territory, because it's really a position on a specific question, namely whether or not any evidence of god can be found. At least, that's the way Huxley coined it.

At least not one that will say that there is not a Creator.

I'm not one of those either, but I'm happy to say that no coherent deity of any description has ever withstood the very first test of critical thinking, namely 'is there any good reason to believe that this is true?' If it can't get past that test, I might as well proceed on the basis that no such entity exists, always open to the very remote possibility that anything I'd be happy to call a deity exists. 'Does a deity exist' is not really a very i9nteresting question. Indeed, it's entirely the wrong kind of question. No need to go there.

If I were given incontrovertible evidence for the existence of a creator, though, I'd remain an atheist. If any such entity is real, it isn't mine and I'm not its. What do you do with one anyway? Stand it in the corner like that guitar you always promised yourself you'd learn to play? Wheel it out at parties as an ice-breaker? It would be of interest scientifically, but that's about as far as I'm willing to go. I don't actually much care either way. I'm far more interested in why people believe things than in the actual content of their beliefs, which is largely composed of drivel in my experience.

Thanks Hackenslash for all the patience that you have shown me.

My pleasure.

 

[Steelmage99]

I'm slowing coming around to the position of Agnosticism, but I'm not sure I could ever be an Atheist. At least not one that will say that there is not a Creator. I'm pretty much done with this thread, unless someone comes around and asks me more questions about my position. Thanks Hackenslash for all the patience that you have shown me.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

The terms "Atheist" and "Agnostic" are somewhat mutable terms that mean different things to different people.

It is possible to say that one currently sees no evidence for a god (atheist), but is open to the possibility of a god of some description existing (agnostic) - and so one can describe himself as an "agnostic atheist".

Should anybody say that you know that god(s) exist, but actively disbelieve in their existence (atheist) or that you believe that knowledge about gods is completely unknowable (agnostic) - well, then the mutability of the terms has bitten you in the ass, and you must ditch the labels and explain your position the "long" way.

Also note that these positions doesn't have to apply uniformly across the board. You can be agnostic about certain god claims, while being completely dismissive (antitheist - another mutable term) of others.

 

[red]

II'm slowing coming around to the position of Agnosticism, but I'm not sure I could ever be an Atheist. At least not one that will say that there is not a Creator.

There is a creator and it is Nature.
The question you need resolved is if there is something beyond Nature.
So, what is required beyond natural causation?
Or, as there are presently things we do not know, should we need to invoke something to fill the gaps in the interim?
And if we do, what makes sense as a result? That is, what purpose does this other creator have in mind for our universe? That is moot because we believe our universe is destined a slow, long, cold death.
Nature has no expectation for us; it just does and is.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I'm slowing coming around to the position of Agnosticism, but I'm not sure I could ever be an Atheist. At least not one that will say that there is not a Creator. I'm pretty much done with this thread, unless someone comes around and asks me more questions about my position. Thanks Hackenslash for all the patience that you have shown me.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

The terms "Atheist" and "Agnostic" are somewhat mutable terms that mean different things to different people.

It is possible to say that one currently sees no evidence for a god (atheist), but is open to the possibility of a god of some description existing (agnostic) - and so one can describe himself as an "agnostic atheist".

Should anybody say that you know that god(s) exist, but actively disbelieve in their existence (atheist) or that you believe that knowledge about gods is completely unknowable (agnostic) - well, then the mutability of the terms has bitten you in the ass, and you must ditch the labels and explain your position the "long" way.

Also note that these positions doesn't have to apply uniformly across the board. You can be agnostic about certain god claims, while being completely dismissive (antitheist - another mutable term) of others.

Not quite sure what you mean by these terms being "mutable".

Agnostic - in this context - means that the existence or not of a creator-entity is inherently unknowable. In other words, not only is it a case of "I don't know" but, more importantly, "I don't know if it's possible to know".

We can only know if there's a creator-entity if there's life-after-death - if there isn't, then we'll never find out.

Atheism simply means "without (belief in) gods" - this is not to be confused with anti-theism, which would be "against (the existence of) gods".

Kindest regards,

James

 

[SpecialFrog]

As noted by others, most atheists are also agnostic and most people who identify as agnostic are probably also atheists (as theists mostly don't call themselves agnostic).

While I acknowledge that I am agnostic, since most people are it doesn't make for a very useful label. I'm only agnostic about gods in the same way as I am about Russel's Teapot -- I can't rule them out but there are good reasons to think they don't exist and no good reasons to think that they do.

If you think that there are good reasons to think gods might exist -- even if they are insufficient to convince you to believe in their existence -- maybe agnostic is a reasonable self-identifier.

 

[tuxbox]

Since I've just seen the post in the debate thread, and I don't want to kill too many neurons addressing Bernhard's A game...

lol

It's not backwards, and I get why it would look wrong on the surface, but once we have a mechanism for the instantiation of a cosmos, then you need something to prevent it happening again, and it's that something that constitutes the additional entity, because no such something has been observed. The competing hypotheses in this instance are barrier and no barrier, in essence.

Its the same reason that positing no life in the rest of the universe a violation of parsimony. It's subtle, but it's important to know to what Occam's Razor applies, if any, in any given situation.

Understood.

Agnosticism isn't some kind of neutral territory, because it's really a position on a specific question, namely whether or not any evidence of god can be found. At least, that's the way Huxley coined it.

I thought Agnosticism was without knowledge. So, if I change my position (which I think I have already) then that would mean I have no knowledge of a Creator existing, and knowledge of Creator is unattainable?

I'm not one of those either, but I'm happy to say that no coherent deity of any description has ever withstood the very first test of critical thinking, namely 'is there any good reason to believe that this is true?' If it can't get past that test, I might as well proceed on the basis that no such entity exists, always open to the very remote possibility that anything I'd be happy to call a deity exists. 'Does a deity exist' is not really a very i9nteresting question. Indeed, it's entirely the wrong kind of question. No need to go there.

If I were given incontrovertible evidence for the existence of a creator, though, I'd remain an atheist. If any such entity is real, it isn't mine and I'm not its. What do you do with one anyway? Stand it in the corner like that guitar you always promised yourself you'd learn to play? Wheel it out at parties as an ice-breaker? It would be of interest scientifically, but that's about as far as I'm willing to go. I don't actually much care either way. I'm far more interested in why people believe things than in the actual content of their beliefs, which is largely composed of drivel in my experience.

LOL, That is a very interesting position to have.

My pleasure.

 

[tuxbox]

The two are not mutually exclusive.

The terms "Atheist" and "Agnostic" are somewhat mutable terms that mean different things to different people.

It is possible to say that one currently sees no evidence for a god (atheist), but is open to the possibility of a god of some description existing (agnostic) - and so one can describe himself as an "agnostic atheist".

Should anybody say that you know that god(s) exist, but actively disbelieve in their existence (atheist) or that you believe that knowledge about gods is completely unknowable (agnostic) - well, then the mutability of the terms has bitten you in the ass, and you must ditch the labels and explain your position the "long" way.

Also note that these positions doesn't have to apply uniformly across the board. You can be agnostic about certain god claims, while being completely dismissive (antitheist - another mutable term) of others.

I think I understand where you coming from, but after careful thought and all of the arguments presented in this thread, I think I'm ready to move on from Panendeism, to not knowing (agnostic). That said, that does not mean I lack a belief in God/s, because in the back of my mind I do not know if it would ever be possible to know if there are God/s. Of course this could be just splitting hairs. I also concur that labels should be dropped. I'm not a big fan of them.

 

[tuxbox]

There is a creator and it is Nature.
The question you need resolved is if there is something beyond Nature.
So, what is required beyond natural causation?
Or, as there are presently things we do not know, should we need to invoke something to fill the gaps in the interim?
And if we do, what makes sense as a result? That is, what purpose does this other creator have in mind for our universe? That is moot because we believe our universe is destined a slow, long, cold death.
Nature has no expectation for us; it just does and is.

As a Panendiest the Creator is part of Nature, but I get your point. It is now my position that I have no knowledge if there is something beyond Nature with any type of Intelligence.

 

[tuxbox]

Greetings,

Agnostic - in this context - means that the existence or not of a creator-entity is inherently unknowable. In other words, not only is it a case of "I don't know" but, more importantly, "I don't know if it's possible to know".

We can only know if there's a creator-entity if there's life-after-death - if there isn't, then we'll never find out.

Atheism simply means "without (belief in) gods" - this is not to be confused with anti-theism, which would be "against (the existence of) gods".

Kindest regards,

James

That is pretty much explains my current position.