| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
therooster
Joined: 11 May 2007
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 5:19 am Post subject: Physics , Cosmology and ....heck...maybe even God . |
 |
|
I'm going to try and discuss something very complex . Something that can't easily be put into words ...but I'll throw it out there in the hopes any of it resonates .
Firstly let's not make this a forum for anyone to explore and explain their "faith" . That's the type of statement I used to use as a hardcore determinist to basically tell christians to "p!ss off" .....but as I've explored more into cosmology ...well....
I'm freaked out .
I started to dab into physics and cosmology when I started to search for "god" . It wasn't long and by the time I had a basic understanding of the physical world I saw no need for god . This progressed and out of pure interest I from time to time kept reading about the cosmos and it's various quirks . I explored quatum theory , string thoery and the likes.....the idea that the matter which we perceive is only a tiny portion of that which exists in the universe...and that even that which we can percieve we perceive in a totally distorted way ..warped by space and time ......
But then it hit....mere weeks ago ....somewhere down the rabbit hole I hit on the strangest idea : The human body as a receptor of human consciousness rather than the catalyst and creator of it .
This got me exploring the idea of dreams , and how anyone who understands the universe knows your experience of it is nothing superior in validity to a dream . It got me exploring the collective consciousness and subjectively exploring my experiences of the world . Exploring things like empathy and reincarnation and all sorts of Sh!t i'd have laughed of ages ago.......all of this based on the basic flawed premise of physics......and this is what i want to discuss...
if you think you understand and can understand the physical world....you truly do not understand the physical world in the slightest...
How many of us "athiests" can honestly say we have guarded against this distortion ? How is our "physics" any different from a faith belief when we now know how strange and wierd and quirky the universe is ...and how truly insignificant the physics we can understand is .......is it not arrogant to make assumptions when we can percieve of a tiny 3 dimensions and experience the 4th ....when that is such a tony part of the physical universe...and even then our perception is madly distorted ???
I just think the idea that we understand that we dismiss the meta physical is at least as idiotic as the idea of "god" ....
"the universe appears more like a great thought than a great machine" |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 6:27 am Post subject: Re: Physics , Cosmology and ....heck...maybe even God . |
|
|
| therooster wrote: |
| How is our "physics" any different from a faith belief when we now know how strange and wierd and quirky the universe is |
Whatever my beliefs are regarding physics they are open to change based on evidence. Claim there's no atom? If you show me observations can be explained better by another model, I'm totally willing to abandon the standard atomic model. If you recall, we used to think of the atom a whole, then as a little solar system, and now as a nucleus with electrons orbiting somewhere that we can never pin down. As a believer in the scientific method, the things the scientific method deals with I believe are not final truth. They are tentative and subject to change.
However, for a god believer, no evidence would ever convince them of the non existence of god. No evidence would ever convince them major elements of dogma are not true. They do not believe in tentative knowledge but an absolute truth.
Think of it this way, science and religion are like a dog and a cat. Both have four legs, a nose, a tail, whiskers, eat meat, fur. But because they share certain major traits does not make a dog and cat the same. There are also tangible differences. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ginormousaurus
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
Location: 700 Ft. Pulpit
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 6:45 am Post subject: Re: Physics , Cosmology and ....heck...maybe even God . |
|
|
Take a look atthis video. It nicely describes what may be involved with the higher dimensions predicted by string theory.
This topic fascinates me. I highly reccomend "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene. The book was also made into a 3 part documentary hosted by the author. It's great for those who learn better visually. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dutchy pink
Joined: 06 Feb 2007
Location: Incheon
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 9:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
OP, I'm not quite sure what you were getting at in that, it seems you were trying to link religion and physics? Their mutual quirkiness, unexplained, unknown phenomena, ect...
The only thing I can add, since I'm not sure what your talking about, is to recommend a book "The Cosmic Serpent"
It links biology, specifically DNA and religion throughout varies cultures. Most religions have the same basic theme, developed well before any serious biology/DNA evidence came to the know. There are surprising links between them as explored in this book.
Anyway... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 12:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Is string theory actually a theory? I mean does it make predictions of any sort, is it falsifiable?
| Quote: |
| How is our "physics" any different from a faith belief when we now know how strange and wierd and quirky the universe is ...and how truly insignificant the physics we can understand is .......is it not arrogant to make assumptions when we can percieve of a tiny 3 dimensions and experience the 4th ....when that is such a tony part of the physical universe...and even then our perception is madly distorted ??? |
We don't know everything so we know nothing? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MA_TESOL
Joined: 11 Nov 2007
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 1:07 pm Post subject: love it |
|
|
I hope this thread gets a lot of serious discussion. For the last few months I have been delving into these things with great interests. Right now I am reading "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. I am also reading "The Red Queen" forgot the author. Any other book recommendations would be appreciated. Also, here is the link to the most awesome website I have ever seen!!!!!!!!!!!
www.sciencedaily.com
This is up-to-date and has articles and discussions on all these things as well as origin of life theories etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JMO wrote: |
| Is string theory actually a theory? I mean does it make predictions of any sort, is it falsifiable? |
String theory I believe takes "theory" from the mathematical use of "theory" vs the scientific use. String is all math. I think the Large Hadron Collider is String's first hope (and maybe last hope) at testing its claims:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider#Research |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
therooster
Joined: 11 May 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Whatever my beliefs are regarding physics they are open to change based on evidence. Claim there's no atom? If you show me observations can be explained better by another model, I'm totally willing to abandon the standard atomic model. If you recall, we used to think of the atom a whole, then as a little solar system, and now as a nucleus with electrons orbiting somewhere that we can never pin down. As a believer in the scientific method, the things the scientific method deals with I believe are not final truth. They are tentative and subject to change.
|
Absolutely .Fantastic and I always agreed . But with further research I had to ask ....
1) What happens when the very process of observing certain pheneomena alters it's behaviour ? (uncertainty principle )
2) What happens when on the quantum level almost all phenomena is counter intuitive ? That is to say if we reduce all physics to the quantum level all that can be certain is uncertainty ....
3) Our entire physics is based on the ideas of time and space...two things which entirely distory in our minds...(consider quantum entaglement /time reversal symmetry ...the idea that space and time are entirely a construct of the mind)
(quantum entaglment : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5poD3nXdJ8&feature=related )
( super position : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rQiF2cRKdc&feature=related )
...to still hold so dear to the scientific method in a universe in which science is increasingly telling us is stranger and more complex than we could ever imagine or even perceiev....well....how is that different to a flatlander telling you that all there is worth believing in is that which exists in two dimensions and there is no third dimension because he can't prove it ...? That's a statement of FAITH my friend . I suggest the idea of a 3 dimensional being would be insane to a flatlander as much as god is to us .
So would you then encourage the flatlander to base his entire life based on observation when he obviously percieves only a tiny part of the universe ? How about us then who can only observe a small part of the third dimension (that which vibrates in certain wave frequencies and spectrums of the electromagnetic field etc) ....should we find the idea ridiculous that amazing things don't exist in any of the other dimensions "above " us ???
(on flatland : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSmwu_WZ4nc&feature=related )
Anyway...this is just the first part of liberating yourself from physical determinism you must accept ...you CAN NOT pretend to understand the universe in even the slightest way .....
once you can accept this you might open yourself up to an interesting idea.....and here it is...
the idea that our consciousness might exist on a higher dimension (it's ability to transcend the physics of 3 dimensions almost insist upon this....the fact we can do anything in our dreams or imaginations.....our cosciousness is not held by the laws of gravity etc....) ....
now you might take this for granted (as i did) ...that hey..."it doesn't have to be involved and held to the physical laws of the universe as it's not physical" ...but there alone think careful about what you imply.....a part of us is not physical ? careful my scientific friends....you are whispering about "souls" ....
also you forget that the physical world is simple a dream....in every single aspect...all that you see around you is not as it seems...it's concetrated energy all connected ..all touching...seperate from time and space ....your experience of it is all a dream.....in the strongest sense of the word......
I don't want to get too far ahead of myself ....but given we know higher dimensions exists...and given that they would be able to transcend the laws of 3 dimensional physics....why would you ever want to place the "mind" into the 3 dimensional world where frankly it spits in the face of physics....think hard about it my friends.....could not the human body merely be a receptor for the human "consciousness" ?
Little bodies that briefly capture and allow us to experience the world seprately from our collective and infinute consciouness that exists beyond space and time ? This idea sounds "fruity" ....but if you really understood physics and cosmology it's almost necessary !!! If we exist , on some level we must exist beyond space and time ...and we can of course...in our minds!!
(by the way ...the wierdest thing of all is that the more I explore the physical and go down the rabbit hole...i find myself relating to the mystical writings of budhism etc .....its seems this has always been known by people...but somehow we've become alienated to this knowledge....maybe through the christian church...who knows......)
I feel like i've awoken from the matrix.....our cultures ,religions etc have all alienated us away from a truth ...amazing through exploring science we might find ourselves going BACKwards towards a truth we knew all allong , but managed to lose as we got lost in the dream of the physical world... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 5:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Some simple algebra:
a = b
multiply both sides by a
a^2 = ab
add a^2 to both sides
a^2 + a^2 = a^2 + ab
simplify
2a^2 = a^2 + ab
subtract 2ab from both sides
2a^2 - 2ab = a^2 + ab - 2ab
simplify
2a^2 - 2ab = a^2 - ab
factor
2(a^2 - ab) = 1(a^2 - ab)
divide both sides by (a^2 - ab)
2 = 1
I know that mathematicians will say that one of the steps is "fallacious", but this tells me that math is inherently flawed (any number divided by zero is undefined). Physics and especially string theory is largely based on math (certain sub-atomic particle's behaviour is mathematically described relatively easily if they were to exist in X dimensions)
The entire universe is inherently flawed? What is one divided by zero?
This is why after finishing my physics degree I went back to school and did a music degree. That and I couldn't see myself testing fibre optic cable's resistivity in some lab somewhere for the rest of my life. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
therooster
Joined: 11 May 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I know that mathematicians will say that one of the steps is "fallacious", but this tells me that math is inherently flawed (any number divided by zero is undefined). Physics and especially string theory is largely based on math (certain sub-atomic particle's behaviour is mathematically described relatively easily if they were to exist in X dimensions)
|
Quantum mechanics is based on the most part on observation . I think it's a strawman to attack maths to attack string theory in turn to attack the realities of quantum mechanics in order to attack physics ..... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| therooster wrote: |
| Quote: |
I know that mathematicians will say that one of the steps is "fallacious", but this tells me that math is inherently flawed (any number divided by zero is undefined). Physics and especially string theory is largely based on math (certain sub-atomic particle's behaviour is mathematically described relatively easily if they were to exist in X dimensions)
|
Quantum mechanics is based on the most part on observation . I think it's a strawman to attack maths to attack string theory in turn to attack the realities of quantum mechanics in order to attack physics ..... |
I'm not attacking, just saying these things are left unresolved.
Although there are probably more important things for scientists to be working on than whether this electron exists in a 27th dimensional hypersphere because the math says so or not because common sense says that's pretty improbable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| therooster wrote: |
| Quote: |
I know that mathematicians will say that one of the steps is "fallacious", but this tells me that math is inherently flawed (any number divided by zero is undefined). Physics and especially string theory is largely based on math (certain sub-atomic particle's behaviour is mathematically described relatively easily if they were to exist in X dimensions)
|
Quantum mechanics is based on the most part on observation . I think it's a strawman to attack maths to attack string theory in turn to attack the realities of quantum mechanics in order to attack physics ..... |
Sorry, one more..
Quantum mechanics IS based on observation, but described with and determined by math. Ex: These particles exist in certain quanta (eigenvalues, determined mathematically) of energy and not outside. If we observe a particle's position (determined mathematically) within a certain degree of accuracy we can only observe its momentum (determined mathematically) within this degree of accuracy (Heisenberg's uncertainty principle).
That and these observations to begin with are made using machines that have been developed using math and engineering based on math. The quantum nature of the sub-atomic universe cannot be observed with the naked eye.
I don't debate the incredible degree of precision and accuracy that the universe has been described in using these tools. I just question if the inherent flaws of one are indicative of anything in the other. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| therooster wrote: |
| Quote: |
I know that mathematicians will say that one of the steps is "fallacious", but this tells me that math is inherently flawed (any number divided by zero is undefined). Physics and especially string theory is largely based on math (certain sub-atomic particle's behaviour is mathematically described relatively easily if they were to exist in X dimensions)
|
Quantum mechanics is based on the most part on observation . I think it's a strawman to attack maths to attack string theory in turn to attack the realities of quantum mechanics in order to attack physics ..... |
I'm not attacking, just saying these things are left unresolved.
Although there are probably more important things for scientists to be working on than whether this electron exists in a 27th dimensional hypersphere because the math says so or not because common sense says that's pretty improbable. |
Long ago common sense dicated the universe revolved around the Earth (it sure seemed like it). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
therooster
Joined: 11 May 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Sorry, one more..
Quantum mechanics IS based on observation, but described with and determined by math. Ex: These particles exist in certain quanta (eigenvalues, determined mathematically) of energy and not outside. If we observe a particle's position (determined mathematically) within a certain degree of accuracy we can only observe its momentum (determined mathematically) within this degree of accuracy (Heisenberg's uncertainty principle).
That and these observations to begin with are made using machines that have been developed using math and engineering based on math. The quantum nature of the sub-atomic universe cannot be observed with the naked eye.
I don't debate the incredible degree of precision and accuracy that the universe has been described in using these tools. I just question if the inherent flaws of one are indicative of anything in the other. |
Fair enough and of course we can not observe anything on the quantum level with the naked eye. I'm not sure I understand your problem though ....please elaborate . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| laogaiguk wrote: |
Long ago common sense dicated the universe revolved around the Earth (it sure seemed like it). |
Ok, let me elaborate then..
The example I made that is in question is regarding some sub-atomic particle or phenomenon (I forget which) whose observed behaviour is easily mathematically described if it were to exist within a 27th dimensional hypersphere (I'm not making these terms up).
It's behvaiour can also be described using far more complicated math within far fewer dimensions. The problem being we have to make all kinds of assumptions regarding the math to make it fit. Something physicists do regularly and mathematicians freak out about.
"Common sense" was the wrong term to use. Which case of the phenomenon above is more likely? Scientists choose the former to validate theories of there being more dimensions than we can physically observe. We "observe" them indirectly, mathematically.
The fact that all this science and math WORKS for the most part is what I worry about since I DO believe that math is inherently flawed.
Someone had to start talking about physics!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
