EEVblog #833 - Mailbag

[Lightages]

I know a few things without doubt. I am not the God of the bible. I am not omniscient. I know I exist. There are probably many more things, and some I can prove to others, but I am tired of this. I am out.

How do you know you are not a brain in a vat, that everything you perceive is not an illusion, and that the God of the Bible is not a creation of your own mind?

I have to exist to think, brain in vat or not. How can I be the God of the bible when it/he/she is all powerful and all knowing, and not know it? 

[miguelvp]

Here's a comment by American theoretical physicist, Michio Kaku on the 'Foundation' series written by Isaac Asimov...

http://dai.ly/x233jzu?start=2069    (already cued - just watch the next 45 seconds.)

Does this make any difference to the discussion here?

You do know that Star Wars was intended to be a Soap Opera and admitted to be the case by Lucas right?

[Brumby]

Imagine for a second that you are just a shadow of 2 dimensions projected from a 3D world into a 3Dworld, you have no height at all so you can't see the 3 dimensional environment, and even if you are just in 2 dimensions and projected into a 3d environment you can only deal with your 2 dimensional perception.

You do see the effects of those 3d projections and you can interact with your 2D buddies, but you lack the dimension needed to go beyond that.

Or even the understanding, you can theorize the 3d world and how that behaves and how it affects your 2D world but you only can conceive the 2D and the 1D reality.

The math you come with will work because of your observations of your nature, but you can't never ever jump or probe that other dimension because it's beyond your reality.

That is exactly the concept that Michio Kaku reflected on while looking at fish (starting at 2:40) - but I found the whole clip interesting (just 5 minutes long)

http://bigthink.com/videos/the-flash-gordon-of-physics

[Brumby]

Here's a comment by American theoretical physicist, Michio Kaku on the 'Foundation' series written by Isaac Asimov...

http://dai.ly/x233jzu?start=2069    (already cued - just watch the next 45 seconds.)

Does this make any difference to the discussion here?

You do know that Star Wars was intended to be a Soap Opera and admitted to be the case by Lucas right?

Well that was 100% irrelevant to my question.

[miguelvp]

Here's a comment by American theoretical physicist, Michio Kaku on the 'Foundation' series written by Isaac Asimov...

http://dai.ly/x233jzu?start=2069    (already cued - just watch the next 45 seconds.)

Does this make any difference to the discussion here?

You do know that Star Wars was intended to be a Soap Opera and admitted to be the case by Lucas right?

Well that was 100% irrelevant to my question.

Well the link took me to a show about science fiction about starwars. So I guess something went wrong.

[Brumby]

It should have taken you to a point 34:26 into the video (or thereabouts).

[miguelvp]

Imagine for a second that you are just a shadow of 2 dimensions projected from a 3D world into a 3Dworld, you have no height at all so you can't see the 3 dimensional environment, and even if you are just in 2 dimensions and projected into a 3d environment you can only deal with your 2 dimensional perception.

You do see the effects of those 3d projections and you can interact with your 2D buddies, but you lack the dimension needed to go beyond that.

Or even the understanding, you can theorize the 3d world and how that behaves and how it affects your 2D world but you only can conceive the 2D and the 1D reality.

The math you come with will work because of your observations of your nature, but you can't never ever jump or probe that other dimension because it's beyond your reality.

That is exactly the concept that Michio Kaku reflected on while looking at fish (starting at 2:40) - but I found the whole clip interesting (just 5 minutes long)

http://bigthink.com/videos/the-flash-gordon-of-physics

Almost, but if the Carp was truly a 2 dimensional being, even if lifted he couldn't see the 3d world, but the problem is that Michio couldn't grab the carp because he can only interact with 3D objects, you just can't pick up a shadow for example it lacks the 3rd dimension needed for you to interact with it.

Two total different realities.

Edit: still is a pretty good story, as I kid I did kind of the same but mine was about actual projections with lack of a third dimension.
Edit again: my path chosen was computer graphics instead.

[Brumby]

You're being a bit harsh - he was just a kid at the time and obviously wasn't thinking of the practical impediments ... just the concepts.

[miguelvp]

You're being a bit harsh - he was just a kid at the time and obviously wasn't thinking of the practical impediments ... just the concepts.

Therefore my edit: but yeah I did the same and was fascinated by dimensions and projections, of course I had to model a hypercube to see a 4 dimensional object projected into the 2 dimensions of a computer screen and try to comprehend what I was looking at.

Edit: my thoughts at the time were: what if my consciousness was really in my shadow and I was not aware of my three dimensional form that projected my reality. Then I did extrapolate of my three dimensional reality controlling a fourth dimensional existence. I know a load of crap, but with a kids imagination that is what I was thinking then.

[Brumby]

Edit: my thoughts at the time were: what if my consciousness was really in my shadow and I was not aware of my three dimensional form that projected my reality.

That's a nice bit of thinking.

[miguelvp]

Edit: my thoughts at the time were: what if my consciousness was really in my shadow and I was not aware of my three dimensional form that projected my reality.

That's a nice bit of thinking.

Thanks but still bull crap  (on my part), because in my reality I do expect what I see, if you go beyond the 3D world and look at the projections then it doesn't make much sense. (Except light because it does behave).

But then again if those extra dimensions were hidden from your observation I guess it would make sense, otherwise you would see random effects.

The N-dimensional math for vectors and matrices is pretty much straight forward, the visualization part and making sense of what it means is what is hard and confusing.

M-Theory is a one dimensional string vibrated on 10 (maybe 11 now) extra dimensions and we only can perceive 4  or maybe 5 of those in our reality. How do you try to start to grasp what that means?

Yeah, you can do experiments and see if the results reflect your theory but you still can't be sure because there are so many extra dimensions that it has a lot of solutions giving you different answers or worse, giving you the same answers.

So, say Hinduism and their 34? (not sure) planes of existence (AKA dimensions) is right even if that is thousands of years old apart from current theories. We can only observe our 3 and time, what about the other 30? or 29 if gravity has its own dimension. No matter we can't grasp or visualize any of it, we just can hope that by observing our limited view we can get a good enough approximation and in reality that's all it matters.

I guess what I'm getting at is that the science is not done by any stretch of the imagination, of course, past our laws, based on constrains that affect our current perceptions and applications.

[Fungus]

Is there anything that is proven

Nope.

You might be only a brain floating in a jar.

( Can you falsify that claim? )

So I guess we all base our views on beliefs.

Not all beliefs are equally likely to be true. I but you have no problem rejecting the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy.

(I reject the Christian God with the same confidence and ease as most people reject those...)

I will repeat also that I'm not religious at all, but I do value the teachings of humanity on its many forms, not unlike an almanac.

Then you should recognize that The Bible is a terrible source for just about anything. All the science is wrong and the God it describes is cruel and vengeful.

(In fact one of the proposals made in the early years was to do away with the Old Testament altogether because the god it describes is such a horrible person, completely at odds with the Jesus stories which were being collected to fabricate the empire's new holy book).

Mortal man has done much better than The Bible over the last 2000 years, eg. Wikipedia, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

It's all interconnected fields and waves, reality is just our perception of things. But I really don't have metaphors to explain what matter is because our sensors only see the projection of that reality. At the math level it's all just fields with no real substance with a lot of dimensions that we can't envision what it means. So we do our best to visualize them using what we can grasp.

Sure, but the simplified models work perfectly for most jobs in daily life. Why use something much more complex when Newton's Laws will get you to the moon and back with only a few cm of error?

[coppice]

I will repeat also that I'm not religious at all, but I do value the teachings of humanity on its many forms, not unlike an almanac.

You used a URL from the Institute of Creation Research in support of your argument. Who does that if they are not a fundamentalist Christian?

[miguelvp]

I will repeat also that I'm not religious at all, but I do value the teachings of humanity on its many forms, not unlike an almanac.

You used a URL from the Institute of Creation Research in support of your argument. Who does that if they are not a fundamentalist Christian?

Maybe a random google search on keywords like "large quasar discovery contradicts big bang"

Just because I don't save all the links on things I read, and someone was asking for details and didn't bother to search themselves.

So out of seven sources you have to focus in that one, oh well.

[miguelvp]

Sure, but the simplified models work perfectly for most jobs in daily life. Why use something much more complex when Newton's Laws will get you to the moon and back with only a few cm of error?

Would it? or do you need relativistic equations to account for time dilation?

[coppice]

Sure, but the simplified models work perfectly for most jobs in daily life. Why use something much more complex when Newton's Laws will get you to the moon and back with only a few cm of error?

Would it? or do you need relativistic equations to account for time dilation?

Newton gets you to the moon OK. Apollo went there without applying relativistic corrections. Even when GPS went up, they provided for the relativistic corrections to be a selectable option, as they still needed convincing relativity was real. It turned out GPS worked great with the corrections enabled, but poorly with them disabled.

[coppice]

I will repeat also that I'm not religious at all, but I do value the teachings of humanity on its many forms, not unlike an almanac.

You used a URL from the Institute of Creation Research in support of your argument. Who does that if they are not a fundamentalist Christian?

Maybe a random google search on keywords like "large quasar discovery contradicts big bang"

Just because I don't save all the links on things I read, and someone was asking for details and didn't bother to search themselves.

So out of seven sources you have to focus in that one, oh well.

So, you use random links to support your arguments?

[boffin]

I though Oolon Coloophid had pretty much published the definitive set on this exists/doesn't exist stuff; with the babelfish being the clincher. Why are we still arguing it?

[miguelvp]

So, you use random links to support your arguments?

I guess it depends on how much effort I want to put into it. three links on that particular subject was in my mind enough to answer the question and let the questioner search the other theories at play.

[Fungus]

So, you use random links to support your arguments?

I guess it depends on how much effort I want to put into it. three links on that particular subject was in my mind enough to answer the question and let the questioner search the other theories at play.

I looked into it a bit. Nothing is proven yet, your claim of "close to refuted" is an exaggeration.

The fact the all matter in the universe is moving away from a single point is very strong evidence in favor of a Big Bang. It might be down to dark matter (which we know very little about) or it might need an adjustment of the assumptions made about the original matter that made up the universe. I don't think the general observation of an expanding universe is wrong though.

Figuring out what particles made up the early universe is the job of the LHC. Let's see what happens. 

[jonw0224]

I left for a while, but this thing just keeps going doesn't it?

I think when I left off, fungus had given me the burden of proof again.  And then he went on to claim faith in the scientific method.  And then he went on to say that theories are not proven and can never be proven, just supported or not supported by observations.

I guess what I've been saying the whole time is that my observations support a "theory" of God.  Is it possible to disprove that particular theory?  Well, you can disprove parts of it.  But as fungus says, I can just change my theory.  You know, I can think of other theories that are the same way.  Multiverse theory, evolutionary theory, origins theories.  In fact, until things just fly in the face of a popular theory, it has staying power.  Why was I taught Newton in an age of Einstein?  Well, because it's useful and it makes correct predictions about experiments and life.  Why do I hold to a "theory" of God?  Well, because in my life it's useful, and it makes correct predictions about moral judgments and relationships.

So, I guess if I were to give a proof, I've given about 4 at this point.  Here they are again:

1.) Given what we know about atoms and energy, the probability of life springing into being is near zero.  We are here.  Therefore something beyond atoms and energy made that happen.

2.) Living things appear to be designed.  Other things that appear to be designed were engineered by someone.  Someone engineered living things.

3.)  The universe obeys an ordered set of laws.  Without an overarching power to put order to these laws, I shouldn't expect an ordered universe.  There must be an overarching power.

4.)  There is a correct method to making relationships and moral judgments.  Without a creator of moral rule, anything goes.  There must be a creator.

I know for certain people here will disagree with these and any other proof I would offer.  However, to the degree that I know that gravitation exists because of the trajectories of things falling and the orbits of the planets (due to repeated observations), I also know that God exists because of the trajectories within the interaction of living beings that I've observed.  I know of no other explanation for my existence that has come out of scientific theory.  I know of no other explanation for the rapid spread of Christianity in the first century, the strong conviction of the first Christians, or the impact following God has had in my life or the life of many of my friends.  Maybe none of these are sufficient reason for you, but they sum up to a genuine belief on my part.  I could lose that belief and rely on scientific conjectures and "unprovable theories", but frankly, I just don't have that kind of faith, and I have no reason to do so.

I think with that, my opinion has been stated.  I'm still open to the opinion of others, in so much as we leave the bashing of others out of things.  If you'd like to talk further, feel free to message me.  Carry on and I wish you all a good rest of your day.

-Jonathan

[c4757p]

1.) Given what we know about atoms and energy, the probability of life springing into being is near zero.  We are here.  Therefore something beyond atoms and energy made that happen.

Near zero, but not zero. And that near-zero probability is effectively integrated over all of time. What's the integral from zero to infinity of "near zero"?

[jonw0224]

Infinite time or space isn't in the universe we observe.  I put a number on the probability and shared it earlier.  I'll link it again http://jonw0224.weebly.com/blog/darwins-doubt.  It's still pretty much zero.  Sorry!

[Pentium100]

I always liked the "theory" that this is all just a big reality show. People in the afterlife are rewarded based solely on how many people they murdered and how much they tortured their victims with two categories - ones who were in positions of power and ordered the murders and ones who actually did it (on orders or not). This is because killing brings the best ratings for this show. The show probably won an Emmy equivalent for each year of WW2.

I have as much evidence to support my claim as for any other religion, that is, zero. Why is my "theory" wrong?

[Fungus]

I guess what I've been saying the whole time is that my observations support a "theory" of God.

You know, I can think of other theories that are the same way  ...  evolutionary theory, origins theories.

Fail.

There's literally hundreds of millions of tons of evidence supporting the process of evolution. Go outside, pick up a rock, there it is.

We also figured out a mechanism (DNA).

We've observed evolution at work.

We invented gene sequencing. Guess what? The sequences matched the taxonomy of life that we'd spent hundreds of years creating.


Evidence for the god of the Bible? Nada. Zip. Zilch. Not one piece.

The only mention of Jesus is in a mish-mash of folk tales that can't even agree with each other. Not one mention in Roman documents, not one mention in any historical document of the time (and there are a lot of preserved documents from that time/place).

Use Occam's razor: If there was one single piece of good evidence for the Christian God it would be on display on the highest pedestal in Christendom, guaranteed. They've had 2000 years to find one, so where is it? 


Saying that Evolution and Christianity are equals in any debate is just ridiculous.