Looking for an interesting challenge

[Aldebaran]

Funnily enough, I'm interested in how people misinterpret empirical evidence in order to reach these sorts of conclusion, and in particular how things which involves very large numbers(like, in your case, the scale of the universe) makes it difficult to comprehend the true probability of an occurrence. It crops up a lot in my area of research (medicine).

What is in your view the probability of the occurence out of absolutely nothing of the universe we perceive and possibly numerous others we don't perceive and have no awareness of?
What is the current state of empirical evidence of spontantious occurrence thereof and how valid is such perceived evidence when it is obvious that the human mind can't provide for any other evidence than what it is able to construct as such and which is therefore - but not exclusively for that reason - to be considered as always open for discussion and adjustments?

salaam

 

[max_freakout]

Maybe. I always was and still am very cautious not to lose self-control.

rıght, true relıgıous ınsıght lıes just the other sıde of control-loss, the dıvıne ınsanıty

It could well be that such drugs make you believe you go through something you believe to be "religious experience" while it is all but that.

anythıng could be the case, but, as Wıllıam James poınted out ın hıs book 'varıetıes of relıgıous experıence', you cannot possıbly connvınce a person who actually has had a relıgıous experıence, that theır experıence was not what they belıeve ıt to have been

any more than a person who has had a relıgıous experıence, can meanıngfully descrıbe the experıence to a person who hasnt

true relıgıous experıence/ınsıght ıs beyond words

Do you have a background in religion? (any)

ı had a relıgıous upbrıngıng, then ı realısed that ıt was all bullshıt when ı had my fırst relıgıous experıence, the chrıstıan eucharıst ıs an ıneffectıve substıtute for the *real* sacrament

I said I didn't see any fungi at hira.

fungı grows abundantly ın every country ın the world, except the frozen ones, ıf you looked for ıt and dıdnt see ıt, ıt eıther wasnt growıng season, you were lookıng ın the wrong places, or you werent lookıng hard enough

Hint: Islamic art of the type you refer to follows strict rules. Has nothing to do with taking drugs.

the second statement doesnt follow from the fırst

It is beyond weird that you persist in claiming that all Muslim artists ever alive were and are constantly drugged and that by some unseen magic they all create following these same rules, while drugged, and in that drugged vision even able to make distinction between the various variations that are not only locally but also artistic defined?

nonsense, nobody paınts beautıful art whıle they are under the ınfluence of psychedelıcs, thıs ıs pretty much ımpossıble, the paıntıng comes later, after the trıp ends

Maybe you can sell that fantasy to the uninformed innocents, but you are talking to the wrong person here.

ım not sellıng anythıng, relıgıous experıences are free, and avaılable to anyone brave (or foolısh ) enough to lose control

you seem lıke the perfect example of the vast majorıty of self-rıghteous 'relıgıous' people, you are totally clueless to the nature of relıgıous experıence, and to the orıgın of relıgıon

hınt: relıgıous experıences very often look exactly lıke ıslamıc art, they are perfectly ordered, and dıvınely beautıful

I have a niece who has epileptic seizures since she was nine years old.
She never claimed to experience anything else but a complete blackout and most of the time does not remember what happened when she comes out of it.

thıs ıs a contradıctıon, ıf she cant remember what happened, how does she know ıt was a blackout? That ıs the exact same naıvety as people who say they dont dream, because they cant remember theır dreams when they wake up

ı hıghly recommend you have a look at J. Ramakrıshnan's work on the neuroscıence of temporal lobe epılepsy, he concluded after much studyıng epılepsy, that epıleptıcs are ın many cases havıng classıc relıgıous/mystıcal experıences

I asked her once to describe how she knew when a seizure was coming (often enough she doesn't know it is going to hit her) and she describes that awareness as "spiders" clouding her vision.

that ısnt a blackout, that ıs a vısıon of spıders

I seriously doubt that God is ever seen as a spider in the human mind.

God ıs the hıghest of all relıgıous vısıons, ı do not claım to have ever seen God, despıte havıng had hundreds of relıgıous vısıons

there are all kınds of relıgıous experıences below the beautıfıc vısıon of God

No.

salaam.

same as most 'relıgıous' people, you have no ıdea what you are mıssıng, just as you have no ıdea what genuıne relıgıon ıs

 

[max_freakout]

A close up of what I feel is an interesting part.

why that part ın partıcular?

 

[snadge]

why that part ın partıcular?

no reason, just that is one part of the roof with a lot happening, the whole ceiling is covered with esoteric innuendoes.

 

[ymu]

What is in your view the probability of the occurence out of absolutely nothing of the universe we perceive and possibly numerous others we don't perceive and have no awareness of?
What is the current state of empirical evidence of spontantious occurrence thereof and how valid is such perceived evidence when it is obvious that the human mind can't provide for any other evidence than what it is able to construct as such and which is therefore - but not exclusively for that reason - to be considered as always open for discussion and adjustments?

salaam

I may have misread your previous post. Does this mean you accept Darwinian evolution, but believe that God is the author of the Big Bang? He lit the fuse, sat back and let physics and probability do the rest?

AFAIK, physicists haven't managed to get back to the precise point of the Big bang yet, let alone before it. I'm quite comfortable to say I don't know; I have no need to postulate God to explain it. If He turns out to be the correct explanation, I'll accept it - but the mere absence of another explanation is not sufficient to make me believe in God.

 

[max_freakout]

no reason, just that is one part of the roof with a lot happening, the whole ceiling is covered with esoteric innuendoes.

rıght

 

[max_freakout]

AFAIK, physicists haven't managed to get back to the precise point of the Big bang yet, let alone before it. .

absolutely, theorıes of physıcs start one zıllıonth of a second after the bıg bang

and there may not have even been a 'before', ıf the bıg bang was the begınnıng of tıme

 

[snadge]

absolutely, theorıes of physıcs start one zıllıonth of a second after the bıg bang

and there may not have even been a 'before', ıf the bıg bang was the begınnıng of tıme

Isn't the before in reality an end?

'It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is, than to persist in delusion' -- Carl Sagan

'I believe what I see, not what I would like to see.' -- Sam Skunkman

 

[max_freakout]

Isn't the before in reality an end?

ı thınk that the end ıs also the begınnıng, but ım not sure about 'the before'

 

[Aldebaran]

This is a really good test of your idea that knowledge is just beyond reach.

Not exactly. If some day it was proven right or wrong that outcome would still be a human invented solution for a problem proposed by means of a human construct (mathematics). The solution of such a problem is not knowledge, but it can count as the suggestion thereof, constructed by and limited to human perception by default.

salaam.

 

[nosos]

Ok these are the core questions at the heart of the PHD I'm starting in october:

(1) do people need to have some sense of being part of something bigger than themelves in order to invest their lives with sense and meaning?
(2) how do changing social, cultural, political and economic conditions impact on people's attempts to invest their lives with sense and meaning?
(3) what kind of existential questions do people's circumstances pose for them? how do these change as circumstances change? how do people attempt to live out answer to these questions through their (individual and social) lifestyles and practices?

 

[ymu]

Not exactly. If some day it was proven right or wrong that outcome would still be a human invented solution for a problem proposed by means of a human construct (mathematics). The solution of such a problem is not knowledge, but it can count as the suggestion thereof, constructed by and limited to human perception by default.

salaam.

Maths is the language of nature. It's not a human construct except to the extent that it's being translated by human beings without the aid of the Rosetta Stone.

FWIW, my concept of "God" is the laws of physics and all they entail - that's what I think people have been trying to understand all these millennia, what they were trying to write down, record, understand and explain, along with developing formal structures of governance. Religion begat philosophy, history and law, and science later branched off from philosophy. It's a continuum in the search for understanding of the universe.

If you do think that God's only directly creative act was the Big Bang, then we don't disagree except as to the need for Divinity to make it all happen. We don't know all the laws of physics yet, so I think it's a bit premature to decide that we'll never get any further than Mohammed did 1400 years ago.

 

[Aldebaran]

Ceiling of 17th century bath house, Kerman, Iran.


A close up of what I feel is an interesting part. Maybe Alderbaran could give us his thoughts on the matter, it may be Zoroastrian though.

Looks to me taken in the Ganjali Khan complex, named after the governor of the province under the rule of Shah Abbas, but many of the complex is older than that period. I'm not sure when the hammam was build.
Figurative art is typical for the developments that took place within the Iranian art and relies on the idea that Imam 'Ali was a skilled and gifted calligrapher and painter, both.
It is worth noting that where for non human picturing the example of former great masters must be taken as inspiration, the picturing of humans in contrast should be realistic to the living model.

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

Ok these are the core questions at the heart of the PHD I'm starting in october:

(1) do people need to have some sense of being part of something bigger than themelves in order to invest their lives with sense and meaning?

No need. Interest in what resides, or could exist, beyond your perception is merely the result of reflection on your position within the whole. There is no need to reflect on that position to give sense and meaning to your life.

(2) how do changing social, cultural, political and economic conditions impact on people's attempts to invest their lives with sense and meaning?

Not, unless you allow this to be tied to such factors yourself. In that case you are lived by outside factors on which you have no influence (and which therefore is nonsensical, if you ask me).

(3) what kind of existential questions do people's circumstances pose for them? how do these change as circumstances change? how do people attempt to live out answer to these questions through their (individual and social) lifestyles and practices?

Questions change at the pace people change their views and outlook. Hence questions answered means that other questions are introduced by the proposed new idea(s) and view(s).
None of that needs to have impact on lifestyle and/or practices.

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

Maths is the language of nature.

Thus is the human perception. Hence it is a human construct.

If you do think that God's only directly creative act was the Big Bang,

I don't.
The "big bang" theory is a human concept, an attempt to explain what caused the universe we perceive to exist. While we only perceive what our brain allows us to. I think that what we perceive is not even a fraction of what really exists.

salaam.

 

[snadge]

Looks to me taken in the Ganjali Khan complex, named after the governor of the province under the rule of Shah Abbas, but many of the complex is older than that period. I'm not sure when the hammam was build.
Figurative art is typical for the developments that took place within the Iranian art and relies on the idea that Imam 'Ali was a skilled and gifted calligrapher and painter, both.
It is worth noting that where for non human picturing the example of former great masters must be taken as inspiration, the picturing of humans in contrast should be realistic to the living model.

salaam.

Spot on with the location Alderbaran.

 

[ymu]

I think that what we perceive is not even a fraction of what really exists.

I completely agree. I'm just not seeing how that implies a Divine Being.

I realise that faith is not amenable to evidence, but you are claiming to have reached your conclusions on the basis of evidence. What evidence? The utter impossibility of Aldebaran not knowing everything there is to know about the universe?

You can't have looked at the scientific evidence to date and then reached the conclusion that the search for a natural first cause is over. You're completely entitled to your beliefs - but if you're making a claim that is so deeply rooted in a scientific understanding of the universe, you're going to have to do an awful lot better than "the universe is so amazing there has to be a God".

 

[Aldebaran]

Spot on with the location Alderbaran.

I wasn't sure though, I am better informed on miniatures and carpets.

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

I realise that faith is not amenable to evidence, but you are claiming to have reached your conclusions on the basis of evidence. What evidence? The utter impossibility of Aldebaran not knowing everything there is to know about the universe?

If you chose to believe (no matter what) there comes a point where you need to make choices.
You chose to believe there is no God and you would describe that as rational, while I chose to believe God exists and describe that as rational.

You can't have looked at the scientific evidence to date and then reached the conclusion that the search for a natural first cause is over. You're completely entitled to your beliefs - but if you're making a claim that is so deeply rooted in a scientific understanding of the universe, you're going to have to do an awful lot better than "the universe is so amazing there has to be a God".

It has nothing to do with any of that.
I'm not a scientist (in that section of what is in English called "science") but I don't think any scientist would be so arrogant to claim he understands the universe.

salaam.

 

[ymu]

If you chose to believe (no matter what) there comes a point where you need to make choices.
You chose to believe there is no God and you would describe that as rational, while I chose to believe God exists and describe that as rational.

No, I haven't chosen not to believe in God - I just haven't found a good reason to do so, because I base my beliefs on evidence. My mum is a preacher, my sister is an evangelical, my boyfriend converted to Islam 15 years ago, I was sent to a faith-based school and sincerely tried to match my personal spirituality to what the Christian Union was telling me.

I don't have a problem with faith - I have a problem with declaring it as evidence-based when, by definition, it is not.

It has nothing to do with any of that.
I'm not a scientist (in that section of what is in English called "science") but I don't think any scientist would be so arrogant to claim he understands the universe.

salaam.

Well exactly. No scientist would, but you do? I want to know how you can make that claim. If it's just faith, that's fine - say so. If it's because you can't comprehend science, don't try and claim it's based on a thorough examination of the evidence - that's just idiotic (IMO).

 

[Aldebaran]

Well exactly. No scientist would, but you do? I want to know how you can make that claim. If it's just faith, that's fine - say so. If it's because you can't comprehend science, don't try and claim it's based on a thorough examination of the evidence - that's just idiotic (IMO).

?
Where do I make any such claim and what has any of this to do with "comprehending science"? Of course I understand science, I have a functioning brain. It is because I understand it that I'm provided with the evidence of its inevitable, inherent limitations.
To build your case on scientific conclusions comes down to chose quick-sand over rock solid ground.
It is my solid conviction that the human brain shall not be capable to understand the universe, ever.
Attempts to transcend human perception shall lead you no further then the boundaries of your own innate limitations.

salaam.

 

[ymu]

?
Where do I make any such claim and what has any of this to do with "comprehending science"? Of course I understand science, I have a functioning brain. It is because I understand it that I'm provided with the evidence of its inevitable, inherent limitations.
To build your case on scientific conclusions comes down to chose quick-sand over rock solid ground.
It is my solid conviction that the human brain shall not be capable to understand the universe, ever.
Attempts to transcend human perception shall lead you no further then the boundaries of your own innate limitations.

salaam.

I may have misunderstood this post:

This is probably an interesting question for many so probably my answer is a disappointment because of its simplicity.
It is because I discovered that no matter how hard I try, I shall never come to the conclusion the Universe in its delicate balance and all this universe encompasses and entails (and possibly we only perceive only one universe of an unlimited amount) can be explained by "coïncidence" or whatever the ridiculously limited human brain can come up with.

salaam.

If you didn't reach this conclusion via an examination of the evidence, but rather via an examination of your inability to live with doubt - I misread you.

Otherwise, it displays an ignorance of modern science, and indeed a failure to even understand what it is. I am 100% certain that science will never reach an endpoint (unless God decides to reveal himself in an incontrovertibly non-holographic sort of way). There will never be a time when science is done asking questions - even if we don't manage to wipe ourselves out in the next couple of hundred years

An inability to answer a question quickly and easily is not a reason to accept an untestable hypothesis as the only possible truth.

 

[Dan U]

that ımage, ıs absolutely typıcal of what you see when you eat psychedelıc mushrooms, and then close your eyes and pay attentıon to the back of your eyelıds

fractals..

 

[Aldebaran]

If you didn't reach this conclusion via an examination of the evidence, but rather via an examination of your inability to live with doubt - I misread you.

You seem to have a problem with the fact that I have no doubts.

Otherwise, it displays an ignorance of modern science, and indeed a failure to even understand what it is.

Thank you for your amazing dissection of the workings of my brain, but I know it better than you or anyone else can, ever.

An inability to answer a question quickly and easily is not a reason to accept an untestable hypothesis as the only possible truth.

Just like the above, I have no clue where that comes from.
(hint: My whole argument rests on the evidence that there shall be no answer ever.)

salaam.

 

[snadge]

Just like the above, I have no clue where that comes from.
(hint: My whole argument rests on the evidence that there shall be no answer ever.)

salaam.

What happens if the answer is found, I'm a great believer in the power of science so I have to disagree with you.

BTW there is no evidence at all.

 

[Aldebaran]

What happens if the answer is found, I'm a great believer in the power of science so I have to disagree with you.

BTW there is no evidence at all.

The evidence lies in the limitations of the human brain and the human perception, which imposes additional limitations to its functioning.

salaam.

 

[snadge]

The evidence lies in the limitations of the human brain and the human perception.

salaam.

How do you know what the limitations of the human brain are?

Even the experts in this field have no idea, or are you answering within your religious framework?

 

[Aldebaran]

How do you know what the limitations of the human brain are?

I know the limitations of my brain. Doesn't function differently from others.

Even the experts in this field have no idea, or are you answering within your religious framework?

a) Experts in the field have also no idea of my IQ. Does that mean it is unlimited? mmm... Nice
b) No need to think about God to recognize human limitations. They are self-explained by humanity.

salaam.

 

[snadge]

I know the limitations of my brain.

Good for you, I don't and I'm always surprising myself

Experts in the field have also no idea of my IQ. Does that mean it is unlimited? mmm... Nice
b) No need to think about God to recognize human limitations. They are self-explained by humanity.

salaam.

a) IQ is only a measure of a specific function, it is not a measure of limitation.
b) maybe now, we have no way of telling what the human brain is capable of in the future.

BTW Alderbaran your argument comes across as extremely defeatist.

"I have found my limitations, it does not explain enough, so I will turn to god."

 

[ymu]

You seem to have a problem with the fact that I have no doubts.

I'm a statistician - I don't approve of certainty at all.

I'm also of the opinion that you cannot learn without being wrong. I understand the desire to know, and to be right (in case you hadn't noticed ), but on an intellectual level, certainty is a complete dead-end.

Thank you for your amazing dissection of the workings of my brain, but I know it better than you or anyone else can, ever.

So what did you actually mean by that post if your conclusions have nothing to do with science? How can you talk about the order and beauty of the universe and our inevitable inability to ever understand all of it without discussing science?

Just like the above, I have no clue where that comes from.
(hint: My whole argument rests on the evidence that there shall be no answer ever.)

I know you have no clue where it comes from - I'm talking about hypotheses and you're talking about Truth. They're not compatible discourses - which is exactly what I'm objecting to.

Hypotheses are testable - if they fail the test they're rejected; if they pass the test the new knowledge is used to make further testable hypotheses. It's an infinite process. You can't just read a few books, scratch your head and conclude that it's all a bit complicated so it must be God after all. Not if you're also claiming to bring science into it, anyway.

I don't have any problem whatsoever with your faith - just the (apparent) attempt to put it in a scientific context and claim it as evidence- rather than faith-based.