Haven't you just shown why Science and Religion are mutually incompatible? Methodological Naturalism will not accept supernatural explanations, the explanations must be 'natural', and God is a supernatural being, so Science can never answer questions about any Gods, unless of course they proved to be a natural phenomena but that would be contrary to religious doctrine.

Apart from being an inaccurate paraphrasing of the actual science, there's nothing unscientific about what you just said. "from nothing came something in a trillionth of a second" is a hypothesis. According to Christian scripture, God created the universe from nothing so presumably it went from not existing, to existing, in a similar manner. How convinced of the inaccuracy of that claim would you be if I said that there's nothing religious about it? Wouldn't make sense would it.

Also, what you said comes across as an argument from your personal incredulity. Just because you can't believe it, doesn't make it untrue, just like my inability to believe in any gods doesn't mean they don't exist.

Plus, it always strikes me as not being the best tactic when the religious claim that science is a religion in an attempt to what, weaken or discredit it? By comparing it to what they themselves are doing? Hmmm...

1) I'm not Christian

2) I never said I couldn't believe it or that it wasn't the most likely/closest to what actually happened. I simply said it wasn't a very scientific explanation. Also, given they believe the universe expanded faster than the speed of light....again, this sounds like a miracle to me

that's because its a statement you made up and not a statement by a scientist or more accurately, not representing any scientific position.

except, that's not what scientists believe, so again, you are confronting a strawman.

I'm still not sure how you're using 'miracle' but in any case, do you understand what criteria must be met for something to be considered 'scientific'?

From here, a summary of criteria. A scientific Theory must be:

• Consistent (internally & externally)
• Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities, explanations)
• Useful (describes & explains observed phenomena)
• Empirically Testable & Falsifiable
• Based upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments
• Correctable & Dynamic (changes are made with new data)
• Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)
• Tentative (admits that it might not be correct, does not assert certainty)

Religious/divine theories are not testable in the main part, they are not Useful, they are certainly not Correctable or Tentative, and they are not Progressive. Also, they do not restrict themselves to 'natural' laws or explanations. Given that they fail to meet several of the criteria required for something to be scientific, they cannot ever be considered science. And science, cannot ever be considered a religion, or to be practiced in a 'religious' manner.

Now, there's a lot of work needs doing with "from nothing came something in a trillionth of a second" before it could be considered properly scientific but it's a starting point. But, I'm not sure why you give up on it so rapidly and how you get from your statement to the BB being 'miraculous'?

Re: the quantum measurement problem and the interpretation of QM

I semi-randomly ran into this article today. Much of it is obviously over my head but it's interesting, and at least Penrose's overview of the problems in (4.3) seems topical and maybe interesting to others

Consciousness in the Universe: Review of the 'Orch OR' theory (March 2014)

Orch OR is Orchestrated Objective Reduction, a theory of consciousness and quantum measurement that the authors of this new article first proposed ~20 years ago.

the "objective reduction" part has to do with the nature of the collapse of a wavefunction into an eigenstate (the reduction). an objective reduction is one that doesn't depend on a sentient conscious observer, as is sometimes proposed under Cophenhagen.

It always makes me smile when you post about the non existence of "I", while simultaneously making posts in which you liberally use "I" <insert smiley face to show I'm just pulling his leg a little>

Why can't Decartes be using "I" as a non specific but handy label in the same way that [I think] you do?


As for the rest of this thread, I'm not getting it.

I can see how you would find it amusing, yes. I dont think it would make things clearer if I started using "this organism labelled neeeel" or something similar, every time, in place of "I"

why can't other people be referring to this organism labelled whatever when using I

Maybe they are. Even that is a bit misleading, but whatever. Its not a big deal.

From an empirical point of view, introspection is a bad method for understanding the mind: Introspective theories are rarely valid, almost never reliable.

Indeed, all the available evidence points to reliable and valid findings about the mind being found almost exclusively via an existential social interactionist approach, or in simpler terms: Assuming the "I" and the "you" leads to better science.

I'm sure many with a "purer" phenomenological approach have many objections, but the truth is that these people have established no sound framework those objections can be based upon. Thus they are really only the epistemological equivalent of the guy in the meeting who has no problem offering criticism, but is unable to propose alternatives.

Not sure if this is directed at me? Why would I need to propose an alternative? Using "I" and "You" is perfectly acceptable, while still understanding that they arent actually real, and dont exist.

Your OP was claiming that science necessarily requires a belief in God.

When I ask you what you mean by "observer effect" you tell me you can only define it metaphorically blah de blah.

You made a very bold claim about science, the observer effect, and how it supposedly holds the universe together but you aren't interested in offering a definition of it.

We can do word play some other time. I thought this thread was about science.

Basically, your understanding has little value. It's like believing Goblins operate gravity.

In regards to you not needing to propose an alternative: You already are.

I said I cannot 'exactly' define it. Which is what I presumed you are looking for, and I have already learned that it is difficult to communicative with person's such as yourself who are not very good at understanding the simultaneous use of homonyms (especially progressive language), the logic spreads so far it spreads to any definition of 'observer effect' which you can muster- even the most obvious definition on the social scale is reason for god, never mind all the scientific versions like 'where a particle is at x time'. The only observer effect you will agree to understand is hopefully your own. Go and watch your missus cheating on you, or a thief in action, or a rainbow. You have briefly played god.

If I could define it exactly, everyone would be looking at it, and then they would probably get on their knees just out of pure respect.

There is not really any science necessary, I just wanted people to discuss the Max Planck quote and see if they can get to more common ground between religion and science instead of viewing them as fundamentally opposed. Event he word science is a huge problem, you might swell just use the word 'observer' for other areas are going to be 'theorist' or 'crazy person'

Well named, I will get round to reading this, likely even faster if it is supportive of one of my arguments in any way.

About Neeeel, I'm sorry to refer to him in 3rd person perspective, but the irony is that anything otherwise would be an insult, because he does not have a 1st person perspective that is not just triangulated from 3rd person perspectives semantically.

It is basically a form of Nihilism, the argument is basically sound, there is no individual one thing which is tangibly a 'self', and from this dismissal of the ego, he states the obvious like it is enlightening news that actually has a change past people being very confused in social arenas. These long discussions are however relevant to the definition of god which is being proposed in this thread. Does science accept personal monomers (if not why not(''social sciences aren't real sciences'' (''logics aren't sciences'')))? If so why not a super personal polymer? There isn't really any scientific proof in either, except when you say 'what is your name' there is most of the time this weird echo emanating from the vast contours of some time of energy.

If we viewed a 'person' from a parasitical germs perspective, it would probably be similar to my viewing of god. I can't see this person because he is so big, the horizons fade well before I can triangulate any kind of meaning to this object which gives me life and seems to move on it's own, but the germ only has negligible logical thought, and it might aswell be a speck of dust. When scaled relative to infinity, our minds do not really have any resources, but we can abstract.

Not really. Its more like everyone believing that goblins operate gravity, and me seeing that they actually dont. It may not have much value for you, granted.

ummm what?

This exchange doesnt make sense to me, what am I missing?

OK...I'll bite but I need to start with a disclaimer bc this is all going to be subjective experience and not scientific in any way.

I've had a handful of experiences where I have experienced a separation from the idea of "I" or the ego of Luciddream and who I believe myself to be based on feedback I have gotten from society through my years of existence...which is all the ego actually is is just our identification with ourself based on feedback we have received along the way.

So what is this experience or this separation from "I" that I'm talking about. It is an absolute state of awareness. There isn't a you and those things over there....there just is an experience that is happening and you're part of it but not separate from it in any way. There aren't thoughts that you're thinking...there is just thought and you're aware of it. Basically you just are, and everything is happening, not to you, but it's just happening and you're experiencing it.

My first time I experienced this I was just walking around stoned after reading "The Power of Now" and had this experience for a brief second. The most amazing feeling of joy came over me for a couple seconds as I realized it and identified it for the first time and immediately upon identifying it and labeling it, it was gone.

The second time was in a sensory deprivation tank. When all 5 senses are shut off from any outside stimuli you start to become very aware of everything else that you normally don't pay much attention to...your breathing, heartbeat, feelings, thoughts. After a little while in the tank you get into this state of being where there is no separation between you and these things. You aren't the thinker of the thoughts....there is just knowledge and this moment and you both just exist in this moment but not in any way separate from each other. And the same can be said about your feelings...


The last time I was on a psychedelic which was my first and only so far. I had ideas and almost expectations for what it would be like, hallucinations and whatnot, but I didn't have any. My experience was actually quite similar to my 2nd time in the sensory deprivation tank only much more intense everything. I experienced the most pure form of knowledge and feeling I've ever experienced in my life. I was experiencing the moment in the most pure way I've ever experienced anything in my life. I felt as if I was just aware of this "eternal now" I would call it that I'm experiencing and part of and not separate in anyway. To put it more simply, there is no such thing as non-existince. I realized this so clearly and it was so obvious to me that the only way I can explain it is....it's the exact same as if you see something happen right in front of your eyes. That's how sure I felt that what I felt and knew was absolute truth.

Now a lot of people can just say, oh you were on drugs, that's just the way the drug affects your brain etc... I don't really buy that though. There are certain plants, all natural to earth, when taken in the right doses...you will have a spiritual experience. You can ignore it or say whatever you want about it but it's crazy to me that it would cause basically all people to have similar types of subjective experiences all relating to some type of higher power or source or whatever you want to call it.

You can have the same and similar experiences with sensory deprivation, meditation, fasting, etc... So yes, these are just my subjective experiences and I don't think anyone should believe they are real or that it applies to them and there is actually a "higher power" simply because I have had a handful of experiences that given me reason to believe there is. What I'm saying is you should go do these things and have your own experience and judge for yourself.

At the end of the day though some people are only ever going to believe in what they can see with there own 2 eyes that is right in front of them and if it can't be proven by modern science then it isn't real. That's all fine and good but it leaves a bunch of stuff unexplained like the experiences I mentioned above that I've had, near death and out of body experiences, meditative states like samadhi, children recalling past lives(verified in some cases), or even intuition. Science won't touch these but unless hundreds of thousands of people are all lying about similar experiences it leaves a lot of questions that science can't answer.

Oddly, neither science nor religion requires a belief in a god.

\thread

The science of sensory deprivation is very simple. Sensory deprivation is deprivation of external stimuli, not deprivation of perception.

You don't see with your eyes, you see with your brain. As long as you have had functioning eyes and ears up untill recently, your brain's sensory regions will remain active even when it receives little to no input. In these situations it tends to fire regardless, giving rise to many peculiar sensory experiences.

As for what science proves, science proves little. Proof is for mathematics. Science is about evidence, not proof.

and as for the experiences I described...you and science will just continue to stay away from discussing that.

How sad.

"We are all wired into a survival trip now. No more of the speed that fueled that 60's. That was the fatal flaw in Tim Leary's trip. He crashed around America selling "consciousness expansion" without ever giving a thought to the grim meat-hook realities that were lying in wait for all the people who took him seriously... All those pathetically eager acid freaks who thought they could buy Peace and Understanding for three bucks a hit. But their loss and failure is ours too. What Leary took down with him was the central illusion of a whole life-style that he helped create... a generation of permanent cripples, failed seekers, who never understood the essential old-mystic fallacy of the Acid Culture: the desperate assumption that somebody... or at least some force - is tending the light at the end of the tunnel."

- Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas

Posting words of wisdom from drug addict/alcoholic that killed himself regarding his perspective on the meaning of life is an interesting concept. Are those characteristic traits of someone whose ideas regarding such a subject I should hold in high regard?

Maybe he had a moment of LucidThought. At some point, he figured it out. It sure makes lots of sense.

Maybe Jesus Christ walked on water. We can speculate all day about unlikely events. Regardless, I'm going to choose not to get my advice/ideas about the meaning of life and our existence from a guy who couldn't stand life to the point he went through most of his life in a haze until he ultimately committed suicide.

No, that is wrong. Such experiences have been researched a lot and nothing indicates this will stop. There are ethical considerations that complicate matters however; as a non-clinical researcher I can't put people in sensory deprivation or give them psychoactive drugs. A clinical researcher has a different scope of research (healing and development of treatment).

However what will not be done is to elevate introspection as more profound than extrospection. The problem with introspection (as stated) is that it is rarely valid (what is perceived is rarely what happens) and almost never reliable (people rarely report the same things).

Some people (like you) still believe introspection is profound. That's fine. You merely have to realize that your experience explains very little. Intuitively speaking for example, you will tend to think you have one experience, this isn't true. You have many experiences and your brain cooperates to select one (which we know from open-brain surgery and split brain patients). This it does based in large part on your former experiences (which we know from research on perception and implicit bias). The memory of the experience can also be changed by your brain to fit new experiences (which we know from research on memory and mental schema).

Without extrospection your own bias will become a mental prison and fortress. Introspection is not sufficient to figure out how your mind works. And really, this is trivial: If intution was a very good arbiter of truth, the earth should be flat.