1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

The science of God, or, the God of science

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Timsup2nothin, Jul 20, 2019.

  1. Timsup2nothin

    Timsup2nothin Another drone in the hive mind

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2013
    Messages:
    34,637
    Location:
    Perhaps in transit
    So, first a couple disclaimers.

    One, I am not trying to "shove things down your throats." If you don't like the topic that is pretty obviously suggested by the title you are, in fact, not constrained against going back to the list and choosing a different thread. Or not. My own experience is that when God wants someone to notice, they will, and I have no particular attachment to whether that occurs now for anyone.

    Two, I am following instruction for my own benefit. I'm instructed to witness, so I witness. I require no acceptance to have accomplished my task, and I also have no particular instructions as to how to proceed in the face of acceptance or in the face of rudeness...so I will most likely meet either the way I usually do.

    So. I want to start with a hypothetical from the arena of science. You know, that body of knowledge built through experimental verification of repeatable results that conform to prediction based on theory. The hypothetical is that through experimentation involving supercold fluids demonstrating conducting properties as predicted by a model produced by theoretical mathematician Wendelin Werner the intersection of percolation theory with conductivity has become the new breaking ground in superconduction theory.

    Now, before everyone runs for Wiki, that hypothetical does make at least a modicum of sense, but it is more important for what it demonstrates. YOU aren't going to reproduce the results. No one here is going to. Werner won a Fields Medal most of fifteen years ago and I'm fairly confident that if I had singlemindedly studied the work that won it for him ever since I'd still not really be able to follow it. No disrespect but other than Uppi there isn't anyone here that I seriously think is better equipped for the task than I am, so I think it is safe to say if we tried to follow this hypothetical current work we'd all fail.

    It's also, I think, fairly safe to say that none of us have a lab capable of hosting experimentation with materials held at single digit Kelvin temperatures. I certainly know that I don't. Now, Werner, should he come up with a theory that required such a lab to test, would in all probability be furnished with such a lab. So, the hypothetical stands as something that could happen, which in terms of our ability to reproduce it is completely beyond our means, as well as our comprehension. So there's that.

    Now, I've studied physics, in an interested layman sort of way. But I've been a hard practicing mystic for the best part of thirty years. Someone who wants to apply the scientific principle to my results is welcome to do so. Find an experimenter with similar qualifications, provide them a comparable laboratory, and I am comfortable that they will get repeating results. And that result is awareness of the presence of God. A presence that makes very clear why descriptions in human languages, particularly in the vocabulary of, for example, shepherds (no disrespect to shepherds intended) are completely inadequate guidance for the 21st century skeptic to reproduce the shepherd's experience.

    However, I ain't no shepherd. I relate to God in the language of n dimensional geometry and physics. I've practiced with various perceptions of three dimensional space and I'm currently practicing experience of time in nonlinear fashion. But despite thirty years of practice that I've invested I've not really become aware of God through my own efforts as a mystic.

    As I said, my recognition of the presence of God is his choice, not my practice. But that choice isn't unique to me. Many people, many of them with much less practice or much different practice, get the same repeatable results. The experiment doesn't take the unique intellect of a Wendelin Werner or access to one of a half dozen sufficiently equipped labs in the world...and it doesn't take thirty years as a practicing mystic. Because the heavy lifting is done by the other side.

    So, what I suggest for consideration is that you look at the vast numbers of people who are aware of the presence of God, and wonder if they are just a little better equipped to conduct what is in fact an experiment with a repeatable result. Wonder if, like something testing a Werner theory of conductivity that experiment isn't something that you happen to be able to whip off on a whim whilst perched on the toilet. Wonder if, with a little preparation and a proper laboratory environment you might just be able to repeat their results.

    If you can't hear God, it's not the fault of people who can that you just don't know how.
     
    Birdjaguar likes this.
  2. Akka

    Akka Moody old mage.

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2001
    Messages:
    13,049
    Location:
    Facing my computer.
    This reminds me of something :ack:
    At least you're dropping the pretense it seems.
     
  3. Timsup2nothin

    Timsup2nothin Another drone in the hive mind

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2013
    Messages:
    34,637
    Location:
    Perhaps in transit
    Which pretense is that?

    If you are going to be rude, be specific. I find that a good rule of thumb.
     
  4. Akka

    Akka Moody old mage.

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2001
    Messages:
    13,049
    Location:
    Facing my computer.
    Come on Tim, you're the first one to affirm loudly that you're allowed to be rude and irritate people if they act pretentious, you REALLY can't blame me for doing the same.

    As for the pretense, it's your oft-repeated claim that you're some sort of neutral smirking witness who is only baiting "atheists" because of their supposed "arrogance" and certainly not that you're just proselytizing.
     
  5. Peuri

    Peuri Game

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2005
    Messages:
    680
    Location:
    Land of the Lapps
    I won't pretend that I understood even half of what you said, but I'll play along. What is "God"? When do you experience this "God"? And how do you know that what you are experiencing is a communion with this "God", and not just a form of hallucination?
     
  6. Berzerker

    Berzerker Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    16,722
    Location:
    the golf course
    The Universe is blind to our sorrows and indifferent to our pains - Neil deGrasse Tyson

    Since you and I are part of the Universe, then we would also be indifferent and uncaring - Norm MacDonald
     
    Hygro likes this.
  7. abradley

    abradley Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2015
    Messages:
    1,840
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Thailand
    Don't have a lab but have worked with items at/near 0 degrees, nitrogen has some strange qualities when in that state. Never saw it but was told it would climb the vessel walls.
     
  8. uppi

    uppi Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    4,331
    I used to have a lab where I could and did reach temperatures in the microkelvin range :smug:.

    I think you are a bit confused how science works. Werner is a mathematician and it is extremely unlikely that he will ever be provided with such a lab. If he comes up theories in physics that require testing, it will fall to experimental physicists and their labs to test this. In order to do this, we need to have at least a decent understanding of the theories in order to conduct the tests.

    I think you are confused about the materials here. Nitrogen becomes a solid below 63 K. You probably refer to helium, which can become superfluid at sub-Kelvin temperatures and will climb the walls (which I have seen).
     
  9. abradley

    abradley Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2015
    Messages:
    1,840
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Thailand
    Probably so, was long, long ago, late 60's, and the old man's memory is fading. No, wasn't a scientist, just an everyday USAF electronic tech.

    PS
    Thanx for straightening me out.
     
  10. Timsup2nothin

    Timsup2nothin Another drone in the hive mind

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2013
    Messages:
    34,637
    Location:
    Perhaps in transit
    Last question first. Commonality and repeatability. My experience is similar, within limitations of language, to many others. Within descriptions, even in the language of what modern people would describe as the "prescientific" there are commonalities. Examine some familiar event in your life; flying in a plane, building a structure with modern construction materials and methods, whatever. Consider how such an event would be described by someone who lacks any experience with the current world, and how you would be able to recognize core elements in such a description despite their lack of applicable language if you put yourself within the framework of their language.

    As an immediate example, modern physics recognizes that making the math work out involves a "reality" consisting of more than the three physical dimensions we typically perceive and the constructed fourth we generally call time. Arrogantly enough, we describe these dimensions that we need to be there but cannot perceive as stubs...having no extent but the origin point at which we perceive ourselves as existing. I have no particular problem with God being 'displaced' in one or more of those additional directions that I don't directly perceive. But if a shepherd in BC Mesopotamia had a similar experience of God their language would not allow for such a dislocation. "Heavens above" becomes their only plausible description of the 'direction to God.' Similarly, a God revealing that it exists outside of time, perceiving what we perceive as a linear progression as a continuity, can be understood in that way by someone with a moderate background in n-dimensional theory...but could very easily lead to "afterlife" as the only "outside of time" available in a description rooted in simpler times.

    In that regard descriptions of the god experience that appear to vary widely across cultures become far more of a commonality, and recognizable by people of similar experience with varying language and experience of their own. And within all those attempts at description definite common 'instructions' do glare through. For example, the instruction to witness. Whether it is a thousand BC shepherd or a twenty-first century student of physics the experience with God leaves a clear necessity to make the effort to put the experience into language. While I don't enjoy following that imperative I'm glad it exists, because in examining the efforts of others, both current and past, those common threads do emerge. It's like trying to describe an orgasm...there really isn't a great set of words that gets it across, but if you've had one yourself you can usually recognize what they are talking about pretty easily.

    As to when, at this point the answer is pretty close to constantly, which again is a commonality with the experience of many others. However if you look beyond the perception of time as a linear progression questions of "when" tend to lose a lot of meaning and that "constantly" becomes an artifact of language more than an answer. Consider what it is that actually differentiates past, present, and future. What makes only "now" real? I submit that the answer is a limitation of perception.

    So, what is God? The creator of man. Not A man, or THIS man, but MAN, of which we are all bits and pieces. And that creation has purpose, within the relationship between created and creator. But the use of language to try to pass on that purpose to others is where religions come from, so I refrain. While I'm satisfied that I have seen/been shown common threads like 'witness' I'm not willing to see something I tried to put into words transformed into dogma, as is apparently part of the human process. Again, I am confident that any aspect/component of 'man' can and inevitably does recognize God, and can get their own instruction.
     
  11. Timsup2nothin

    Timsup2nothin Another drone in the hive mind

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2013
    Messages:
    34,637
    Location:
    Perhaps in transit
    Hey, provided with a lab AND operators.

    Yeah, I can see that as such a huge difference as to provide a "well, he doesn't know how science works" conclusion.

    Glad you came along though, since I do have great respect for your level of knowledge.

    I think I made it pretty clear in the disclaimer that I'm not proselytizing, at least in any traditional sense. I attend a church, again because of my own instructions, but I am not urging anyone else to do so and I'm certainly not urging them to attend "my" church since I don't really consider it property. If God wants you particularly he'll hit you square in the head like he pretty much did with me, and if he wants you to attend a particular church, or any church, or gathering that might be construed by some as a church, he'll let you know just like he instructs me.

    I also do frequently bait arrogant atheists for fun, but today isn't one of those days. I had a task, and I did it. Peuri asked questions and I gave my best shot at answering and will continue to do so with any other questions. You, unsurprisingly, were compelled to play the injured atheist in need of agreement, despite knowing you aren't going to get any agreement and will continue to get the usual treatment.
     
  12. uppi

    uppi Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    4,331
    Nah. Theoreticians, especially those on the level of Werner, usually have not the slightest idea how their theories could be tested in practice. Providing them with a lab is a very bad idea in almost all cases, even if you include operators.
     
  13. Timsup2nothin

    Timsup2nothin Another drone in the hive mind

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2013
    Messages:
    34,637
    Location:
    Perhaps in transit
    I think you are taking my use of the word "operators" as a bit more of a "low shot" than it is to me. While I have great respect for the experimental physicist personally, I have no problem thinking that from within the perspective of a Field Medal winning theoretical mathematician they might be considered a "lab operator." Maybe more of a "top end" operator than, say, the guy who maintains the cooling systems, but still within the perspective. If it's any consolation I have taken great delight MANY times in using the words "scientist" and "engineer" as if they were interchangeable, so this isn't a first for me. Professionally, I was a "mere technician" myself, so look down on me freely. :)
     
  14. Akka

    Akka Moody old mage.

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2001
    Messages:
    13,049
    Location:
    Facing my computer.
    "I'm not drinking" said while drinking doesn't mean you're not actually drinking.
    I just saw you acting obnoxious and gave you what you loudly say should be given to obnoxious people. Not my fault you're happily giving and unhappily receiving.
     
  15. Timsup2nothin

    Timsup2nothin Another drone in the hive mind

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2013
    Messages:
    34,637
    Location:
    Perhaps in transit
    Why do people always think I'm unhappy?

    It was totally predictable that at least one arrogant and desperate for agreement atheist would present themselves. I already said how much I enjoy kicking such around. How would you conclude that I'm not happy about it?
     
  16. uppi

    uppi Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    4,331
    If you hold that view, I will revise my earlier statement and claim that you have no idea how science works at all. A Field Medal winner is a mathematician not a scientist.
     
  17. Estebonrober

    Estebonrober Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2017
    Messages:
    1,769
    Gender:
    Male
    So is this basically an argument that to try and find God one should talk to people who claim to know God?
     
  18. Timsup2nothin

    Timsup2nothin Another drone in the hive mind

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2013
    Messages:
    34,637
    Location:
    Perhaps in transit
    As I said, you can look down on me freely, I'm a mere technician, but you might notice that in what you quoted while correcting me about a Field Medal winner being a mathematician I did specifically say he was a mathematician, so your evidence appears a bit weak.
     
  19. Timsup2nothin

    Timsup2nothin Another drone in the hive mind

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2013
    Messages:
    34,637
    Location:
    Perhaps in transit
    Not necessarily. My first clear recognition of the presence of God came while I was talking to the general manager of a car lot, who was perhaps the most corrupt human being I've ever worked with and made no claims about knowing God, as far as I know.
     
  20. uppi

    uppi Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    4,331
    Well, I am still wondering why you bring up a mathematician to talk about science while disrespecting the actual scientists as mere lab operators.
     

Share This Page