disarray

Tar: I think that my point about the foghorn was that there are two events; one when the foghorn vibrates and first sound wave goes off, and 2nd event when I hear it. But my point was that it is all one event with each sound wave going from horn to ones brain, So I guess i am objecting to the word event as if it happened twice: once for horn and once for me. I think the idea that time dilation actually happens to everything, and that it is related to space expansion is fairly well established among scientists, experiments with atomic clocks and particle accelerators Therefore, there is no absolute time or space frame of reference, but only ones relative to others....so that there is neither a center of the universe nor a "now" that applies to the entire universe. One might see all things happening at their maximum speed (and perhaps time would stop) if one was a stationary observer at an infinite distance from the universe, though such a now, I think you would agree, is so impossible that it has no meaning. I am not so sure that it is possible to narrow down the age of the universe to a planck unit of time, thought I take your point. I gather that the answer that physicists give is that the universe isn't exactly the same for all observers: "If you were moving at 99 percent the speed of light since the time when the Universe was 1 billion years old, for example, you would have effectively lived through 1.8 billion years rather 13.8 billion." http://www.sciencealert.com/study-finds-the-age-of-the-universe-depends-on-your-perspective Cosmologists say the universe is about 13.7 million years because that is a useful average. Relativists would agree that the clocks from one galaxy to another might not vary that much percentage wise, but that there are exceptions, e.g., the age of the universe by someone in a Black Hole, for example, could be several times that length of time. (And isn't there a black hole at the center of galaxies?). Scientists just take an average of these times as best they can as well as the cosmic backgroud radiation on average. But there is no one "now" within the universe. Indeed, here is an anecdote by Penrose explaining why there is no universal now: "Bill and Ruth pass each other on a street somewhere on earth. In Bill's simultaneous space a meeting is being held somewhere in the Andromeda Galaxy to decide whether to attack earth. But, in Ruth's simultaneous space, the Andromeda space fleet has already launched the attack." I presume we are getting off of the point of this thread. Perhaps the issue of a universal now should be a different thread. Suffice to say that we will have a 'failure to communicate' if you don't accept the basic tenets of Relativity theory. I have heard that two good ways to learn is to be in a (polite) argument or to teach someone something. Sometimes these two things overlap I guess. I am not terribly interested or good at higher math per se, though the implications of time variance are of interest to me. Seems that when one moves more quickly than one did before, entropy decreases, meaning that one (to minuscule degrees) ages less quickly....it's almost as if like telling someone to reduce the effects of aging by telling them to go to a gym has a double meaning.

Tar.... It is quite possible that I can assume that a fog horn in the far distance out at sea is still blowing a few seconds after it has 'actually' stopped blowing (owing to vibrations within the fog horn). At the point where I assume it is still blowing but it has stopped, I could claim that there are two realities: the reality or "now" in my mind that it is still blowing, and the reality (now) that it is not of the foghorn itself. Saying that there are two "nows" in this scenario suggests, perhaps, that they are equally true, even though they are contradictory. So I would suggest that the only truth of anything is what is happening on the spot: For the foghorn....it is true that it is not vibrating or making a sound at that moment, and for me, it is true that it is vibrating. I was just pointing out that one could illustrate this perhaps better by noting that if there was a line of people wading in the water between the foghorn and myself on the beach, each one would have a different reality, of course. But, from a hypothetical God's eye view, the foghorn's reality is more true than my reality, because at the instant I am talking about, the foghorn has stopped blowing. Similarly, we can see from our back porch a star still twinkling in the sky, but from a God's eye view it is burn out. I think that we agree on this. Perhaps Einstein would say, "ah, but there is no such God to have such an omniscient view of everything at once" (just as you say that no camera can be taking snapshots from every point in the universe at once) so that there is no instant that we can call "now" that applies for all things. I then would say, well yes, I agree with Tar, but also Einstein. I suggest that perhaps that all we can say is that the universe exists without saying anything else. Indeed, I understand that a photon does not experience, from its pov, time at all, so how can it participate in some universal now. As you say, we can always calculate how faraway something is....But what about when we are moving towards a star at the speed of light....won't are calculations be thrown off unless we start take into account time dilation. And indeed, unlike sound, don't we always have to take in time dilation for everything that is moving, particularly if it is accelerating perhaps from a previous stationary (i.e., inertial) frame of reference. I read somewhere that if I sit still eating my breakfast at the table, I am, in effect, moving away from all the galaxies surrounding me (and perhaps everything else around me to one extent or another) because of the fact that the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light. But when I get up from the table to get some more milk from the fridge, time slows down (obviously by some extremely small amount), so that when I get back to the table, my Wheaties are soggier (older) than they would be had I just stayed at the table. Ok, excuse my amateurish attempts to understand this...but it seems that since all sorts of things, just in terms of things on the surface of the planet, are moving from their inertial framework (like me at the table) with reference to their surroundings depending upon their speed, e.g., that jet plane leaving a white trail behind it, that car driving by, that helium filled balloon that that kid let fly up into the sky, etc. So even a theoretical Laplacean God with his God's eye view of everything (including protons with mass and photons without) from every possible point in all possible directions at once would have to take into account the effects of time dilation as well as the usual calculations that I might do for a simple thing such as determining how different my now is from the foghorn's now. This seems like an impossible task...even for Hercules, so to speak. Given the monumental complexity of the task of ever being able to keep track of what time anything is happening with respect to other things in the universe from all points in the universe with respect to all other points in the universe, how can we say that there is such a thing as "all things are happening right now," given the impossibility of even an omniscient, omnipresent God being able to "experience" such a universal theoretical "now." If it can't be experienced, I am guessing Einstein might say, then we can't really say that the term "a universal now" has a meaning, and thus we can't say that such a universal now even exists. All that remains, perhaps is that we can say that the universe exists. Even by the time I consciously say to myself this is "now," everything that I see and hear is in the past and no longer happening (at least in the way that I experience it, as for example, the burnt out star example illustrates). Not only that, but it takes some fraction of a second for my brain to process the light waves coming in to my eyes so that I can be conscious of what I think is happening right "now." So, yes...still not sure whether a "universal now" is a phrase that has any meaning, or is it just an abstraction that has no basis in reality, and therefore is an illusion. There is no universal or absolute time frame....isn't that what Einstein claims? Certainly Heidegger claims this in his book, Being and Time....if no one can possibly experience something....it just doesn't exist. And certainly A.J. Ayer would say that if there is no possible way to verify if something is true or not (or as Popper would say, to falsify its truth), then it is a meaningless statement. So, do pure abstractions in our head even count?....Again, perhaps all that we can say is that the universe exists, not not that there is a "universal" now.

Tar: We seem to be on the same page here. Sartre once told Beauvoir that when he thinks about something, he pretends that he is looking at a diamond or a piece of sugar, turning it around in his hand up to the light....each side being similar, yet somehow being just enough different as to be interesting. Yes, like a sonata, things are just variation on a theme, whatever the subject might be. Of course, humans are lazy, and they tend not to bother too much with fine distinctions or nuances in thought, expecially these days where everyone wants a thought encapsulated in a 25 word or less meme on instagram, facebook, or even the 6 o'clock news. And yes, everything is natural, and we just have to not rush, as all things unfold in due time in the fullness of nature (or whatever the quote is that I am thinking about here). But again, humans are lazy, and tend to want the quick fix that the super-natural can bring, e.g., Quick explanation for natural phenomena (in early religions) such as lightning, thunder, volcano eruptions, twinkling stars, floods, etc. Quick relief from guilt, as opposed to undoing, compensating, counseling, communication, etc. Quick control of nature (e.g., in early religions, sacrifices to the Gods) Quick moral decisions by claiming that one can look in a book or consult a seer or pope or oracle, etc. to find out what is right and wrong rather than analyze all the pros and cons, do a cost benefit analysis, see things from the perspectives of the people that are involved, make a utilitarian analysis, etc. Love is nice, but I think that the Beatles would have been just as wise to suggest that nature is all you need.

Phi for all. Yes, if one has a strong desire or an emotionally charged experience that leads one to believe something, things such as confirmation bias, the halo (fork) effect, denial, selective perception, etc. kick in automatically, often without our being consciously aware of it. That's why being as emotionally objective as possible (including not getting too fond about ones own pet theories) is a hallmark of the scientific approach. Indeed, there have been off-the-cuff ratings of famous scientists in this regard, e.g., Darwin tends to be high in the "objectivity" range. An article at http://www.nature.com/news/how-scientists-fool-themselves-and-how-they-can-stop-1.18517 lists the various ways in which scientists can subconsciously be biased in favor of their own theories (hypothesis myopia, Texas sharpshooter, asymmetric attention, just-so stories), and various ways to avoid such bias (devil's advocacy, pre-commitment, team of rivals, and blind-data analysis).

MonDie.... And the problem with mentalistic claims is that the "raw mental content" cannot be shared with others, e.g., "do you see what I see?" or "Do you hear what i see? Would you agree that science is inherently empirical (e.g., starts with sense-data that we can share between each other) whereas mentalistic phenomena are not (unless you want to include such things as mass sightings of UFOs or visions of Mother Mary, or whatever, which tend to be explained as being the result of preconceptions and thus mass interpretations, e.g., rumor that a light traveling noiselessly in the distance is a UFO. Indeed, I had a friend years ago who took a group of people up on a hill and showed them a light in the distance that moved smoothly and silently through space. On the way up the hill he kept talking about how spaceships don't make a noise. Once on the hill we all did indeed see the light silently traveling across the sky, and, as might be expected, several people said, "Yes, I see the UFO too." No one at the time attempted to come up with alternative explanations such as that it was a commercial airplane coming in as per its regularly scheduled time, but just too far off for any of us to hear the noise (indeed, I suspect that the noise level of commercial airplanes has been reduced over the years).

I don't see that there are two events (as if there are two nows and two existences), e.g., be it 1)the sight that I have right now of a star that 2)burnt out a million years ago from a theoretical God's pov) I agree that the "main event" so to speak, is the actual discharge in the case of lightning. Each split second after the flash (e.g., planck unit of time), another reality occurs that is directly connected with the event a spit second before...so that there are zillions of realities involving the propagation of light in all directions from the original discharge. Indeed, a person (or more practically) a lightning-proof camera could take a shapshot of the event at each split second of the way between original discharge and my eye on the porch 10 miles away, not just two realities (i.e., the discharge of lightning and the event in my eye/brain or perhaps camera on the back porch while I am at the movies). But even the lightning discharge itself is not a single reality...rather electromagnetic potential energy accumulates in the clouds via the growing build up of positive and negative ions, a "spark" of some sort occurs, and the bolt of light-ning travels between clouds and earth at a particular rate that again, could be broken down and captured by a theoretical camera with extremely fast shutter speeds capable of capturing light traveling through space frame by frame. So it is simplistic to think of the flash of lightning to be a single event with its own "now" point in time, and my image of it from the back porch to be a the second event with its own point in time. In "truth" there is no distinct, isolated flash of lightning and no single distinct similar image of it in my brain....everything flows (planck second by planck length) so that there are trillions of realities and theoretical "now" moments from every possible view, (e.g., a virtual "infinity" of realities involving this flash of light, with protons zipping in all directions from the original lightning bolt off into space, perhaps to be seen, if one had a really good camera or telescope on the moon and beyond.. Again, I am an amateur, and just throw this out to see if it makes any sense to anyone..

The converse claim to this thread's declaration is that most (if not all) worshippers 'deep down' (aka, in the back of their minds) don't really believe in God (and thus are atheists). One might suggest as evidence that people still react to the death of loved ones in a tragic manner, as if they don't really believe that the deceased will go to heaven. Of course, I don't believe in such wild generalizations as the claims that either all atheists really believe in God or that all theists really don't. So in the absence of any conclusive or convincing way to support or refute either of these claims, my interest would be to examine just why people would make either claim. The generalization that there are no real atheists is a similar to the claim that all people, even serial killers and torturers, deep down have a conscience, know what is wrong, have troubled souls, feel bad about the "evil" things they do, etc. Ultimately, such claims. I would suggest, are inherently biased and "rigged"....A subtext assumption is, for example, that we are all characters in the divine drama, e.g., going back to Adam and Eve...hence, the assumption that we all have souls that deep down realize that they were created by God, that God has given us all a conscience, that there are such things as absolute moral truths (as perhaps decreed by God) that we all deep down know are true, that we are all lost souls who deep down know that we are never really getting back home until we accept, for example, Jesus's forgiveness, God's grace, etc.. Thus, we have the saying that "there are no atheists in foxholes" or "there are no atheists on their deathbed". Once one accepts that assumption, one automatically tends to acknowledge the Christian (or some religious) worldview in general and its eschatological presumptions in particular.

Robbity: Good approach. Muslims/Christians say Jews have lands: Unlikely to happen...to many gray areas, e.g., west bank. Jews/Muslims accept Jesus as Messiah: Unlikely to happen...In effect, everyone would be a Christian if that happened, perhaps by definition. Christians/Jews accept Muhammad as prophet: Not sure about Jews, but Christians tend, I gather, to not reject the idea of Muhammed as a prophet. As per my last post, I think that a key point is that countries as a whole "use" religion for different reasons: At the national level, religion is used to justify military aggression and the appropriation of land and resources, and to find justifications for taking a political stance on such issues as homosexuality, divorce, abortion, etc. On an individual level, religion is used to comfort those dealing with death (their own and loved ones), reducing personal guilt/anxiety, achieving a degree of respectability, gaining fellowship, etc. If one scans history, one finds that at the national level there is little compromise. Even in modern times, negotiations between countries or, on the other hand, such things as air strikes and sanctions have had little ameliorative effect (unless a regime change is effected) on the attitude of national leaders who are in charge of the country's military. The alternative is to focus more on increasing communication and understanding between various individuals from different countries. There are millions of examples where individuals within a community (in the U.S. for example) have found that they have more in common than they thought, and therefore have developed a greater degree of tolerance and friendship. So on the one hand, as illustrated by political platforms of Presidential candidates in the U.S., there is a conflict of opinion as to whether the best way to go is to take an aggressive stance by, for example, minimizing the presence of religious dissidents in general so as to especially exclude those who embrace a more nationalistic and militant attitude, or whether the best way to go is to take the stance of welcoming and assimilating individuals who wish to peacefully find their niche within, American culture. Ideally, individuals between cultures could communicate well enough via such things as the internet, tourism, television programs, etc. so that those in charge at a national level capitulate to those wishing to take a more peaceful approach to international affairs. I am trying to avoid endorsing any political party or whatever, and "God knows" no one knows what the outcome might be were the U.S., for example, to take either a more restrictive, or, conversely, more open arms policy with regards to immigrants. I acknowleldge that the OT (e.g.,story of Abraham and his descendants) is full of positive characters and positive messages that provide solace, inspiration, instruction, and comfort to individuals, though, again, in terms of a "Jewish" nation (or Israelite 'nation' before that), the thrust of the OT at the national scale seems to be one in which a favored people presume to have the right to take over certain lands, sometimes in a militant manner; and this attitude, unfortunately tends to, I suspect, add to the militant attitude of national leaders to presume that this is the way to go.....'onward Christian soldiers' sort of thing. At the national level, different major monotheistic religions tend to interpret the Abrahamic story in a manner that favors their own country. So yes, taking steps in the right direction include encouraging the intermingling of religions and cultures at an individual level, encouraging an ecumenical attitude in various religious leaders, and having a less restrictive attitude with regards to the issue of who can walk freely in those areas considered to be most holy lands and sites. Ultimately, I think that it is better for people of different religions to presume that Abraham was not a real person, or at least to presume that such a person existed, and perhaps even had conversations with God, but that we really don't have sufficient evidence to determine just which tribal groups Abraham and God favored, or thought deserved particular tracts of land, etc. For example, let's all just throw our hands up in the air and say that scriptures conflict with regards to whether Isaac or Ishmael was the favored son, and that we ultimately don't have enough info to know. Similarly, taking a less literal/fundamentlistic approach leads, I suggest, to a less dogmatic and a more inclusive attitude towards people of other monotheistic religions (embracing the Abrahmic stories), thereby minimizing intolerance, hatred, and warfare.

Tar: I think your question about lys is really a question for a physics expert, though philosophy (of science) is not irrelevant to the question. I tinker with physics because it deals with philosophical issues, which is really my interest, but I don't have the knack for physics that I do for philosophy. In any case, there is an interesting clip that addresses your issue: http://www.sciencechannel.com/tv-shows/through-the-wormhole/is-there-a-universal-now/ It is narrated by Morgan Freeman, which is, I think, quite appropriate given his role in the film, Lucy, which I would also recommend your watching if you haven't already. I know that physics in particular seems to often be self-contradictory (e.g., the notion of superposition), but I think that eventually physicists will be able to explain things in ways which are less confusing to themselves as well as to others. I am not necessarily convinced that there are other universes. And no, I don't see, just off the top of my head, that 'another ' universe is ours from another point of view. In any case, it is important not to have too high expectations about having a high degree of truth about things....There has been to some extent an indeterminacy revolution over the last 100 years which suggests that science's (e.g., Laplace's) dream of having absolute truth about anything is an impossible one. The distant star that Gatsby sees from the balcony of his mansion may be burnt out millions of years ago from some hypothetical God’s eye view, though his beloved Daisy across the Bay may have put out the lights to the house a split second before he actually sess the lights go out himself. Nothing he experiences is in his present...everything in his surroundings provides a sort of museum. Like horses in a field of alfalfa, humans often tend to want too much of a good thing, and this, perhaps applies to those who want absolute truth, or to know everything (as Faust did) or to know everything about what their friend is thinking (and vice versa), etc. Indeed, the idea that science can’t give us as much truth about things as we would like has quite an effect on some people (e.g., John Nash, had a breakdown trying to deal with the apparent inconsistencies of quantum theory…something that also upset Einstein but to a lesser extent). Even though it may be good to brainstorm an issue as Einstein did (i.e., boarding himself up in a room for two weeks to pencil out the theory of relativity), ultimately, as Jung suggested, it is important to adopt the principle of moderation by balancing rationality with emotional and intuitive responses to ones surroundings….which is probably what you ultimately think it is important to do, anyway.

Robbity: I don't subscribe to a literal interpretation of any religious scriptures, though the term atheist doesn't describe me either...but that is another book, as they say. Well, when I say Rorschaach test, I am referring to the way both writers and followers of any given faith respond to stories found in scriptures. With respect to Abrahamic-based, monotheism, I see a whole range of things, but in general I think that the mentality of an entire society is typically more political (e.g., creating churches that have power, land and money) than that of individual believers, who tend to see the story more in terms of being secure in the comforting knowledge that there is a God who cares about people, who guides their lives (if they only let him), and, if one behaves in a certain way, provides sustenance, support, and perhaps even revenge when faced with deprivation or persecution in troubled times. As for believing the stories, I can't give a black and white answer.....I believe that there were probably several people back then called Abram or some similar name, who herded animals, had thousands if not millions of descendants, foretold the future, had intimations as to what the universe and/or God's ultimate plan might be for humankind or at least their tribe or extended tribe, performed various types of sacrifices in order to appease the gods, had ideas that seem quite ignorant by today's standards, found ways to justify taking over other people's land, etc. But I don't think that even the general outline of the Abrahamic story (aka narrative), is the same in all the three major monotheistic religions that tell that story. And certainly not all of the details 'don't matter', e.g., as to whether Abraham almost sacrificed Ishmael or Isaac. But who knows, there may have been a time when God literally spoke to prophets and made them promises, though this scenario does not fit well with my idea of how things work. So I see this as Abraham's story as one that, like most stories, reflects various cultures throughout history, and, much as would an objective anthropologist, I would add a disclaimer to the scriptures saying that none of the characters in the story represent actual people, or that the story is basically true, but that the names have been changed and the events modified or sensationalized to suit the audience. In any case, that's just my take..and every person will have a slightly different one, I would suggest. In any case, asking for a simple "yes, I believe" or "no, I don't believe" is, I think, asking someone to respond in a rather simplistic and limited way to a complex subject. It's not really a matter of either one believes a story in a given text word for word, or else there is nothing else that remains, but rather it is a matter of taking what is useful and glossing over the rest...which is what, I suggest, from bacteria to Buddha, all that anyone really ever does anyway.

marieltrokan: Yes, "re-creation" is a good way to put it. The idea that there is so much barren desert, so to speak, of empty space and burning stars in proportion to our lonely earth has prompted some atheists and agnostics to state that this fact suggests that there is no God(s) since, they ask, "Why would he/she bother to make so much excess real estate?" Though I am not arguing one way or the other for the existence of God, I think that such statements will eventually prove to show a lack of knowledge about the way that nature unfolds. My own belief is that it is inevitable that the universe creates life, but in any case, whether one is talking about life in terms of evolution on the surface of our planet (e.g, sperm needed to fertilize and egg), or the appearance of life forms on other planets (so many planets lie barren), the universe is a dice game in which a lot of dice have to be thrown before we get a 7. ( I also like the metaphor of a bingo game in this regard) But yes, were we to know more about the universe, I would suggest that more and more are churned out, or perhaps our own periodically regenerates at and explode once again. In terms of eternity, 13.7 billion years is not that long a period, so it seems that it should all happen again in one way or another. In any case, my guess is that however abrupt the origins of the universe might be, and how much apparently needless suffering and waster there seems to be, the universe is calmly going about its business, knowing full well (if it could) that everything is under control and just as it should be.

Robbity: It is always interesting to see the gap that always exists to one degree or another between what one says and what another person thinks one says, no matter how careful one is to choose ones words carefully. I guess I could have made a similar list off the top of my head, but no, I thought someone might say, in so many words, that there is no evidence in the Bible for the things I say. To answer your question, though, it is not a Jewish point of view, thought I could have easily gone there, but rather taken from an Islam site that I just picked from near the top of the google list when I punched in a few key words. I scanned through the article and picked out relevant passages and created the list. Took me about 5 minutes to put together the list....Does it seem long? I'm sure I could have put together a much longer list, or perhaps even made a list of 10 or even 20 for each of the three monotheistic religions. I presume this site relies on Quran, though the stories it alludes to are usually found in Jewish and scriptures as well. Site used: http://www.amanaparenting.com/prophet-abraham-lessons/ Also see: https://muslimmemo.com/lessons-life-prophet-ibrahim/ I guess you could say that Abraham is a sort of Rorschaah test....where one sees what one wants to see, and what one sees tells you more about oneself than about Abraham.

well yes, I understand the inverse square law, but in most cases, once two things are at a certain distance from each other, the effects are, for all practical purposes, negligent, (e.g., would we have to remove the moon very far from the earth before it just went its merry way?). But yes, I see that entanglement provides a special case, though I don't know if anyone has a clear idea about just what is going on when they are entangled...kind of sounds like it might look those charts on mitosis....but I jest.

Strange; Oh, of course, there are millions of people who do say just that. Indeed, I think that the Catholic church has really been making an effort to take a more ecumenical by embracing other religions....When people get along there is nothing to fix....so I just focused on the fact that millions of monotheists often violently disagree and note that it is worthwhile trying to analyze the reason that they do, with a view to, perhaps, minimizing future conflict.

Robbity: Good question. Well, I think it best to take it on a case by case basis. Many Muslims, for example, reject Christianity because they don't think that Christ is the one, true savior (they have their own guy), and because they think that Christianity is essentially polytheistic (disguised as monotheism) and therefore pagan. Similarly Jews are more than iffy about Jesus being the true savior of their people. Hey, even in the early churches, people were burning each other at the stake because hey disagreed about what true Christianity really entailed in terms of dogma, e.g., purported heresies such as whether Jesus was as holy as God, or whether Jesus was part human or just appeared to be, etc. etc. But we are not just talking about individuals, we are talking about hundreds, thousands, and in some respects millions of people who died fighting, to a large degree, over such questions (e.g., Catholic vs. Protestant wars). I see your logic, but I don't think things work like that in real life....People don't say, hey, we both believe in one God and our scriptural stories are similar, so let's just bury the hatchet and go have a beer. No, rather than that, they focus on minor details and then claim that if you are not baptised, or don't think the pope has a direct line to God, or think you can interpret the Bible for yourself, or don't believe God died for your sins, or use the term Allah instead of God, etc., etc. then your beliefs are blasphemous, your faith is misplaced, your God is false, your morals are twisted, your chances of salvation are nil, your spirit is corrupt, and your religion is pagan. So yes, I agree these conflicts might seem, to the proverbial visiting Martian, as petty and absurd, but hey, in my book, that's the nature of group mentality (aka ethnocentrism).

Tar. You state, "If there is no way to verify the truth of the contention within our lifetimes..then perhaps [speculation] just a flight of fancy or an exercise in thought experimentation Well, one never knows until one tries.....Einstein's theories of relativity were almost entirely based on thought experiments with a bit of data used in conjunction with mathematics to make predictions that, indeed, continue to be verified after his death. People never dreamed that they would ever find any evidence of evolutionary theory....but hey, evidence is still pouring in to support it. Ditto for things such as quarks, Darwin's notion of evolution, etc. But the point is that, even if we have to entirely speculate about some things, what scientists try to do is to build up a coherent "theory" of the universe, even if some of the parts of the puzzle can or never will be filled in....the flights of fancy serve to fill in the blanks sometimes just so we can continue putting together a particular model (e.g., as is the case with string theory, which most likely will never be "verified" in our lifetimes). And indeed, we often have to accept different degrees of verification and falsification in order to get our model to make sense sometimes, though there is of course a kind of limit to how much we can fudge the data or make hypothetical assumptions. We have already agreed a few posts back that scientists do indeed have a better idea of what is beyond our immediate perceptions, e.g., determining what happens in parts of a second after the Big Bang based upon extrapolations made from the data from such things as background cosmic radiation, so I don't know why you (it seems to me) backtracking now. Of course, if a scientist has no data or feasible mathematical models whatsoever, his or her ideas about something such as a multiverse or even the probability of life on other planets is no more worth listening to than a two-year-old's....but that is not the case. You are merely harping over an obvious tautology that if you know nothing, than you know no more than someone else who knows nothing. I think its best, rather than making generalizations, to talk about specific examples. Here's one: The U.S. government spends billions and billions of dollars trying to find life on other planets in our own solar system as well as millions and millions of dollars on space radio telescopes searching the skies for signals from living creatures on planets in other distant solar systems. Do you think the scientists behind this project are out of touch with what people are or should be concerned with? Do you think Rocky Balboa knows just as much about the possibility of life on Mars as his bowling pal, Seth Shostak, senior astronomer at the SETI Institute, who predicted that scientists will find life beyond our own planet within our own lifetime? You state that "What [a scientist] sees in his telescope is what the other side of the galaxy was doing 100,000 years ago. How can anyone around here know what it is doing today?" Well, yes that is obviously true, but again, we have a pretty good picture about what is going on with galaxies because we can see general patterns that enable us to understand why some stars collapse or explode, or to watch what happens when galaxies collide, etc., etc. And there will always be various time lags, from a couple of seconds to several thousand or million light years when we peer through the lens...but hey, is that any reason to think we shouldn't be looking at the skies trying to figure things out, or that scientists don't know any more than Joe Blow about astronomy in general....of course not.

Strange: You write that "This entangled "thing" can be spread over half the universe, but that's OK because quantum effects are inherently non-local anyway (in time and space)." From what I gather, the idea that an 1) electron's field can span great distances and that 2) that two entangled particles become a single particle until observed is a fairly recent concept gaining more and more followers. Indeed, as I recall from following a blog in researchgate involving the author, Johan Prins, of the book, "The Physics Delusion": The urgent need to reinterpret modern physics", he claimed exactly that, but the person he was debating with (another quantum physicist) said that this view is not in keeping with mainstream quantum physics (e.g., as per Bohr). However, he argued, as I recall, that this meant that entanglement was not nonlocal.

Robbity, You ask "Even if America (USA) is monotheistic does that imply all of the religions follow the same god?" well, no, I don't see that written anywhere, but I think that those who say that it doesn't matter what God you believe in as long as you believe in God are excluding a lot of sub groups, e.g., perhaps wiccans. Others who say that are trying to make the point that all monotheists worship the same God (which is as debatable as asking whether we all believe in the same Abraham, if not moreso). But I think fundamentally, people assume that there can only be one God.In terms of this thread, this is important, as one immediately is led to ask why people make such an assumption. (And yes, of course, some monotheists condemn other monotheists.)

Robbity: You ask, "What are the works of Abraham from a Jewish or Muslim perspective?" It seems as if the point of the quote is that Abraham's message was that one should practice the Golden Rule: be friend to each other ("man") as one would love God. But I don't think that there is any one message that one might distil from the the Abraham narrative. However, I don't subscribe to the idea that one should ignore the cultural context in which it was written....so it is really quite a different approach if one is looking at the issue from the viewpoint on the basis of faith that Abraham is a real person who spoke to God or just a character written about decades or centuries after his death who just had a lot of descendants. Indeed, I think that it is pretty hard to mix the two approaches in a discussion. So if one asks what the phrase "works of Abraham" suggests, one might clarify if one is assuming that Abraham spoke with God or not (e.g., did miracles actually happen with regards to Abraham). The question as to whether he was a real person who claimed to be a prophet, etc., is ultimately not as crucial as whether he had a hot line to God. One cannot assume that even if we had photographic proof that he did such things as almost kill his own son, such proof does not thereby prove that he indeed had conversations with God, or was blessed by God, or was a friend of God (as Muslims apparently stress), or he was promised land by God, or that God said his descendant would be a savior. But yes, if one does a little research one can easily make of list of the "positive" things we could say about Abraham: Had a vision for the Oneness of God Condemned idolatry Helped his group get through a dark period Was obedient to God Had faith that God watches over on Had faith and trust in God Tried to abide by God's plan f Believed God favors the righteous Had strength of character and courage Was willing to be spiritual without letting go of reason Did't lose confidence in the truth, etc. Like anything else, when one explicates a piece of literature, one can any number of approaches. I am not stating that any particular approach is better or preferable to another, whether one focuses on his character, or that people can be united, or on obedience, or on the spiritual contentment one might feel knowing God is watching over one, or on the idea that a group of people can have or claim to have a destiny, or whatever. My focus is on the political because I guess one of the biggest issues throughout history right up to the present day has been the constant conflict between these great monotheistic religions...and part of the reason is that, owing to the fact that they have often had ulterior motives for interpreting the stories in a manner favorable to their own group, people have focused on the differences between their interpretations of the Abrahamic stories, rather than on the positives that unite them. But good question...and in a nutshell, and apart from listing the ways that Muslims view Abraham (one can also make a list for Jews), I would say that it is indeed good to try to look at things from the other guys (e.g., religious group's) perspective.

Robbity You ask, "@Disarray - some part of that post sounded personal. Are you saying you believe in more than one God?" No, I was not saying or implying that at all. Strange: You say, "When I did religious studies, that is almost exactly the opposite of the approach we took." I did a comparative religion course, at a nonreligious school. We were a small group of 10 and we certainly did not spend any time talking from the standpoint of anyone's personal faith. The first day we just tried to come up with a definition of religion..with result that we described it as transcendance (higher power sort of thing.... belief in) If you attended a religious school, that would explain the difference. ........ Did I not state that I noted that they assumed that people would worship one God, as I stated....not that they weren't free to worship. It was the assumption that adherents to polytheism were so deranged as to not be worth mentioning, as if America, was, by definition, monotheistic.

Tar: Well, to be honest, I think that the opening statements in this thread were excessively vague in the first place so that the overall direction of the discussion was vague. That said, your remarks seem to almost offer some sort of Rogerian therapy as to accepting one's place in the universe, being yourself, bonding with ones family or fellow man, or whatever, rather than to explore the big picture in a more scientific sense (e.g., the full range of possibilities offered by the theory of evolution in providing the possibility of the existence of life forms elsewhere). In particular, your constant refrain that we all belong to our universe, in so many words, is a commonplace remark, such as, be happy with where you are. This is fine, but when you interject it sporadically to dismiss discussions of such things as what is happening on far away galaxies, or whether there might be life in other universes, or on other inhabitable planets in this one, or whatever, I find, as I mentioned above, that it just seems to distract from the flow of the discussion, however benevolent and laudable your intentions.

-dimreaper: No need to announce your notching because of my weak posts..I am sure there are other competent posters in this thread. I don't see how the intent of this thread was to provide a "plausible reason for the existence of religions and the bibles" so I see no reason to accept your challenge to do so. The general trend of my posts has been to provide evidence that the figure of Abraham was largely constructed for political purposes, and such political purposes still provide fuel for conflict, particularly in the Middle East, to this day. I have no intention of just portraying religion in a bad light, however. On the contrary, I try to call a spade a spade: the various interpretations given to the Abrahamic narrative by different monotheistic religions over issues such as who are the chosen people, who is entitled to holy lands, and whose road to salvation is the only right one, have provided continual strife throughout the ages, and, for that reason, I have contended your claim that the thrust of the stories is one of providing contentment. By not whitewashing these conflicts, but instead, bringing them to the foreground, I think that the the various religions connected with Abraham and his descendants can reach some sort of detente. This wish was expressed on a religious website as follows: "If the Muslim is to enter into the heritage of Abraham he too must be willing to take the leap in the dark. The modern form of this community consciousness is nationalism in which religion is retained only for its value as a political weapon, and a deplorable situation arises when religion becomes the hand-maid of politics. The real value of any religion consists in what it means for its followers and not in the utilitarian ends it may be usd to achieve. To follow Abraham means the abandonment of what may be considered moral and material safeguards; it could mean the breaking away from the past in which we arc all so deeply rooted, and the ruthless cutting away of those prejudices which keep men apart. To be the friend of God in any sense of the words is to be the friend of man. Those who lay claim to being the children of Abraham must do the works of Abraham." http://www.answering-islam.org/Books/MW/abraham.htm

Tar, No, of course scientists have a human side, and love puppies and kittens, and weekend family picnics, and a colorful sunset, a sirloin steak with the neighbors, and bowling night with the guys, or whatever. That's not the point. Evidently, retaining ones humanity and being you, or whatever, is something that has some significance to you for some reason, and you feel compelled to interject such humanistic or humanitarian remarks from time to time, but I just see it as distracting from the flow of the discussion.

Well, one might similarly ask why there is some particular number for a Planck unit of time or space? But yes, there conceivably might be some connection between such things as Planck units and the speed of light or whatever. I think we can put the question in the "too hard" basket. My point really was that there might be a reason if we were smart enough to figure it out, but more importantly, my point was that the laws are not only the same everywhere, but also that they are ineluctable....not just picked out of a hat at random, but rather couldn't be anything but what they are.

MeMammal said, "TAR, you may think of it as practical but unfortunately it is not very scientific." My thoughts exactly. And yes, Tar, you are indeed actually just saying the same thing I said, you care about the immediate to you, but not the remote. It is, as I have somewhat said earlier, as if you are just being sentimental and poeticizing....I am reminded of Walt Whitman....just when I think you might be taken the discussion seriously, or rather, scientifically, you fall back on the issue of immediate practicality and personal concern. Here is a couple of Whitman quotes to give you an idea of what I mean about your remarks: I heard what was said of the universe, heard it and heard it of several thousand years; it is middling well as far as it goes - but is that all? The whole purpose of the universe is unerringly aimed at one thing - you.