Religious issues

[Zeb_Carter]

Most of that, as I understand it Zeb, is a matter of science rather than theology. By which I mean that it is amenable to the collection and evaluation of evidence as opposed to belief without evidence (faith).

I'm not saying that either the collection or evaluation processes are yet complete - though observations so far support the idea that physics and maths apply in an exactly constant way across the universe (subject to refinement in the same way as Einstein's description of gravity refines that of Newton).

Certainly chaos does exist, but Chaos Theory offers a way to apply a universal rationale to that, even if the individual equations can't be solved.

Physics isn't complete: we haven't yet found the unified field theory - and quantum physics is definitely an 'out of mind experience' - but nothing yet suggests to me that science is inadequate, requiring faith rather than more exploration of evidence.

ARW does have a problem, but the current lack of empirical evidence is a problem that we - humans - are working on with every indication that if enough bucks are spent and intelligence applied, the right answer will emerge.

My own agnosticism, such as it is, applies to the fact that the existence of the human race - and the whole universe - depends upon the values of about half a dozen universal constants. Why should they have the values that they do?

I want to believe that they are what they are simply because they are what they are, but a part of me could accept that they are what they are because some ineffable being so decreed.

After such decree was made, (unless they were to change in unreasonable ways) the behaviour of the universe, subject to Chaos (which allows Free Will), is immutable - so the 'power of prayer' is purely psychological: a product of the biochemistry of the brain.

That can be changed by chemical or (psycho)logical means.

But if your only point of reference is from here, then any data extrapolated by assuming that the constants are the same across the universe is flawed. Until we have another point of reference at some other point in the universe we will and cannot be sure.

As far as faith goes, in the right here an now I have faith that any measured event will be reproducible at this particular reference point using the constants we have so far determined.

 

[fifty5]

But if your only point of reference is from here, then any data extrapolated by assuming that the constants are the same across the universe is flawed. Until we have another point of reference at some other point in the universe we will and cannot be sure.

It isn't distance but time where we lack current empirical data. We already have astronomical observations from many, many light years away that show the same kind of physics at vast distances. The possible difficulty is that those same light years (distance) involve the same number of time years. Observations of a remote galaxy at, say, 100 million light years distance show what happened 100 million years ago. However, since those empirical observations show constant physics throughout the whole volume of the universe (and so over the same range of time, right down to NOW for experiments carried out on Earth), it seems perverse to suppose that the rules might change, but only at a sufficient distance that we can't yet observe them.

Hypothetically, an omnipotent, perverse god might choose to make that so, but in that case, we are talking about a god whose intent is to deceive the human race. That's also hard to justify!

 

[AvoidingRealWork]

Well, there's your answer-- there's a niche for you.

A friend of mine wondered why two pages of her webcomic were getting so many hits-- it turned out that some process fetish group had found them;
http://www.letterstoawildboar.com/index.php?date=2007-02-11
http://www.letterstoawildboar.com/index.php?date=2007-02-12

Not quite what your looking for, I know, but thought I'd add it to the conversation

Yeah, body change is a big fetish of mine, but the whole shrinking-out-of-clothes thing is da bomb.

I blame all those cartoons in the 80s. Probably created by those with the same fetish. And the virus is passed on...

 

[Zeb_Carter]

It isn't distance but time where we lack current empirical data. We already have astronomical observations from many, many light years away that show the same kind of physics at vast distances. The possible difficulty is that those same light years (distance) involve the same number of time years. Observations of a remote galaxy at, say, 100 million light years distance show what happened 100 million years ago. However, since those empirical observations show constant physics throughout the whole volume of the universe (and so over the same range of time, right down to NOW for experiments carried out on Earth), it seems perverse to suppose that the rules might change, but only at a sufficient distance that we can't yet observe them.

Hypothetically, an omnipotent, perverse god might choose to make that so, but in that case, we are talking about a god whose intent is to deceive the human race. That's also hard to justify!

The only observations we have are from this, Earth, point in space/time. We assume that what is true here is true else where in the universe. My point is that it might not. Those galaxies we observer from here and extrapolate their distance using the constants for our point in space, may not have those same constants. That Galaxy we assume is 100 million light years away my only be 100 light years away but be 100 million year old. As the time constant may differ from ours. Or it could be 100 million light years away but only be 100 years old.

We won't know until we can leave the vicinity of our galaxy and check it out. The constant C may not be 186,000 miles per second in the far away galaxy nor between the galaxies.