The reason Theism is a viable concept

Happy_Killbot

@YeshuaBought But what makes the bible right and the Quran wrong?

MayCaesar

@Sand

One can explain pretty well why 2+2=4 using very simple terms, and there is even a mathematically precise derivation of this fact coming purely from a set of initial axioms - although that derivation is much more complicated than one would think.
"2+2=4 because of pink elephants" is a poor argument, and there are much better ones, including mathematically precise ones.

I am not saying that lack of understanding means lack of truth; I am saying that lack of sound reasoning behind a claim means that this claim cannot be accepted as truth. It may be truth in reality, but we have no way of concluding that this is the case. And since the space of claims is infinite, we better not accept all claims we cannot verify as truth, as otherwise our world view will fall apart. We better accept all claims we cannot verify as truth as unproven hypotheses, and be very clear about it. If we do not know if something is true, we should say that we do not know that this is truth, instead of trying to make up for lack of knowledge with unfounded claims - in my opinion, at least.


@Happy_Killbot ;

I think you are trying to apply something akin to the Infinite Monkey Theorem: given infinite amount of time, each imaginable outcome will occur eventually.

I do not think it is applicable here, however, and the Boltzmann brain in particular comes from older interpretation of quantum mechanics which is not shared by many physicists nowadays. First, quantum fluctuations are not completely random and are constricted by certain effects, related to the space-time structure, for example. Second, the Infinite Monkey Theorem only applies to situations with limited amount of data; in case of unlimited data, which is the case in the Universe, where at any point an infinite number of virtual particles exists, it does not have to hold. And third, even if you are right and there will be a point at which life will not exist in the Universe purely due to extremely unlikely combination of quantum fluctuations, conversely there will be a point afterwards at which another extremely unlikely combination of quantum fluctuations will lead to re-appearance of life. Life will not be gone permanently.

There are certain reasons to believe that, over time, life will tend to become less and less common in the Universe, even not taking the Universe expansion into account. For example, radiation generally takes more energy out of a system than it brings back to it, and at the current stage the Universe is very far from equilibrium in this regard; it will achieve it eventually, and at that point the total "amount" of objects in the Universe capable of sustaining life should decrease substantially. The matter also shows tendency to form heavier and heavier elements over time in a given system, which could lead, for example, to everything turning into black holes at some point, with only radiation existing in between.
However, there are many counter-arguments to which. For one, if a space civilisation advanced enough appears that learns to replenish its resources continuously from the intergalactic matter alone, then, in theory, this civilisation could exist infinite amount of time. There also could be effects we are not even aware of that make our entire cosmological vision wrong, that civilisations far more advanced than us will eventually discover.

In any case, while it is possible that eventually all life in the Universe will disappear, there is no reason to believe that this absolutely has to happen.

Happy_Killbot

@MayCaesar I actually made this opposite case, life has to end eventually even for life produced by random fluctuations, even if more life is produced after the fact, and of course these life forms would have no ability to communicate with each other (assuming time can not be reversed)

Even a civilization that has ridiculously advanced tech such as entropy reversing technology can not last forever, because infinity implies all of the possibilities, so even if they can manage to survive for unfathomable time scales, sooner or latter the perfect storm of random, unfortunate coincidences and mishaps will eventually topple that civilization, even if the odds of this happening are so low that you would need every particle in the universe to represent a zero in order to calculate how low the chance of this happening is, it is still finite.

MayCaesar

@Happy_Killbot

I disagree that infinity implies all the possibilities. You could argue that infinity implies all the possibilities in a very large domain of possibilities, but I do not see why the Universe with no life in it must necessarily be a part of that domain.

Infinity implies all the possibilities only in purely probabilistic systems, but the Universe is not purely probabilistic and has hard laws in it placing some limitations on what can or cannot happen in it. Unlike the case of the Infinite Monkey Theorem, where the Monkey will eventually write all books conceivable, the Universe does not have to encounter every possible distribution and composition of particles in it, because different distributions and compositions have different properties, sometimes incompatible with, at least, our current understanding of physics.

Happy_Killbot

@MayCaesar Then we only need answer one question to get our answer...

Under the current laws of known physics, is it possible for their to exist a point in time in which no life exists?

If the answer is yes, (all evidence points to yes, as it was in the early universe) then it is an inevitability that at some point in the future of this universe, life will cease to exist.

Plaffelvohfen

@MayCaesar

If the cosmological constant is zero, the universe will approach absolute zero temperature over a very long timescale. However, if the cosmological constant is positive, as appears to be the case in recent observations, the temperature will asymptote to a non-zero positive value, and the universe will approach a state of maximum entropy in which no further work is possible.

According to our current knowledge, the heat death of the universe is the most probable outcome, if we can confirm that protons decay, it would help to confirm the hypothesis... But considering the lower experimental  bound of proton decay is currently 10^35 years, we won't be able to confirm anything soon obviously... 

MayCaesar

@Happy_Killbot

Not at all. The theoretical possibility of a certain state of the Universe does not necessarily mean the existence of a theoretically possible pathway to that state.

Think about the analogy. Suppose you have two islands, with impassable waters in between. You start off on one of the islands in a car that can drive on the surface of the island, but cannot drive into the water. Now let the time run infinitely. No matter what you do, you will never get to the second island, even though the rules do not in principle prohibit the car from being driven there.


@Plaffelvohfen ;

From the purely thermodynamical point of view, you are correct - however, laws of thermodynamics do not quite apply to quantum effects. Regardless of what the cosmological constant is, the temperature in practice has to asymptotically approach a non-zero value.

The Wiki article is a bit off here; heat death of the Universe was the predominant hypothesis up until a few decades ago, but nowadays physicists do not generally agree with it - or, rather, they see it as a possibility, but not as an inevitability.

Sand

@Happy_Killbot

>>>Belief in God is a very pessimistic world view, so I might ask you the same question.<<<

How so?

>>>The answer is yes. It doesn't matter if it is given or assumed, either way by taking an option and making choices you reduce your freedom. You can not change past decisions. However, if there is some given objective purpose, there is no freedom whatsoever.<<<

I would like to explore this area of freedom more.

Your breakdown of human life seems more primal than intellectual.

Freedom to do what exactly?

Freedom to lie?

Freedom to have sex at any age?

Freedom to steal?

Freedom to kill?

>>>Read what I wrote about anti-vaxxers, that should give you a clue.<<<

Do you feel that there are no side effects from vaccinations?

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm

I see your point.

Because the benefits outweigh the dangers of the side effects.

Nevertheless, my cousin went blind because of a side effect of anthrax vaccination, they gave it to him in the military.

Then he lost cartilage in both hips, till the point he could no longer walk.

So I am never surprised when they find side effects from drugs.

I would not blame a parent who is very concerned as to what to give their children.

>>>The atheist is not so weak of a constitution that they should need such lies to get out of bed in the morning.<<<

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4618080/

But it has been documented that religious persons recovering from surgery healthier have a stronger than nonreligious persons which indicates a stronger 'constitution'.

You may see this from another angle.

Nevertheless, your answers are very fascinating.

I am learning.

I would like to verify my thoughts and conclusions.

Happy_Killbot

@MayCaesar If we are dealing with an infinite system, not only will the car end up on the other island, but at some point there will be no water between them, there will be 7 islands, (one of which is inhabited by monkeys that reproduce all written works ever published) there will be cars that rust away only to be replaced with new ones when a factory open, but those will never reach the other island, until much latter when the sun explodes and an entirely new solar system forms complete with a new person, car, and islands which are impassible, but this time the guy on the island builds a bridge because he thinks it will free him from this thought experiment I have just made ridiculous, and all sorts of other things in between.

It is only possible for the car to not end up on the other island if time is finite, and if it is then that doesn't speak very well to the possibility of life existing eternally. I don't think it is possible for there to be an infinite anything that at some point does not contain all logically possible states.

Happy_Killbot

@Sand

How so?

This picture says it all:

Freedom to do what exactly?

Freedom to lie?

Freedom to have sex at any age?

Freedom to steal?

Freedom to kill?

Freedom is what we decide to allow, and Informed consent is the quantum of morality, no magic book required.

Would you blame someone else's parent if their refusal to get their child vaccinated killed your kid, who for real medical reasons was unable to get the vaccine? That's the real problem. If your decisions effect you negatively, that's whatever. If they effect someone else negatively, that's not okay, because I didn't consent to it and anti-vaxxers are not informed.

But it has been documented that religious persons recovering from surgery healthier have a stronger than nonreligious persons which indicates a stronger 'constitution'.

You may see this from another angle.

First you might want to rephrase that so it is something comprehensible. Second, it's possible that the study has it backwards, and that being healthier leads to being more R/S instead of the other way around, something the study make reservations for as a possibility they did not control for due to the small number of longitudinal studies in the meta-analysis. Another interpretation of this study is that people who are "angry at god" or who "feel abandoned by god" tend to have poorer health than those who simply think god's going to make everything okay, perhaps due to the placebo effect or something similar.

YeshuaBought

Happy_Killbot said:

@Sand

How so?

This picture says it all:

Freedom to do what exactly?

Freedom to lie?

Freedom to have sex at any age?

Freedom to steal?

Freedom to kill?

Freedom is what we decide to allow, and Informed consent is the quantum of morality, no magic book required.

Would you blame someone else's parent if their refusal to get their child vaccinated killed your kid, who for real medical reasons was unable to get the vaccine? That's the real problem. If your decisions effect you negatively, that's whatever. If they effect someone else negatively, that's not okay, because I didn't consent to it and anti-vaxxers are not informed.

But it has been documented that religious persons recovering from surgery healthier have a stronger than nonreligious persons which indicates a stronger 'constitution'.

You may see this from another angle.

First you might want to rephrase that so it is something comprehensible. Second, it's possible that the study has it backwards, and that being healthier leads to being more R/S instead of the other way around, something the study make reservations for as a possibility they did not control for due to the small number of longitudinal studies in the meta-analysis. Another interpretation of this study is that people who are "angry at god" or who "feel abandoned by god" tend to have poorer health than those who simply think god's going to make everything okay, perhaps due to the placebo effect or something similar.

Like I said before, vaccines have nothing to do with God. You are being very dishonest, and off topic.

Plaffelvohfen

@YeshuaBought

Happy is answering Sand, not you in that comment...

YeshuaBought

Plaffelvohfen said:

@YeshuaBought

Happy is answering Sand, not you in that comment...

I'm so done with this !

MayCaesar

@Happy_Killbot

But in your reasoning you have redefined the rules of the system I described. In the actual system with rules as stated, the car will never be on another island, as the physical rules make it impossible for it to reach it, no matter how much time you let the system evolve.

It could be the same with the Universe: the states you are considering cannot be achieved starting with the current initial conditions and letting the world evolve according to the rules of physics.

People misunderstand this a lot. The principle according to which all possible states of the system will eventually be achieved assumes that the pathway to those states exists. The Monkey will eventually write a Shakespeare's poem, because there is a clear pathway to writing that poem starting with a blank book, and the Monkey gets to start with a bank book infinite number of times. This is not the case with the Universe; it started with whatever initial conditions it started, and each subsequent moment in time has been derived from those conditions; the initial conditions do not restart infinitely here. You are dealing with a stochastic process here, which is quite different from standard random sampling, where you keep "rolling the dice" infinitely, each time discarding everything that happened before and starting from scratch. Stochastic processes do not have to be revertible, nor do they have to experience every state theoretically possible.

Happy_Killbot

@MayCaesar If you are trying to say that the car will never reach the other island because in your toy universe this is a logical impossibility, then I would agree that this will never happen the way 2+2 will never equal 7 because I feel like it should. However, it is a logical possibility in our universe for all life to cease to exists.

In a twist on your thought experiment, suppose at one point the car was on the other island, then a wave just happened to wash it to the island where you live. Would this then prove that it is possible for the car to eventually end up on the other island, despite all of the barriers to making it happen?

My point that life at some point has to cease is based on the stochastic nature of reality. We know that life exists now, but at any time it could cease to exist, and for no reason for that matter. If you play the odds enough times, sooner or latter you will hit the jackpot. Except in this case the jackpot is a one way ticket to non-existence, so you should really not want to win.

MayCaesar

@Happy_Killbot

It was an example to illustrate that in a system with clearly defined rules certain outcomes possible in principle may be impossible in the actual situation. Whether our Universe has clearly defined rules is up to debate, and so is the claim that any theoretically possible outcome will be achieved eventually.

Stochastic processes are governed by stochastic equations, and those equations do not necessarily have to include possibility of any imaginable fluctuation at any point in time. It is not clear to me that, say, at present moment a fluctuation is possible that will terminate all life in the Universe. It may or may not be possible; I recommend that you read Feynman lectures on this, especially with regards to path integration. He makes a convincing mathematical argument that even if we assume that each particular aspect of the system in itself could fluctuate in any way imaginable (and that, in turn, is not something quantum mechanics states explicitly), the system as a whole still can be stable and prohibit the vast majority of outcomes.

Happy_Killbot

@MayCaesar Vacuum decay?