The Boundaries of Reality

Originally posted by no1marauder
As pointed out in this thread many moons ago, http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=67222
Bohm's ideas are far more compatible and the data you present supportive of Eastern concepts like maya in Hinduism than anything in Christianity.

That just proves your ignorance of Christian mysticism.

Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
Well, you need to be more careful.

C'mon! Now you're just being spiteful. 🙂

Originally posted by SwissGambit
The author is really s-t-r-e-t-c-h-i-n-g by using quantum physics/cosmology to indicate the existence of God. I think these subjects are interesting enough without using them as a cheap religious persuasion tool.

Fair enough. It's the science aspect of the chapter which blew my mind, and that's essentially what I wanted to share anyway. The references to the bible are just bonuses for me, because I love how it drives you guys nuts.

Originally posted by mdhall
If you are asking me why the above is bad science and bad metaphysics that means one of two things:

1) you did not read the above posts
2) you don't know anything about physics and metaphysics

Just read it and you'll know what I'm saying.
I didn't want to read it at first either, but it was only after the painful exercise that I realized how right my instincts were.

Hey, man, nobody forced you to read it. You've no one to blame for that but yourself. 🙂

It would be nice to hear some of your insights. Please feel free to elaborate. Assuming, of course, that you can...

Originally posted by epiphinehas
That just proves your ignorance of Christian mysticism.

Enlighten me. If you bothered to read any of the links given in my original thread, you'd see that Bohm and the scientists most interested in his work agree with the statement that the idea that the universe is an illusion is very compatible with the Hindu concept of maya. Since you are so obviously incredibly misinformed about other religions (like most fundies), I could help you out if you are interested (which I doubt).

The diversity or plurality that we encounter in our daily life is maya, non-existent from the standpoint of Ultimate Reality.

Swami Nikhilanda, in the introduction to The Upanishads (1949), p.51.

Originally posted by mdhall
If you are asking me why the above is bad science and bad metaphysics that means one of two things:

1) you did not read the above posts
2) you don't know anything about physics and metaphysics

Just read it and you'll know what I'm saying.
I didn't want to read it at first either, but it was only after the painful exercise that I realized how right my instincts were.

If you are asking me why the above is bad science and bad metaphysics...
Quite the contrary, Mr. Hall. I cited you for failure to mention the specifics of the errors. Perhaps you found the two sentences I submitted were also too painful to warrant a reading?

(It almost goes without saying that you have yet to describe the bad theology therein.)

Originally posted by mdhall
If you are asking me why the above is bad science and bad metaphysics that means one of two things:

1) you did not read the above posts
2) you don't know anything about physics and metaphysics

Just read it and you'll know what I'm saying.
I didn't want to read it at first either, but it was only after the painful exercise that I realized how right my instincts were.

Okay, here goes...

One of the most significant discoveries of twentieth-century science is that the universe is finite. Furthermore, it had a beginning. That fact has led to the various conjectures collectively known as the Big Bang Theory.

Patently false. A finite universe has not been proven.

We know from the laws of thermodynamics that energy travels from hot to cold. All processes in the universe inevitably contribute the losses from their inefficiencies to the ambient temperature. If the universe was infinite, the present ambient temperature would be uniform. It is not; therefore, it had a beginning, and it will ultimately suffer a "heat death" when the ambient temperature is uniform and no more heat transfers can occur.

False. For one, this assumes that the universe is a contained system. This is not a proven fact.
Assuming it was:
1. The second law of thermodynamics applies universally, but, as everyone can see, that does not mean that everything everywhere is always breaking down. The second law allows local decreases in entropy offset by increases elsewhere. The second law does not say that order from disorder is impossible; in fact, as anyone can see, order from disorder happens all the time.

2. The maximum entropy of a closed system of fixed volume is constant, but because the universe is expanding, its maximum entropy is ever increasing, giving ever more room for order to form (Stenger 1995, 228).

3. Disorder and entropy are not the same (Styer 2000). The second law of thermodynamics deals with entropy. There are no laws about things tending to "break down."

1. Stenger, Victor J., 1995. The Unconscious Quantum, Amherst, NY: Prometheus.
2. Styer, Daniel F. 2000. Insight into entropy. American Journal of Physics 68(12): 1090-1096.


Shall I continue tearing that crap apart?
/yawn

Originally posted by mdhall
Okay, here goes...

One of the most significant discoveries of twentieth-century science is that the universe is finite. Furthermore, it had a beginning. That fact has led to the various conjectures collectively known as the Big Bang Theory.[/i]

Patently false. A finite universe has not been proven.

We know from the laws of thermodynamics that Journal of Physics 68(12): 1090-1096.


Shall I continue tearing that crap apart?
/yawn

Much of your protest hangs on the achingly thin hope that the universe is (somehow) infinite. Please explain why you hold to such a position (be sure to include such goodies as support, etc.).

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Much of your protest hangs on the achingly thin hope that the universe is (somehow) infinite. Please explain why you hold to such a position (be sure to include such goodies as support, etc.).

Umm no.
I give you hard science and you come back with nothing and then ask more opinions. I have no interest in debating your beliefs. Believe whatever you want. But, don't think you can hustle everyone.

Here's the fact:
Charles Missler's book, Prophecy 20/20, is full of unscientific claims and conjecture. It's the classic "baffle them with bullsh**" approach.

Now you can go argue whatever you like with other people and you can do your own research into cosmology.

If it makes you feel any better, I had similar problems with books like The Tao of Physics and The Elegant Universe, but this authors attempt to hop on the bandwagon about 8 years too late is laughable.

Originally posted by mdhall
Umm no.
I give you hard science and you come back with nothing and then ask more opinions. I have no interest in debating your beliefs. Believe whatever you want. But, don't think you can hustle everyone.

Here's the fact:
Charles Missler's book, Prophecy 20/20, is full of unscientific claims and conjecture. It's the classic "baffle them with bullsh** ...[text shortened]... /i], but this authors attempt to hop on the bandwagon about 8 years too late is laughable.

I give you hard science and you come back with nothing and then ask more opinions.
Hard science? Tee-hee. You haven't answered the initial challenge, and I have not offered even one opinion. You can do better than this, I'm sure.

I have no interest in debating your beliefs.
When did my beliefs become the issue? Your charges are the issue, and you have yet to support the same.

Believe whatever you want.
Thanks for the green light on that one: I've been waiting my entire life for the go-ahead.

But, don't think you can hustle everyone.
You give me freedom and then you reign me in. Surely your benevolence mixed with discipline is a sign of love!

Charles Missler's book, Prophecy 20/20, is full of unscientific claims and conjecture. It's the classic "baffle them with bullsh**" approach.
While I will not argue against that, you'll have to do better than simple unfounded claims.

Now you can go argue whatever you like with other people and you can do your own research into cosmology.
I'd much rather sit at your feet and learn from the master.

...but this authors attempt to hop on the bandwagon about 8 years too late is laughable.
We can agree on this, at least. However, you still haven't offered your support for such charges. For my part, I consider most of what passes for Christian apologetics appalling. However, I have actual reasons for holding the same, not merely self-inflated disdain.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]I give you hard science and you come back with nothing and then ask more opinions.
Hard science? Tee-hee. You haven't answered the initial challenge, and I have not offered even one opinion. You can do better than this, I'm sure.

I have no interest in debating your beliefs.
When did my beliefs become the issue? Your charges are the i ...[text shortened]... owever, I have actual reasons for holding the same, not merely self-inflated disdain.[/b]

Your sarcasm isn't lost on me... rather heavy-handed really.

I answered the challenge to show some of why the book-posting is bad science. Do you want me to continue with why it's bad theology and bad metaphysics too?

What would you like to discuss with me?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Enlighten me. If you bothered to read any of the links given in my original thread, you'd see that Bohm and the scientists most interested in his work agree with the statement that the idea that the universe is an illusion is very compatible with the Hindu concept of maya. Since you are so obviously incredibly misinformed about other religions (like most ...[text shortened]... t of Ultimate Reality.

Swami Nikhilanda, in the introduction to The Upanishads (1949), p.51.

I think that you can help improve the quality of the discussions that you are engaged in by not being so flippant and insulting. Using phrases like "fundie" and "SuperDuper God" don't really help the discussion move forward. I expect such behavior from an (immature)adolescent. Are you under 18?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Chuck Missler is now a doctor?

Not really. That's what it says on the front of his book though. 😉

Originally posted by mdhall
Okay, here goes...

One of the most significant discoveries of twentieth-century science is that the universe is finite. Furthermore, it had a beginning. That fact has led to the various conjectures collectively known as the Big Bang Theory.

Patently false. A finite universe has not been proven.

We know from the laws of thermodynamics that Journal of Physics 68(12): 1090-1096.


Shall I continue tearing that crap apart?
/yawn

Good stuff. So, the Big Bang isn't hard science? And what about the Planck length, nonlocality and the implicate order? Hard science, or not?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Enlighten me. If you bothered to read any of the links given in my original thread, you'd see that Bohm and the scientists most interested in his work agree with the statement that the idea that the universe is an illusion is very compatible with the Hindu concept of maya. Since you are so obviously incredibly misinformed about other religions (like most ...[text shortened]... t of Ultimate Reality.

Swami Nikhilanda, in the introduction to The Upanishads (1949), p.51.

No, your help is not necessary, I understand that the Hindu concept of Maya jives with quantum physics. The biggest difference between Christian mysticism and Eastern mysticism is that there is no loss of personality in Christian mysticism. Communion with God, both now and for eternity, in Christian mysticism does not entail the loss of one's own unique personality, character, identity, etc. Before I became a Christian I was heavily involved in Eastern religions; Buddhism, Taoism, and particularly a certain variation of Sufism, so I may not be as misinformed as you assume I am.