Science Uprising: The Big Bang: Something from Nothing is here

@LCD You should only try to accurately reflect the rules used in common discourse, with statements of fact, like saying there is a camel out back, and statements of subjective opinion, like saying a painting is beautiful. Because then you will not have duplicity between what you say is true in common discourse, and what you say is true intellectually. mohammadnursyamsu

Objective=reality,facts ( 100% reason, 0% feelings.) Subjective=personal preference(cocoa vs vanilla, law vs engineering , football vs tennis, blondes vs brunettes,etc) 100% feelings . In morality realm: Objective=what God says. Subjective=a straw-man(or any other logical fallacy ) of Objective. Lieutenant Commander Data

@querius Because, as already mentioned, the logic is totally different. And I think rather than me being preoccupied with duality, you are preoccupied with oneness. As I remember, I myself had some trouble with breaking up the oneness, in finding 2 fundamental categories to reality. But I just investigate the logic used in common discourse, and follow the logic regardless. And besides it is still one coherent conceptual scheme, even there are 2 fundamental categories in it. mohammadnursyamsu

Mohammadnursyamsu,

One can make the concept human being to include both the human soul doing the choosing, and the created body, but at no point can there exist anything that is both objective and subjective in the human being.

Why not? -Q Querius

@querius The logic of subjectivity, and objectivity, are just totally different. One can make heteredox concepts to include both subjective and objective elements, but in reality there would be a split between subjective and objective, because of that the logic is totally different. One can make the concept human being to include both the human soul doing the choosing, and the created body, but at no point can there exist anything that is both objective and subjective in the human being. I maintain that creationist logic is inherent in common discourse, so that you have duplicity between your common discourse sayings, and your intellectual sayings. I doubt you can do intelligent design science about decisionmaking processes, without creationism, because the concept of choice only functions with agency as being inherently subjective. It requires freedom in identifying agency of a choice, in order to preserve freedom in the concept of choice. To assert a fact about agency, means to introduce force into the center of the concept of choice, because facts are forced by evidence. Which makes the concept of choice break down in contradiction between freedom and force. It should be very obvious that atheists have problems with free will, and deny it, precisely because they have problems with accepting the reality of what is inherently subjective, making the choices. And it is only for this reason that atheists are disgusting, because they do not accept the reality of what is subjective, they only accept the reality of what is objective. Systematically disregarding both the human spirit, people's emotions and personal character, and God the holy spirit, because they are not objective. mohammadnursyamsu

Mohammadnursyamsu,

You cannot really think efficiently without straightforward terminology.

Yes, you've made it abundantly clear that you classify everything as either subjective or objective. As I said, I don't think the subjective/objective classification is clear, and I don't think God should be in the same category as someone's opinion.

There are two kinds of people in the world: those who divide the world into two kinds of people, and those who don't – Robert Benchley

And that's my (subjective) opinion. -Q Querius

#1: Martin_r The moderator is Stephen Colbert on The Late Show and he and Krauss are actually good friends, so he was spoofing all in good fun. Kind of like when Discovery Institute personnel do softball interviews of each other on ID the Future. The only difference is that Colbert wasn’t actually trying to do a serious cosmology interview. He was just looking for laughs. Krauss took it all in good humor, obviously………. chuckdarwin

@querius You cannot really think efficiently without straightforward terminology. You just have too much appreciation for what is objective, and too little appreciation for what is subjective. You are just too much into the feelings of certitude associated to facts. There can be no doubt about it, that only what is subjective can decide anything, what is objective cannot decide anything. Logic dicates that. But this is all besides the point if you do not verify personally what rules are used with subjective words, in common discourse. If you do not see for yourself how things work, then it is just meaningless authority. mohammadnursyamsu

Mohammadnursyamsu,

You won’t get anywhere with cultural understanding of subjectivity and objectivity.

Yes, I agree. But I'm saying that those words have such a strong cultural context that it's difficult for me and likely others to shake it off. It would be better to choose new terms, such as Alice and Bob, or perhaps "Real" and "Emergent." In view of our understanding of quantum mechanics, it's been experimentally verified that our "subjective" conscious observation can collapse immaterial probability waves having no power of choice themselves and thus termed "objective" into the material existence termed "objective." Thus, both immaterial probability waves and immaterial mathematical concepts in the mind are "objective." Putting God and Fact into opposite categories, but putting God and Opinion in the same category doesn't seem right. The Logos creates and sustains the universe. My opinions do not. -Q Querius

Robert Sheldon: God is something everybody can appreciate. That’s his objective nature. But when He talks to me, it is my subjective experience, my prayer, my solace, my God. Just curious . . . if you had never had a subjective experience of God would you still think s/he had an objective nature? JVL

@querius You really should just investigate the rules used in common discourse. You won't get anywhere with cultural understanding of subjectivity and objectivity. 1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion 2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact By choice, the subjective creator, whose substance is called spiritual, and who is identified with a chosen opinion, creates the objective creation, the substance of which is called material, and which is identified with a fact forced by the evidence of it. So subjective means that it is identified with a chosen opinion, and objective means that it identified with a fact, forced by the evidence of it. Emotions, feelings, personal character, the spirit, the soul, God, are all in category 1. Which means they're all on the side of what makes a choice, the subtance of them is spiritual, and they are subjective, meaning they can only be identified with a chosen opinion. A fact is obtained by evidence of a creation forcing to produce a 1 to 1 corresponding model of it, in the mind. So facts are basically just copies of creations. Objects in the mind, abstractions, fantasyfigures, are creations all the same, so they are just as well material and objective. mohammadnursyamsu

Robert Sheldon @5, Great insights! You might already know, but I'd add that agency shows up in quantum mechanics as the power to choose and to observe, which collapses wavefunctions and convert probability waves into "tangible" reality. And the objectivication and classification of "nothing" or nonexistence is simply silly in my opinion. Mohammadnursyamsu @6, I'm beginning to understand what you're asserting. My problem is primarily with the ambiguity of the words "subjective" and "objective," which carry a lot of unintended baggage that can obscure discussion. Thus, it would make it easier for me, at least, to use a different vocabulary than asserting that the subjective is the ground for all reality, which makes it almost sound like a weak form of solipsism. The Bible describes Jesus as follows (I will leave one word untranslated from the Greek):

In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

Logos in Greek can be translated as word, the communication of a thought or concept, from which we get the English word, logic. It is information which according to quantum mechanics is in fact fundamental to all existence and reality! In another place, Jesus is described like this:

The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.

These statements are incredibly deep! They seem to indicate a personification of the infinite God into our reality. He is simultaneously both with God and is God. Thus, it's no surprise to me that we have great trouble understanding the infinite genius and power of the one God. So the people who trust in God through Jesus/Yeshua/Isa are offered a simplification of God's provision for humanity as "His Son." -Q Querius

@querius Yes, the subjective part of reality, decides what ends up in the objective part of reality. Which is proven by the rules we use with subjective words, like the word beautiful, in common discourse. Dictionary is just authority, and the authorities are mostly atheists. My explanation of subjectivity is intended to accurately reflect the rules used with subjective words, like the word beautiful, in common discourse. So I am all for it to use the common understanding of subjectivity, but only common as it is in engrained in common discourse, and not common as in what the majority of peole / atheists say subjectivity is. If anyone tries to accurately reflect the rules used with subjective words in common discourse, then they have an argument. But dictionaries, or generally anyone, doesn't do that. I predict atheism would not be a thing if people generally accepted the validity of subjectivity. We could easily defeat atheism, and socialism probably, just by accepting the validity of subjectivity. I'm not a Christian, and many say Jesus is not God, or the son of God. It is a matter of chosen opinion. The opinion expresses what the spirit was, in which Jesus made his choices, whether it was divine. Either chosen opinion is equally logically valid, to say Jesus is the son of God, and to say Jesus is not the son of God. It's also valid not to choose an opinion either way. The logical validity of an opinion does not say anything about whether the opinion is morally upright. A subjective opinion is valid if it is chosen, and if it expresses what it is that makes a choice. For example, to be forced to say a painting is beautiful, provides an invalid personal opinion. mohammadnursyamsu

Querius, You make some good points. Subjective truths are things that only I know. My pain. My hunger. My glory. My despair. They aren't fake, or non-existent, they are just mine alone. God is something everybody can appreciate. That's his objective nature. But when He talks to me, it is my subjective experience, my prayer, my solace, my God. Everything that has agency (the ability to act) and/or self-consciousness has both objective and subjective truths. (Sometimes its hard to tell if agency also includes self-consciousness--do lobsters feel pain?) We recognize agency when we talk of persons. God is a person. On the topic of non-existences, this is a problem in science in general, and theoretical physics in particular. The thousands of papers on wrong theories of dark matter are a form of non-existence. Somebody justified it by saying "We're making progress" or to quote Edison, "I know thousands of ways to not make a lightbulb." The problem with both statements is that non-existence, or wrong theories, or non-working lightbulbs are an infinite set. We actually are just as lost after 10 years in the woods as when we first entered because the woods are infinite. There can be no progress in mapping infinity. Robert Sheldon

Mohammadnursyamsu @3,

Still the id theorists do not comprehend that the creator refers to the subjective part of reality.

In many posts you divided reality into objective and subjective parts of reality. To clarify my understanding of what you're saying, did God as part of what you assert is subjective reality create what you assert is the objective reality? In my view, your definition of subjective and objective is unusual. According to Dictionary.com Subjective - Subjective definition, existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective). Also in Philosophy, relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself. Dictionary.com goes on to explain

Has someone ever asked for your objective opinion? Or said that something is “entirely subjective”? The words subjective and objective are used in all kinds of contexts, from journalism to science to grammar, and they’re often discussed as opposites. But what do they actually mean? In most cases, it comes down to whether something is based on personal experience or on verifiable facts. But it can get confusing. An opinion or viewpoint can be said to be objective or subjective, depending on how it was formed. We’re here to clear all of that up by explaining what each word means and how each should be used. Quick summary Subjective most commonly means based on the personal perspective or preferences of a person—the subject who’s observing something. In contrast, objective most commonly means not influenced by or based on a personal viewpoint—based on the analysis of an object of observation only.

I would imagine that God as Creator is not subject to my opinion nor yours. -Q Querius

Still the id theorists do not comprehend that the creator refers to the subjective part of reality. In principle one could find the choice by which the universe came to be. Then one would not find a physical brain there doing the deciding. What makes a choice, the creator, is subjective. Subjective means, that it can only be identified with a chosen opinion. So then finding the choice by which the universe was created, then you can choose the opinion God made that choice. You can also choose the opinion the choice was made in some ordinary spirt. You can choose the opinion that the choice has no spiritual significance. All who reject the validity of subjectivity, they are the same as materialists. Both subjectivity and objectivity are valid, each in their own right. Subjectivity are about a creator, about what it is that makes a choice, and objectivity is about the creation, what is chosen. mohammadnursyamsu

"Nothing" means non-existence. So, there are an infinite number of types of non-existence: - Non-existences that never existed - Non-existences that once existed but now do not exist - Non-existences that currently exist but will someday cease to exist - Non-existences that wink in and out of existence - Non-existences that are the result of logical contradictions such as "kosher ham" - Non-existences that depend on location as in the earth does not exist in the orbit of Pluto - Asymptotic non-existences that are fading into non-existence - Non-existences in non-Euclidean geometries and set theory - Non-existences in hypothesized Darwinian findings based on wishful thinking - Fulfillment of political promises and assurances - Even numbered non-existences And so on. So can I get a PhD on knowing more and more about less and less until I know everything about nothing? -Q Querius

i like the Lawrence Krauss interview part: the moderator sarcastically sums up:

you said there are three different types of 'nothing' ... i did not know, that there was such a variety'"

:))))))))))) then the moderator continues and asks bald-headed Krauss:

you haven't been rubbing any of that baby shampoo on your head have you -with the THC in it "

:))))))))))) when you listen to Darwinists talking about these things, all their absurd claims, all of them sound as they took a huge dose of THC ... martin_r