Agree? Don’t agree? Let’s hear from you in the combox.
He’s been a faithful commenter over the years.
Comments
Bornagain77, really? Then how do you defend your God impregnating a woman who was in awe of him, in spite of her being engaged to another man?
Did she feel that she had a choice? I don’t think so.
Maybe we should have a discussion about a being of power using his position of authority to impregnate a teenage girl.
I realize how this sounds. My main point is that the morals of 2000+ years ago are different than they are today. Modern morality would never condone the Christ narrative if it involved our daughters. We would be calling the police.Steve Alten2
January 26, 2021
January
01
Jan
26
26
2021
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT
Whatever Steve, I am more than confident that unbiased readers can clearly see whom is being fair and who is flippant.bornagain77
January 26, 2021
January
01
Jan
26
26
2021
06:25 PM
6
06
25
PM
PDT
Bornagain77, I have one question. Does your God believe in informed consent? Or does he believe that those with power have the right to impose their will?
OK, maybe it is two questions. :)Steve Alten2
January 26, 2021
January
01
Jan
26
26
2021
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT
Bornagain77 “ Steve Alten2 thinks he is being clever and humorous,”
Nope. Just observant.Steve Alten2
January 26, 2021
January
01
Jan
26
26
2021
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PDT
Steve Alten2 thinks he is being clever and humorous,
Be honest. How fast can you scroll past them? I can do it in 2 to 3 seconds on my iPhone, but I have worn a groove into the screen doing so. :)
Yet willful blindness in neither clever nor humorous, but is, in reality, sad.
Matthew 13:15
For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.'
bornagain77
January 26, 2021
January
01
Jan
26
26
2021
05:58 PM
5
05
58
PM
PDT
Kf: Do you believe there is one objectively correct answer to this question: Is it immoral for two people to get divorced when they don’t feel like they want to be married to each other?
Can you just answer that question in a sentence?Viola Lee
January 26, 2021
January
01
Jan
26
26
2021
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT
VL, my comment specifically annotated and drew out a natural law argument made by Jesus [itself something that is noteworthy on the overall discussion], your dismissiveness is therefore duly noted as indicating lack of serious engagement. I add, especially as the specific challenge you repeatedly put up dismissively was that I was unable to articulate from general first duties to particular cases, divorce being introduced as a less toxic example. That is, on fair comment you were simply trying to score dismissve rhetorical points. As for oh people have diverse views, they have diverse views on any number of subjects, that is why warrant -- an aspect of prudence -- informed by issues of truth and right reason becomes vital. Including that the suggested relativism is self-referentially incoherent: to claim there are no objective moral truths or truths in general is to make a truth claim and if it is focussed on morality, a moral truth claim, which is immediately self-defeating. KFkairosfocus
January 26, 2021
January
01
Jan
26
26
2021
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT
Viola Lee “ There is nothing new in the video that we all haven’t scrolled by before.”
Be honest. How fast can you scroll past them? I can do it in 2 to 3 seconds on my iPhone, but I have worn a groove into the screen doing so. :)Steve Alten2
January 26, 2021
January
01
Jan
26
26
2021
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT
Viola Lee dismisses John 1:1 and insinuates that John 1:1 has nothing whatsoever to do with quantum mechanics.,,, (he has 'scrolled past' the argument before so it is OK for him to ignore it now,,, is how he is apparently reasoning)
Yet Anton Zeilinger, who's experimentalist shoes Viola Lee, nor I, are worthy to tie, begs to differ with Viola Lee's assessment that Quantum Mechanics has nothing whatsoever to do with John !:!
Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe?
Excerpt: “In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: "In the beginning was the Word."
Anton Zeilinger - a leading expert in quantum mechanics
http://www.metanexus.net/archive/ultimate_reality/zeilinger.pdf
48:24 mark: “It is operationally impossible to separate Reality and Information”
49:45 mark: “In the Beginning was the Word” John 1:1
Prof Anton Zeilinger speaks on quantum physics. at UCT - video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3ZPWW5NOrw
49:28 mark: "This is now my personal opinion OK. Because we cannot operationally separate the two. Whenever we talk about reality, we think about reality, we are really handling information. The two are not separable. So maybe now, this is speculative here, maybe the two are the same? Or maybe information constitutive to the universe. This reminds me of the beginning the bible of St. John which starts with “In the Beginning was the Word”.,,,
Prof Anton Zeilinger speaks on quantum physics. at UCT - video
https://youtu.be/s3ZPWW5NOrw?t=2969
And here are a couple of more quotes that are very friendly to Zeilinger's overall point,
"I, like other searchers, attempt formulation after formulation of the central issues and here present a wider overview, taking for working hypothesis the most effective one that has survived this winnowing: It from Bit. Otherwise put, every it — every particle, every field of force, even the spacetime continuum itself — derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely — even if in some contexts indirectly — from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes or no questions, binary choices, bits.
It from Bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom — at a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation; that what we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler
"I think of my lifetime in physics as divided into three periods. In the first period, extending from the beginning of my career until the early 1950’s, I was in the grip of the idea that Everything Is Particles. I was looking for ways to build all basic entities – neutrons, protons, mesons, and so on – out of the lightest, most fundamental particles, electrons, and photons.
I call my second period Everything Is Fields. From the time I fell in love with general relativity and gravitation in 1952 until late in my career, I pursued the vision of a world made of fields, one in which the apparent particles are really manifestations of electric and magnetic fields, gravitational fields, and space-time itself.
Now I am in the grip of a new vision, that Everything Is Information. The more I have pondered the mystery of the quantum and our strange ability to comprehend this world in which we live, the more I see possible fundamental roles for logic and information as the bedrock of physical theory."
– J. A. Wheeler, K. Ford, Geons, Black Hole, & Quantum Foam: A Life in Physics New York W.W. Norton & Co, 1998, pp 63-64.
And here is a quote that I am particularly fond of,
"The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information–and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena."
Vlatko Vedral - Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, and CQT (Centre for Quantum Technologies) at the National University of Singapore, and a Fellow of Wolfson College - a recognized leader in the field of quantum mechanics.
The only thing I see that quote directly contradicting is the reductive materialistic philosophy that undergirds Darwinian thought.
And I certainly don't see any substantial contradiction with John 1:1
Perhaps Viola Lee would like to point out exactly how that quote is substantially different from what we read at the beginning of John:
John 1:1-4
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word 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.
bornagain77
January 26, 2021
January
01
Jan
26
26
2021
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT
KF, as I recall your post on divorce, most of what you posted was from the Bible, which isn't an argument, or referenced "natural law", which just another judgment call. Also, although you didn't say it directly and clearly, your position seemed to be that divorce just because people didn't want to be married to each other was immoral.
But you actually missed the whole point of my question, which was not whether divorce was moral or not, but rather how do we deal with the fact that people have different opinions. As I recall, your answer to that was some people reason well, and some don't.
One of the frustrating things about you and BA is that you can't answer in a clear, succinct paragraph or two, and your long, repetitive, rambling, quote and injections filled posts are not conducive to discussion.
Here's a test case. Do you believe there is one objectively correct answer to this question: Is it immoral for two people to get divorced when they don't feel like they want to be married to each other?
Can you just answer that question in a sentence?Viola Lee
January 26, 2021
January
01
Jan
26
26
2021
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT
VL, I cannot but notice how twice you have scrolled by direct responses to cases. First, in a previous thread you said how I could not address divorce [even though I had long ago done so in your presence], then when I explicitly did so again you went poof. As this was your talking point to side track the value and relevance of first duties of reason, that speaks and not in your favour. Above, I took time to recognise some very useful references BA77 has raised, that have standing whatever you may give his arguments -- I didn't know there is a for dummies on string theory, it seems the series has broadened out well beyond how to do web sites and use various programmes. That is noteworthy. BA77 quite often has food for thought clips and links well worth pondering, but calculated rhetorical dismissiveness -- and yes, that is how you begin to come across --will miss such.One does not have to agree with BA77 to recognise that he has raised fairly serious matters across time and should be treated with the modicum of courtesy that News has accorded him. I further took time above to speak to themes being debated by Mathematicians, as News has been highlighting and to which in part BA77 is addressing, i/l/o the Wigner issue on applicability of Math, something that is dealt with in more detail in a linked paper. It turns out that those issues tie to fairly serious world roots questions. Perhaps, those can be looked at. KF
PS: On Jn 1:1, the idea that communicative reason himself is the root of reality is not something to be brushed aside as though it is to be tagged as Christian/religious and sidelined as if that were automatically unserious. I would suggest that a fine tuned cosmos set up at an operating point conducive to C-chemistry, aqueous medium cell based life should give pause. Especially when we find alphanumeric code and molecular nanotech execution machinery in said cells. As Crick realised by March 19, 1953 in his letter to his son Michael. Code -- language; algorithms -- goal-directed and purposive. All built on what the fine tuned cosmos is set up to deliver. The old apostle has a serious point. At least for those not inclined to indulge Monod-Lewontin a priori materialistic question begging or fellow traveller assertions.kairosfocus
January 26, 2021
January
01
Jan
26
26
2021
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT
BA posted the text version of his video at a link on the video page. It is just a long version of the kind of things he posts here all the time, full of quotes. The basic idea is that he believes John 1:1 is the heart of the matter, and he thinks quantum mechanics prove that God and Jesus are behind it all. There is nothing new in the video that we all haven't scrolled by before.Viola Lee
January 26, 2021
January
01
Jan
26
26
2021
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT
Steve Alten2
So nothing, absolutely nothing, in the video is worthy of your attention? And is only worthy of your ridicule?
Well, thank you so much for blessing us with your towering scientific intellect. An intellect that is so far superior than ours that your decree is enough to render all counter arguments moot.
But then again, others not so enamored with your intellect, (like everyone else save for yourself), may question just how solid your scientific decrees are, especially given that you believe that unguided Darwinian evolution can produce a human brain
The Half-Truths of Materialist Evolution - DONALD DeMARCO - 02/06/2015
Excerpt: but I would like to direct attention to the unsupportable notion that the human brain, to focus on a single phenomenon, could possibly have evolved by sheer chance. One of the great stumbling blocks for Darwin and other chance evolutionists is explaining how a multitude of factors simultaneously coalesce to form a unified, functioning system. The human brain could not have evolved as a result of the addition of one factor at a time. Its unity and phantasmagorical complexity defies any explanation that relies on pure chance. It would be an underestimation of the first magnitude to say that today’s neurophysiologists know more about the structure and workings of the brain than did Darwin and his associates.
Scientists in the field of brain research now inform us that a single human brain contains more molecular-scale switches than all the computers, routers and Internet connections on the entire planet! According to Stephen Smith, a professor of molecular and cellular physiology at the Stanford University School of Medicine, the brain’s complexity is staggering, beyond anything his team of researchers had ever imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief. In the cerebral cortex alone, each neuron has between 1,000 to 10,000 synapses that result, roughly, in a total of 125 trillion synapses, which is about how many stars fill 1,500 Milky Way galaxies!
A single synapse may contain 1,000 molecular-scale switches. A synapse, simply stated, is the place where a nerve impulse passes from one nerve cell to another.
Phantasmagorical as this level of unified complexity is, it places us merely at the doorway of the brain’s even deeper mind-boggling organization. Glial cells in the brain assist in neuron speed. These cells outnumber neurons 10 times over, with 860 billion cells. All of this activity is monitored by microglia cells that not only clean up damaged cells but also prune dendrites, forming part of the learning process. The cortex alone contains 100,000 miles of myelin-covered, insulated nerve fibers.
The process of mapping the brain would indeed be time-consuming. It would entail identifying every synaptic neuron. If it took a mere second to identify each neuron, it would require four billion years to complete the project.
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/the-half-truths-of-materialist-evolution/
Imagine you would be the most genius inventor of all time - 2017
Excerpt: - The human brain (86 billion neurons) at 10^8,342 bits exceeding the bit capacity of the entire universe at 10^120 bits upon which a maximum of 10^90 bits could have been operated on in the last 14 billion years. In order to put such numbers into perspective, realize that the number of elementary particles (protons, neutron, electrons) in the physical universe is only 10^80. I have serious doubts—based on these numbers—that any input fails to be encoded in some way; but with what computer would we track all of that? position this more simply in terms of the fact that the storage capacity on just one human brain is equivalent to 10^8,419 modern computers. Its dense network of neurons apparently operates at a petaFLOPS or higher level. Yet the whole device fits in a 1-liter box and uses only about 10 watts of power
It houses 200 billion nerve cells, which are connected to one another via hundreds of trillions of synapses. Each synapse functions like a microprocessor, and tens of thousands of them can connect a single neuron to other nerve cells. In the cerebral cortex alone, there are roughly 125 trillion synapses, which is about how many stars fill 1,500 Milky Way galaxies.
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2522-imagine-you-would-be-the-most-genius-inventor-of-all-time
Bornagain77 “ Hmmm, since Mike and Steve resorted to mocking the video instead of engaging the arguments put forth in the video, I think this is a fitting response for them:”
Sorry, there were serious arguments made in the video? I must not have noticed them. Perhaps you can present the best argument in less than a hundred words. I won’t hold my breath.Steve Alten2
January 26, 2021
January
01
Jan
26
26
2021
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT
Thanks for the feedback Bill Cole and KF.
To put another reason on the table as to why I find the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead to be a VERY plausible solution that bridges the infinite mathematical divide that separates General Relativity from Quantum Mechanics,,,
Why Gravity Is Not Like the Other Forces
We asked four physicists why gravity stands out among the forces of nature. We got four different answers.
Excerpt: the quantum version of Einstein’s general relativity is “nonrenormalizable.”,,,
In quantum theories, infinite terms appear when you try to calculate how very energetic particles scatter off each other and interact. In theories that are renormalizable — which include the theories describing all the forces of nature other than gravity — we can remove these infinities in a rigorous way by appropriately adding other quantities that effectively cancel them, so-called counterterms. This renormalization process leads to physically sensible answers that agree with experiments to a very high degree of accuracy.
The problem with a quantum version of general relativity is that the calculations that would describe interactions of very energetic gravitons — the quantized units of gravity — would have infinitely many infinite terms. You would need to add infinitely many counterterms in a never-ending process. Renormalization would fail.,,,
Sera Cremonini – theoretical physicist – Lehigh University
https://www.quantamagazine.org/why-gravity-is-not-like-the-other-forces-20200615/
,,, to bridge that infinite mathematical divide between the two theories, it is interesting to note how each theory handles entropy.
Both theories handle entropy in, essentially, completely different ways. In Quantum information theory we now find that, "an object does not have a certain amount of entropy per se, instead an object’s entropy is always dependent on the observer.”
In the following 2011 paper, “researchers ,,, show that when the bits (in a computer) to be deleted are quantum-mechanically entangled with the state of an observer, then the observer could even withdraw heat from the system while deleting the bits. Entanglement links the observer’s state to that of the computer in such a way that they know more about the memory than is possible in classical physics.,,, In measuring entropy, one should bear in mind that (in quantum information theory) an object does not have a certain amount of entropy per se, instead an object’s entropy is always dependent on the observer.”
Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy – June 1, 2011
Excerpt: Recent research by a team of physicists,,, describe,,, how the deletion of data, under certain conditions, can create a cooling effect instead of generating heat. The cooling effect appears when the strange quantum phenomenon of entanglement is invoked.,,,
The new study revisits Landauer’s principle for cases when the values of the bits to be deleted may be known. When the memory content is known, it should be possible to delete the bits in such a manner that it is theoretically possible to re-create them. It has previously been shown that such reversible deletion would generate no heat. In the new paper, the researchers go a step further. They show that when the bits to be deleted are quantum-mechanically entangled with the state of an observer, then the observer could even withdraw heat from the system while deleting the bits. Entanglement links the observer’s state to that of the computer in such a way that they know more about the memory than is possible in classical physics.,,,
In measuring entropy, one should bear in mind that an object does not have a certain amount of entropy per se, instead an object’s entropy is always dependent on the observer. Applied to the example of deleting data, this means that if two individuals delete data in a memory and one has more knowledge of this data, she perceives the memory to have lower entropy and can then delete the memory using less energy.,,,
No heat, even a cooling effect;
In the case of perfect classical knowledge of a computer memory (zero entropy), deletion of the data requires in theory no energy at all. The researchers prove that “more than complete knowledge” from quantum entanglement with the memory (negative entropy) leads to deletion of the data being accompanied by removal of heat from the computer and its release as usable energy. This is the physical meaning of negative entropy.
Renner emphasizes, however, “This doesn’t mean that we can develop a perpetual motion machine.” The data can only be deleted once, so there is no possibility to continue to generate energy. The process also destroys the entanglement, and it would take an input of energy to reset the system to its starting state. The equations are consistent with what’s known as the second law of thermodynamics: the idea that the entropy of the universe can never decrease. Vedral says “We’re working on the edge of the second law. If you go any further, you will break it.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110601134300.htm
And as the following 2017 article states: James Clerk Maxwell (said), “The idea of dissipation of energy depends on the extent of our knowledge.”,,,
,, "quantum information theory,,, describes the spread of information through quantum systems.,,,
Fifteen years ago, “we thought of entropy as a property of a thermodynamic system,” he said. “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,
The Quantum Thermodynamics Revolution – May 2017
Excerpt: the 19th-century physicist James Clerk Maxwell put it, “The idea of dissipation of energy depends on the extent of our knowledge.”
In recent years, a revolutionary understanding of thermodynamics has emerged that explains this subjectivity using quantum information theory — “a toddler among physical theories,” as del Rio and co-authors put it, that describes the spread of information through quantum systems. Just as thermodynamics initially grew out of trying to improve steam engines, today’s thermodynamicists are mulling over the workings of quantum machines. Shrinking technology — a single-ion engine and three-atom fridge were both experimentally realized for the first time within the past year — is forcing them to extend thermodynamics to the quantum realm, where notions like temperature and work lose their usual meanings, and the classical laws don’t necessarily apply.
They’ve found new, quantum versions of the laws that scale up to the originals. Rewriting the theory from the bottom up has led experts to recast its basic concepts in terms of its subjective nature, and to unravel the deep and often surprising relationship between energy and information — the abstract 1s and 0s by which physical states are distinguished and knowledge is measured.,,,
Renato Renner, a professor at ETH Zurich in Switzerland, described this as a radical shift in perspective. Fifteen years ago, “we thought of entropy as a property of a thermodynamic system,” he said. “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,
https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-thermodynamics-revolution/
Whereas in General Relativity we find that entropy is a property of the system, not of the observer who describes the system.
In fact, in General Relativity we find that 'supermassive black holes are the largest contributor to the observable universe’s entropy.'
Entropy of the Universe - Hugh Ross - May 2010
Excerpt: Egan and Lineweaver found that supermassive black holes are the largest contributor to the observable universe’s entropy. They showed that these supermassive black holes contribute about 30 times more entropy than what the previous research teams estimated.
https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/todays-new-reason-to-believe/read/tnrtb/2010/05/10/entropy-of-the-universe
As Penrose himself stated, "the singularities in black holes would be expected to be totally chaotic",,,
How Special Was The Big Bang?
“But why was the big bang so precisely organized (to 1 in 10^10^123 for the initial entropy), whereas the big crunch (or the singularities in black holes) would be expected to be totally chaotic? It would appear that this question can be phrased in terms of the behaviour of the WEYL part of the space-time curvature at space-time singularities. What we appear to find is that there is a constraint WEYL = 0 (or something very like this) at initial space-time singularities-but not at final singularities-and this seems to be what confines the Creator’s choice to this very tiny region of phase space."
Roger Penrose – (from the Emperor’s New Mind, Penrose, pp 339-345 copyright 1989, Penguin Books)
http://www.ws5.com/Penrose/
Just how entropically destructive black holes actually are in touched upon in the following quote by Kip Thorne,
"Einstein's equation predicts that, as the astronaut reaches the singularity (of the black-hole), the tidal forces grow infinitely strong, and their chaotic oscillations become infinitely rapid. The astronaut dies and the atoms which his body is made become infinitely and chaotically distorted and mixed-and then, at the moment when everything becomes infinite (the tidal strengths, the oscillation frequencies, the distortions, and the mixing), spacetime ceases to exist."
Kip S. Thorne - "Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy" pg. 476
http://books.google.com/books?id=GzlrW6kytdoC&pg=PA476#v=onepage&q&f=false
Kip Thorne and Charles Misner, and John Wheeler wrote Gravitation (1973), considered a definitive textbook on general relativity.
And since 'spacetime ceases to exist', then the ‘eternity’ that is found at a black hole can rightly be called an ‘eternity of decay, death, and destruction’.
Needless to say, to those of us who are of, shall we say, a spiritually minded persuasion, this finding of an eternity of death, decay, and destruction at the singularity of the black-hole should be a fairly sobering realization.
Moreover, to point out the obvious implication in all this, in order to successfully unify quantum mechanics and general relativity then the 'infinitely destructive' entropy associated with General Relativity, via black holes, must be successfully dealt with, And I would also hold that, since mathematics is at a dead end as to bridging the infinite mathematical divide between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, then the 'infinite death and destruction' that is intimately associated with General Relativity must necessarily be dealt with by the 'observer who describes the system' in Quantum Mechanics.
And, of course, as a Christian I would hold that that 'Observer' describing the system is exactly what we have in Jesus Christ's resurrection from the dead by God.
Acts 2:24
But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.
In regards to gravity being dealt with, and to quote from Isabel Piczek, a particle physicist who has studied the Shroud of Turin in detail,
“When you look at the image of the shroud, the two bodies next to each other, you feel that it is a flat image. But if you create, for instance, a three dimensional object, as I did, the real body, then you realize that there is a strange dividing element. An interface from which the image is projected up and the image is projected down. The muscles of the body are absolutely not crushed against the stone of the tomb. They are perfect. It means the body is hovering between the two sides of the shroud. What does that mean? It means there is absolutely no gravity. Other strange you discover is that the image is absolutely undistorted. Now if you imagine the clothe was wrinkled, tied, wrapped around the body, and all of the sudden you see a perfect image, which is impossible unless the shroud was made absolutely taut, rigidly taut.”
Isabel Piczek -
Turin shroud – (Particle Physicist explains the ‘event horizon’ on the Shroud of Turin) – video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27Ru3_TWuiY
It is such consistent findings like these, findings that pull together seemingly irreconcilable facts,,,, it is such consistent findings like these that continually pulls me back to postulating Jesus Christ's resurrection from the dead as the correct solution for the much sought after 'theory of everything'.
Like the proverbial missing piece of a puzzle that is finally found, Christ's resurrection from the dead fits a little too perfectly into the final hole of the puzzle to bring the puzzle to a satisfactory completion, whereas all other pieces offered as a correct solution have failed miserably to fill that final hole in the puzzle.bornagain77
January 26, 2021
January
01
Jan
26
26
2021
03:34 AM
3
03
34
AM
PDT
BA77,
you have certainly put on the table a collection of exotic food for thought that is not the sort of stuff we commonly read in headlines or chyrons scrolling across TV screens. That is in itself a service, starting with yup there is a String Theory For Dummies out there that goes beyond say Wikipedia.
I am reminded of the challenge of bounded rationality. We are finite, fallible, morally and intellectually struggling, too often ill-willed and downright cruel. At our best, "we see through a glass darkly." (In the case of telescopes, fairly literally; on the micro side, that's a pretty good analogy.)
Physics and Mathematics are likely the number one and number two test cases. There is reason to believe the Wigner problem of astonishment at relevance of Math to Physics and its power in summary and accurate prediction, even giving the tools to think about what is on our collective plates is quite remarkable. Astonishingly, the cosmos and its contents are amenable to mathematical modelling, which can be astonishingly reliable. As a partial answer, as you know, I have suggested -- pivoting on the quantitative implications for the distinct identity of any possible world W with some aspect A that marks it apart from a near neighbour W' that we can recognise W = {A|~A} and onward see 0,1,2 immediately and from that extend to N by von Neumann succession, thence N,Z,Q,R,C,R* etc as necessary framework to any W -- that a certain core of Math is universally valid across actualities and possibilities; giving high confidence in applicability of Math. Math, here being understood as [the study of] the logic of structure and quantity, i.e. an exposition of logic of being, with a core as identified in part being necessary, world framework entities partly constitutive of any W. Necessary entities are of course eternal, there is no W in which say 2 began to exist at some point, or can cease from being constitutive fabric threaded through W and all its constituents. Never mind its abstract, non active causal nature, it is part of the logic of possibilities that universally and eternally constrains being.
Such is shocking, a shock that forces us to contemplate the infinite, the eternal, necessity of being, root of reality. Indeed, in what sense, can such abstract entities hold being at all much less pervasive eternal reality? We are aware of debates among Mathematicians, all the way from platonic realism to utter fictionalism of mind games played with an apparatus of increasingly esoteric symbols on the tax payer or endowment dollar that somehow by strange coincidence happen to be often effective at least for things of interest.
We have on the table, a reason to see why abstract logic model worlds spun out from historic extensions of tally sticks and land surveys of Nile-flooded land then greatly extended once Algebra, Coordinate Geometry and Calculus opened up worlds of applications and once we saw that Euclid's space wasn't the only possibility, will be in some cases universal and in others good enough to guide us in our particular in-common actuality.
Turning to the puzzle-filled depths of modern physics and the attempts to synthesise a grand, synoptic view of the very large and the very small, actuality and possibility, it is perhaps unsurprising that we keep on running into conundrums. The map is not equal to the territory is, after all proverbial. Theoretical frameworks are in the end models and as Lakatos modified Kuhn, theories are born, live and die with "refuted" character. That is, big enough theories bristle with puzzles and anomalies. We are humbled into competing research programmes duly dressed up in sophisticated mathematical apparatus, but on the pessimistic induction, none of them rise to moral certainty, much less fact-uality. They would not be allowed to convict a defendant in court.
We see through a glass darkly, we know in part, we prophesy in part.
So, another helping of humble pie, please.
As for Logos, there is no good reason to reject that our astonishingly mathematically ordered, fine tuned world with finite, fallible creatures capable of the freedom to reason and do Math and Physics, is akin to a mathematically ordered model, instantiated. So, that we would sometimes be able to think some of God's simpler thoughts after him, hearing an echo of Eternal Mind, is in the end reasonable and responsible. Where, fact one is our own conscious, rational selves in a partly intelligible to us world.
I am not about to delve on the Shroud, but before we even look at such, there is pretty good reason to ponder a creation coming from powerful mind and of course that Mind would be root reality, World Zero so to speak.
W_0 being, a necessary world framework, eternal being with power to create worlds, including at least one inhabited by creatures with sufficient freedom to be rational and responsible, embodied beings governed by the oughtness of first duties of reason, not by mere cause-effect chains of initial conditions, signals and codes playing out blindly in some computational substrate.
Where, such moral government of a responsible, rational creature further constrains W_0. After Hume's surprise at seeing arguments post W_0, which go is-is then inexplicably leap to ought, and after Socrates' argument on the Euthyphro dilemma, we see that W_0 must non-arbitrarily bridge the is-ought gap. That requires that W_0 exhibits inherent goodness fused with thoroughgoing utter wisdom, rendering deceitful talking tigers detectable on failing that test and pointing to the sole serious candidate to be W_0, i.e. we have a bill of requisites for the God of Ethical Theism.
The objector is invited to put up a coherent, adequate alternative _______
prediction, pretty hard to do.
KF
Mathematics confrontskairosfocus
January 26, 2021
January
01
Jan
26
26
2021
01:40 AM
1
01
40
AM
PDT
Hi BA 77
This model sounds interesting. I hope you will continue to develop it.bill cole
January 25, 2021
January
01
Jan
25
25
2021
11:40 PM
11
11
40
PM
PDT
Hmmm, since Mike and Steve resorted to mocking the video instead of engaging the arguments put forth in the video, I think this is a fitting response for them:
Steve Alten2, since Mike1962 did not reply to my response to him, and you have apparently joined with him in condemning the video as being 'retarded', perhaps you like to state, (presuming you even bothered to watch the video before condemning it), the exact reason why you personally find the argument(s) made in the video to be 'retarded'.
Or is it beneath your dignity to even give Christ's resurrection from the dead serious consideration as to being a plausible explanation for the quote unquote 'theory of everything'? i.e. As a plausible explanation for the main. purpose for why the entire universe even exists in the first place?
Matthew 28:18
Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me,"
Colossians 1:15-20
The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
bornagain77
January 25, 2021
January
01
Jan
25
25
2021
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT
Mike1962 “ Come on. This is just dumb.
There are very good reason to have various beliefs, but this video is borderline retarded.”
Just borderline? :)Steve Alten2
January 25, 2021
January
01
Jan
25
25
2021
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT
ET, yes exactly! Brady inspired them with his performance and leadership. Kinda like how JC and the HS inspired the apostles.MikeW
January 25, 2021
January
01
Jan
25
25
2021
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT
Brady looked like a chump in the 2nd half. The defense saved him.ET
January 25, 2021
January
01
Jan
25
25
2021
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT
I don't know about TOE, but Tom Brady is the Super-GOAT!MikeW
January 25, 2021
January
01
Jan
25
25
2021
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT
BA said:
The empirical evidence that we currently have in hand for this universe, is what supports my claim, not the non existence of empirical evidence for any other ‘possible’ universe.
Other than the fact I, and countless others, have actually, empirically experienced some of those other "possible" universes, okay.William J Murray
January 25, 2021
January
01
Jan
25
25
2021
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT
To tell you the truth WJM, I have no idea what you are going on about.
The empirical evidence is what it is. I laid out my case for Jesus Christ providing the correct solution to the much sought after 'theory of everything' from the empirical evidence itself. i.e. The empirical evidence that we currently have in hand for this universe, is what supports my claim, not the non existence of empirical evidence for any other 'possible' universe.
To go beyond what the empirical evidence itself allows you to claim is, clearly, to engage in unfounded philosophical speculations. Amusing, perhaps even educational, but it is not science.
Again, to go beyond the empirical evidence itself and engage in rampant speculation about other undetectable universes is simply not how science works!
The empirical evidence itself is what has the final say in science. At least, that is the way that it is suppose to be. And that is what I have appealed to in my argument.
If you want to engage in philosophical speculations about other 'possible worlds', I suggest you write for, or look up, Dr William Lane Craig writings. I've seen him engage in that sort of argument fairly knowledgeably.bornagain77
January 25, 2021
January
01
Jan
25
25
2021
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT
The arrangement of the evidence you provide, BA, is not necessarily and exclusively evidence that the being and spiritual cosmology derived thereof for the "god" of the Bible is actually "God."
I call this the "Talking Tiger" problem. If I meet a tiger that can talk, claims to be God, predicts events before they happen or are known, and can generate all sorts of marvelous, inexplicable events that look like magic ... should I believe him? Should I adhere to what the talking tiger says are my spiritual rules and adopt his metaphysical perspective?
The only way to "prove" that the only reality that exists is the one described by the Bible is to show, logically, that it is the only possible world, and we both know there isn't a chance of that. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on one's perspective,) if we go by logic, every possible world necessarily exists, and the one described by the Bible would, generally speaking, just be one of an infinite number.
But then, that's why faith is necessary in that perspective, right?William J Murray
January 25, 2021
January
01
Jan
25
25
2021
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT
And Mike, as I further pointed out in the video which you found to be 'borderline retarded', besides general relativity overturning the Copernican principle, quantum mechanics itself also now overturns the Copernican principle.
Although, in the video, I listed several evidences from quantum mechanics to drive this point home, for me personally, the strongest evidence from quantum mechanics that overturns the Copernican principle is the closing of the 'setting independence' and/or 'free will' loop hole.
Although there have been several major loopholes in quantum mechanics over the past several decades that atheists have tried to appeal to in order to try to avoid the ‘spooky’ Theistic implications of quantum mechanics, over the past several years each of those major loopholes have each been closed one by one. The last major loophole that was left to be closed was the “setting independence” and/or the ‘free-will’ loophole:
Closing the ‘free will’ loophole: Using distant quasars to test Bell’s theorem – February 20, 2014
Excerpt: Though two major loopholes have since been closed, a third remains; physicists refer to it as “setting independence,” or more provocatively, “free will.” This loophole proposes that a particle detector’s settings may “conspire” with events in the shared causal past of the detectors themselves to determine which properties of the particle to measure — a scenario that, however far-fetched, implies that a physicist running the experiment does not have complete free will in choosing each detector’s setting. Such a scenario would result in biased measurements, suggesting that two particles are correlated more than they actually are, and giving more weight to quantum mechanics than classical physics.
“It sounds creepy, but people realized that’s a logical possibility that hasn’t been closed yet,” says MIT’s David Kaiser, the Germeshausen Professor of the History of Science and senior lecturer in the Department of Physics. “Before we make the leap to say the equations of quantum theory tell us the world is inescapably crazy and bizarre, have we closed every conceivable logical loophole, even if they may not seem plausible in the world we know today?”
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140220112515.htm
And now Anton Zeilinger and company have recently, as of 2018, pushed the ‘free will loophole’ back to 7.8 billion years ago, thereby firmly establishing the ‘common sense’ fact that the free will choices of the experimenter in the quantum experiments are truly free and are not determined by any possible causal influences from the past for at least the last 7.8 billion years, and that the experimenters themselves are therefore shown to be truly free to choose whatever measurement settings in the experiments that he or she may so desire to choose so as to ‘logically’ probe whatever aspect of reality that he or she may be interested in probing.
Cosmic Bell Test Using Random Measurement Settings from High-Redshift Quasars – Anton Zeilinger – 14 June 2018
Excerpt: This experiment pushes back to at least approx. 7.8 Gyr ago the most recent time by which any local-realist influences could have exploited the “freedom-of-choice” loophole to engineer the observed Bell violation, excluding any such mechanism from 96% of the space-time volume of the past light cone of our experiment, extending from the big bang to today.
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.080403
Moreover, with human observers, via their free will, now being brought into the laws of physics at their most fundamental level, and with the overturning of the Copernican principle by both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, then it now becomes, at least, theoretically plausible for God, via his son Jesus Christ, to bridge the infinite mathematical divide that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.
John 6:38
because I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me.
And as I further argued in the video, when we rightly the Agent Causality of God ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands with the closing of the free will loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company, then that provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between quantum mechanics and general relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”.
And Mike, as I further pointed out in the 'borderline retarded' video, the Shroud of Turin itself gives us empirical evidence that both gravity and quantum mechanics were dealt with.
So a key piece of evidence for establishing the validity of the 'borderline retarded' claim that I made in the video is the Shroud of Turin itself.
So in order for you to 'easily' refute my 'borderline retarded' argument you can simply show that the Shroud of Turin is a fake.
Good luck with that. The Shroud of Turin simply refuses to be refuted despite numerous attempts to refute its authenticity.
In fact, the evidence for the Shroud's authenticity keeps growing stronger in spite of numerous attempts that tried to prove it was merely a medieval forgery.
Here is a timeline of facts that supports the Shroud's authenticity:
What Is the Shroud of Turin? Facts & History Everyone Should Know - Myra Adams and Russ Breault - November 08, 2019
https://www.christianity.com/wiki/jesus-christ/what-is-the-shroud-of-turin.html
And I hold that the Shroud of Turin is indeed the 'extraordinary evidence' that is required to meet the demand of the 'extraordinary claim' that I made in the video that Jesus Christ's resurrection from the dead does indeed provide us with the correct solution for the much sought after 'theory of everything'.
Basically, we have a clothe with a photographic negative image on it that was made well before photography was even invented. Moreover, the photographic negative image has a 3-Dimensional holographic nature to its image that was somehow encoded within the photographic negative well before holography was even known about. Moreover, even with our present day technology, we still cannot replicated the image in all its detail.
My question to atheists is this, if you truly believe some mad genius forger in the middle ages made this image, then please pray tell why did this mad genius save all his genius for this supposed forgery alone and not for, say, inventing photography itself since he surely would have required mastery of photography to pull off the forgery? Not to mention mastery of laser holography? Moreover, why did this hypothetical mad super-genius destroy all of his scientific instruments that he would have had to invent in order to make the image? Leonardo da Vinci would not have been worthy to tie the shoe laces of such a hypothetical mad genius!
As Silver Asiatic commented,
These are big questions to deal with. I’ve never seen any of the shroud-skeptics address this.
We see claims that “the shroud is a forgery” and then the discussion ends with that. It seems obvious to me that the skeptics are afraid to go any further and are just relieved that they “silenced” the shroud.
But wait – yes, who was this forger? We have 3-D, photographic image of amazing subtlety and refinement. Yes, it’s something that transcends the genius of Leonardo DaVinci. We continue to use 21st century technology just to try to reproduce it.
But nobody knows the name or origin of this artistic genius? There is no evidence of a workshop or artistic guild where this innovative creation was designed? Nobody from history ever mentioned this person? This genius-artist only produced this one masterpiece work – a holographic image on a cloth (containing pollen traceable to Jerusalem)? It was not framed or put on display. Not sold to anyone. The artist got nothing from creating it. Even the name of the genius artist disappeared. He never influenced any other artists. No family, friends, artistic community – not even the parish church – ever knew or said who he was?
Amazingly, we only discovered the true power of the image when we took a photo negative of it in the 20th century. Yes, where are the medieval instruments used to create it? Everything was just accidentally lost?
- Silver Asiatic
Thus Mike, you may personally find the proposition that Jesus Christ's resurrection from the dead provides us with the correct solution for the much sought after 'theory of everything' to be a 'borderline retarded' proposition but, aside from your initial gut reaction, you simply have not provided any actual scientific evidence as to why the proposition should, in fact, be considered 'borderline retarded.'
Are we just suppose to take your personal opinion that it is 'borderline retarded'?
Mike, that simply is not how science works!
After all, with the overturning of Copernican Principle by both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, and with the overturning of the 'free will' loop hole in quantum mechanics, then it now becomes, at least, theoretically plausible for God, via his son Jesus Christ, to bridge the infinite mathematical divide that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.
John 6:38
because I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me.
So again Mike, aside from your initial gut reaction of the proposition being 'borderline retarded', you simply have not presented any scientific evidence that would refute the VERY scientifically plausible claim that I have laid out in the video.
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
– Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, stated by Sherlock Holmes
bornagain77
January 25, 2021
January
01
Jan
25
25
2021
04:41 AM
4
04
41
AM
PDT
Mike1962 states,
Come on. This is just dumb.
There are very good reason to have various beliefs, but this video is borderline retarded.
Now Mike, without knowing the specific reason why you think "this video is borderline retarded" I can only assume that you hold that the entire premise of the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead providing the correct solution to the theory of everything is what is "borderline retarded".
And indeed such a proposition, at first glance, should invoke such a response of being 'borderline retarded'.
It is indeed an extraordinary claim,,, and as the often misused mantra states, 'extraordinary claims' demand extraordinary evidence'.
But that 'extraordinary evidence' is precisely what I provided in the video.
For instance, in the video I made the extraordinary claim that the Copernican principle, and/or the principle of mediocrity, (which is widely accepted as unquestionably true), has been overturned by both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.
Is that extraordinary claim what you find "borderline retarded' Mike?
If so, it is the scientific evidence itself that you are finding to be "borderline retarded'. i.e. It is the scientific evidence that you have a problem with not with my claim.
In other words, in science, in order to refute a claim that you find to be ''borderline retarded' you cannot just say that you find it to be 'borderline retarded' but you must instead present the actual scientific evidence that empirically demonstrates that it is in fact a false claim.
And you simply don't have the empirical evidence to refute my 'borderline retarded' claim.
As George Ellis himself stated, "I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations… You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds…"
“People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations… For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations… You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds… What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”
– George Ellis – W. Wayt Gibbs, “Profile: George F. R. Ellis,” Scientific American, October 1995, Vol. 273, No.4, p. 55
Moreover, in the interest of time, in the video I excluded some evidence that further drives this 'borderline retarded' point home.
For instance, there are 'anomalies' that are now found in the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation' (CMBR) that are found to strangely line up with the earth and solar system.
What Is Evil About The Axis Of Evil? - February 17, 2015
The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) Radiation contains small temperature fluctuations.
When these temperature fluctuations are analyzed using image processing techniques (specifically spherical harmonics), they indicate a special direction in space, or, in a sense, an axis through the universe. This axis is correlated back to us, and causes many difficulties for the current big bang and standard cosmology theories. What has been discovered is shocking.
Two scientists, Kate Land and João Magueijo, in a paper in 2005 describing the axis, dubbed it the “Axis of Evil” because of the damage it does to current theories, and (tongue in cheek) as a response to George Bush’ Axis of Evil speech regarding Iraq, Iran and, North Korea.
(Youtube clip on site)
In the above video, Max Tegmark describes in a simplified way how spherical harmonics analysis decomposes the small temperature fluctuations into more averaged and spatially arranged temperature components, known as multipoles.
The “Axis of Evil” correlates to the earth’s ecliptic and equinoxes, and this represents a very unusual and unexpected special direction in space, a direct challenge to the Copernican Principle.
http://www.theprinciplemovie.com/evil-axis-evil/
At the 13:55 minute mark of this following video, Max Tegmark, an atheist who specializes in this area of study, finally admits, post Planck 2013, that the CMBR anomalies do indeed line up with the earth and solar system
"Thoughtcrime: The Conspiracy to Stop The Principle" - video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=0eVUSDy_rO0#t=832
Here is an excellent clip from "The Principle" that explains all of these ‘anomalies’ in the CMBR in an easy to understand manner.
Cosmic Microwave Background Proves Intelligent Design (disproves Copernican principle) (clip of “The Principle”) - video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htV8WTyo4rw
Moreover besides the earth and solar system lining up with the anomalies in the Cosmic Background Radiation, Radio Astronomy now reveals a surprising rotational coincidence for Earth in relation to the quasar and radio galaxy distributions in the universe:
Is there a violation of the Copernican principle in radio sky? - Ashok K. Singal - May 17, 2013?
Abstract: Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) observations from the WMAP satellite have shown some unexpected anisotropies (directionally dependent observations), which surprisingly seem to be aligned with the ecliptic\cite {20,16,15}. The latest data from the Planck satellite have confirmed the presence of these anisotropies\cite {17}. Here we report even larger anisotropies in the sky distributions of powerful extended quasars and some other sub-classes of radio galaxies in the 3CRR catalogue, one of the oldest and most intensively studies sample of strong radio sources\cite{21,22,3}. The anisotropies lie about a plane passing through the two equinoxes and the north celestial pole (NCP). We can rule out at a 99.995% confidence level the hypothesis that these asymmetries are merely due to statistical fluctuations. Further, even the distribution of observed radio sizes of quasars and radio galaxies show large systematic differences between these two sky regions. The redshift distribution appear to be very similar in both regions of sky for all sources, which rules out any local effects to be the cause of these anomalies. Two pertinent questions then arise. First, why should there be such large anisotropies present in the sky distribution of some of the most distant discrete sources implying inhomogeneities in the universe at very large scales (covering a fraction of the universe)? What is intriguing even further is why such anisotropies should lie about a great circle decided purely by the orientation of earth's rotation axis and/or the axis of its revolution around the sun? It looks as if these axes have a preferential placement in the larger scheme of things, implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which all modern cosmological theories are based upon.?
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.4134.pdf ?
And with the Ashok K. Singal paper, it is now the large scale structures of the universe, on top of the CMBR anomalies, which drive the final nail in the coffin for the belief that the earth does not have a ‘preferred’ position in the universe.
As the following article, (with a illustration) explains,
“Of course to have an exact position, (or what we would call an ‘exact center’ in the universe), we would need an X axis, a Y axis, and a Z axis, since that will give us three dimensions in Euclidean space. The CMB dipole and quadrupole gives us the X axis and Y axis but not a Z axis. Hence, the X and Y axis of the CMB provide a direction, but only an approximate position. That is why we have continually said that the CMB puts Earth “at or near the center of the universe.”
For the Z-axis we depend on other information, such as quasars and galaxy alignment that the CMB cannot provide. For example, it has been discovered that the anisotropies of extended quasars and radio galaxies are aligned with the Earth’s equator and the North celestial pole (NCP)4.,,, Ashok K. Singal describes his shocking discovery in those terms:
“What is intriguing even further is why such anisotropies should lie about a great circle decided purely by the orientation of earth’s rotation axis and/or the axis of its revolution around the sun? It looks as if these axes have a preferential placement in the larger scheme of things, implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which all modern cosmological theories are based upon.”
– Ashok K. Singal4 “Is there a violation of the Copernican principle in radio sky,” Ashok K. Singal, Astronomy and Astrophysics Division, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad, India, May 17, 2103,..
Signal states: “We can rule out at a 99.995% confidence level the hypothesis that these asymmetries are merely due to statistical fluctuations.”
https://i.postimg.cc/L8G3CbXN/DOUBLE-AXIS.png
http://www.robertsungenis.com/gww/features/Welcome%20to%20Catholic%20Star%20Wars.pdf
What is interesting about these large scale structures of the universe, i.e. quasar and radio galaxy distributions in the universe, (i.e. distributions that reveal a "surprising rotational coincidence for Earth"), is that the tiny temperature variations (in the CMBR) correspond to the largest scale structures of the observable universe.
How do we know the universe is flat? Discovering the topology of the universe - by Fraser Cain - June 7, 2017
Excerpt: With the most sensitive space-based telescopes they have available, astronomers are able to detect tiny variations in the temperature of this background radiation.
And here's the part that blows my mind every time I think about it. These tiny temperature variations correspond to the largest scale structures of the observable universe. A region that was a fraction of a degree warmer become a vast galaxy cluster, hundreds of millions of light-years across.
The cosmic microwave background radiation just gives and gives, and when it comes to figuring out the topology of the universe, it has the answer we need. If the universe was curved in any way, these temperature variations would appear distorted compared to the actual size that we see these structures today.
But they're not. To best of its ability, ESA's Planck space telescope, can't detect any distortion at all. The universe is flat.,,,
Since the universe is flat now, it must have been flat in the past, when the universe was an incredibly dense singularity. And for it to maintain this level of flatness over 13.8 billion years of expansion, in kind of amazing.
In fact, astronomers estimate that the universe must have been flat to 1 part within 1×10^57 parts.
Which seems like an insane coincidence.
https://phys.org/news/2017-06-universe-flat-topology.html
Thus, contrary to the presumption of atheists, far from the temperature variations in the CMBR being a product of randomness as they presuppose in their 'inflation' model, the temperature variations in the CMBR correspond to the ‘largest scale structures of the observable universe’ and these ‘largest scale structures of the observable universe’ reveal “a surprising rotational coincidence for Earth”. Moreover, we were only able to discover this correlation between the tiny temperature variation in the CMB and the largest scale structures in the universe via the ‘insane coincidence’ of the universe being fine-tuned to at least 1 in 10^57 flatness.
In other words, the "tiny temperature variations" in the CMBR, to the largest scale structures in the universe itself, reveal teleology, (i.e. a goal directed purpose, a plan, a reason), that specifically included the earth from the start. ,,, The earth, and our solar system, from what our best science can now tell us, is not some random cosmic fluke as atheists had presupposed.
The scientific evidence for a 'privileged' earth is what it is no matter how 'borderline retarded' some people may believe the finding to be.bornagain77
January 25, 2021
January
01
Jan
25
25
2021
04:39 AM
4
04
39
AM
PDT
Come on. This is just dumb.
There are very good reason to have various beliefs, but this video is borderline retarded.mike1962