Then why are you breaking in to it?
Is God Rational?
- Thread starter Bowser
- Start date
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Just trying to help you solve your apparent quandary.......
The problem is that you are neither Nohm, Tegmark or Loll ...Just trying to help you solve your apparent quandary.......
It's kind of the trademark of dogma .... someone says (just as an example) something clueless in the name of religion and that stupidity is called out they start dropping names ... "But jesus christ." ... as if that is sufficient to authorize their transgression.
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Obviously you have never heard or read anything by David Bohm (not Nohm), Tegmark, or Loll.
I cited them as examples of having departed from the dogma of the standard model, while proposing very deep alternative hypotheses, which are not in conflict with the fundamentals of the standard model, but go a step further.
You may want to educate yourself a little on those worldviews, such as the De Broglie -Bohm "Pilot Wave", Tegmark's "Mathematical Universe" and Loll's "Causal Dynamical Triangulation" which are all rational propositions (supported by maths) wether you agree with them or not.
They are certainly not transgressors in the field of Physics. Au contraire, they are the modern pioneers. (well Bohm is dead, but his work is alive and well)
OTOH, speaking of a "rational God" (without ANY mathematical or rational) justification or proof for that assumption, speaks of Dogmatic thinking and does not in any way agree with the standard model. There simply is no proof of any kind of such a being.
For all the discussions I have had about those subjects and taken heat for it, no one has ever accused me of being dogmatic. I have been accused of having "flights of fancy", but that's not a definition of Dogma.
So before you accuse someone of being dogmatic, look into the mirror and ask yourself first........
You misunderstand. I'm not accusing them of being dogmatic.Obviously you have never heard or read anything by David Bohm (not Nohm), Tegmark, or Loll.
I cited them as examples of having departed from the dogma of the standard model, while proposing very deep alternative hypotheses, which are not in conflict with the fundamentals of the standard model, but go a step further.
You may want to educate yourself a little on those worldviews, such as the De Broglie -Bohm "Pilot Wave", Tegmark's "Mathematical Universe" and Loll's "Causal Dynamical Triangulation" which are all rational propositions (supported by maths) wether you agree with them or not.
They are certainly not transgressors in the field of Physics. Au contraire, they are the modern pioneers. (well Bohm is dead, but his work is alive and well)
OTOH, speaking of a "rational God" (without ANY mathematical or rational) justification or proof for that assumption, speaks of Dogmatic thinking and does not in any way agree with the standard model. There simply is no proof of any kind of such a being.
For all the discussions I have had about those subjects and taken heat for it, no one has ever accused me of being dogmatic. I have been accused of having "flights of fancy", but that's not a definition of Dogma.
So before you accuse someone of being dogmatic, look into the mirror and ask yourself first........
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
No you're accusing me of being dogmatic. Make up your mind, it's one way or the other.
It's only ever been the one way ...
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
For you maybe. But my mind is open to new ideas, if presented by experts in their field.
Bohm was an eminent physicist ;
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/
Tegmark is an eminent mathematician ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis
Loll is an eminent cosmologist ;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation
All are worthy of at least some study.
Last edited:
You are not the transparent medium to their ideas and achievements.
Its not sufficient for you to spout something and then cry "Bohm!" when you are backed into a corner (or link a one hour video with corrupted audio)
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Well, you cried......"but Jesus Christ.......". That makes you a transparent medium? To what?
Lol
I was using that to illustrate the example of a dogmatic relugious person (for the sake of not disturbing your preconceptions).
A (religious) person says something foolish in the name of religion and then calls upon the authority of jesus when they are caught out.
Dogmatic persons adopt the same modus operandi bevause they dont have the sufficient tools for rational discussion.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Then follow your own advice.
Seriously, when a deep discussion in Physics, you will find many references to theories of other scientists, by name only. It is assumed that if you want to know more about the subject, that you will follow those links to see what those scientists were talking about.
I often come across references to names I have never even heard of but are firmly fixed in the standard model, and if I am interested I do at least some cursory reading of their work or reviews to understand why that reference was used.
This is standard procedure and has nothing to do with "argument from authority".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
Bohmian Mechanics is fundamentally compatible with the Standard Model, but viewed from a different philosophical perspective. It's been around a long time, for awhile somewhat dismissed, but with new knowledge acquired since he died, there is a resurgent interest in the Bohmian View of the Wholeness , which produce the same results as the Standard Model, but Introduces some novel ideas which are at the same time both more mathematically complex, but at the same time answers the double slit dichotomy of particle/wave behaviors, i.e. locality
Last edited:
You brought the discussion of mathematics to a discussion about God (which is a little unusual).
You insisted that mathematics operates on the topmost ontological platform and is hence interchangable with the term "God" (which is bizarre).
For this to be plausible, you also insisted that the term "God" be treated as a mere metaphor (an act of intellectual dishonesty ... even though its generally frowned upon in academia to speak outside one's field to contextualize the field of another, you still see, say biologists talking about history or vice versa and making a total ass of themselves).
Anyway, I accepted all these unusual, bizarre and dishonest prerequisites for your discussion because I could understand I was dealing with a "delicate" individual. I then pointed out the numerous philosophical shortcomings of your argument (without stepping outside your unusual, bizarre and dishonest prerequisites). Far from representing God or the universe, you cannot represent your breakfast, your self or any value that we hold as important in our daily life.
You responded by crying "Bohms!", as if an attack on what you are saying translates as an attack on Bohms (who, for the record, could at least avoid making the fatal mistake you do ... namely confusing the road map for the terrain). .... much like a dogmatic, zany zealot who retreats to "But Jesus is Lord!" no matter what nonsense they are peddling in the name of philosophy (except they can usually link a 75 minute video with functioning audio .... even if its something like speaking in tongues).
I'm sorry, but rational discussion doesn't progress like that.
If you take it upon yourself to assert a philosophical position, you take it upon yourself to respond with something more substantial than "Go watch a 75 minute video with corrupted audio." At the very least, if you want to preach a dogma on a forum board, at least get your resource material sorted!
Anyway, I'm done.
Its pretty clear what you are capable of bringing to this discussion topic.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
About being rational, look up the meaning of Tulpa.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulpa
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Why and How is that bizarre? You have a better more functional model?
Yes, on your part.
Really?
Aren't we the lucky ones?
I hold being alive itself of the greatest value. I need to thank only probability, which inevitably will make life somewhere.
Link please.
I agree and if any of my links took you to the wrong addy, I'm sorry.
Anyway, I'm done.
Its pretty clear what you are capable of bringing to this discussion topic.
A few reminders;
Well, it's heartening to see that you have looked in the mirror, but I'm sorry you didn't see yourself for what you truly are. A Troll.
Last edited:
Suppose you list every molecule in a bowl of Froot Loops. I'll accept the empirical formulae but you can give the structural formulae if you like. Give the exact count for each molecule and a spatial description of each molecule to every other molecule. Why is that inadequate as a mathematical representation?
Its not inadequate as a mathematical representation (after all, it represents the most rigorous explanation afforded by mathematics).
However, philosophical problems begin to arise when it is suggested this molecular explanation is the most accurate or complete, all encompassing explanation of a fruit loop (due to the problems of defining a thing as a sum of its parts ... or even in scenarios where the purposes of intense mathematical inquiry are irrelevant, eg. when you are hungry and just eat the froot loops).
These problems explode to an exponential level when it is suggested that mathematics represents the top most ontological language for mapping reality (since it requires that we ignore vast swathes of reality in order to establish the validity of such a dogmatic proposition).
Last edited:
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
How many mathematicians were used to design fruit loops.
We they inspired by a rational God.
Which raises the question...Is God rational?
Alex
We they inspired by a rational God.
Which raises the question...Is God rational?
Alex
I'm not sure what you are suggesting here .... that a rational god would instantly smite any irrational thought/desire within the universe .... and thus froot loops would not even have the possibility of existing in the rational universe of such a rational God?
Designed by the Sugar Plum Fairy against the objections of the Tooth Fairy who was angry about the rising costs of keeping his operation going