I thought this deserved its own thread. Probably could use some clarification. Like, who is “we”. Or, does matter NEED to explain itself at all? 
I lost the post about this. I explain more when I have time.
Please take this to this thread
I thought this deserved its own thread. Probably could use some clarification. Like, who is “we”. Or, does matter NEED to explain itself at all? slight_smile Then why are we defending the concept of a God as a productive endeavor? > When we start looking at the fundamentals of physical patterns, the constituent part become smaller, less physically solid, and less organic (simpler) in constituent parts.
W4U said: A hydrogen molecule (H2O) is one of the simplest value patterns and is the result of self-organizing patterns by two of the earliest physical elements emerging after the BB.
The strange dilemma lies in the scientific evasion that religion isn’t science, but is tolerated and given its own sub-forum just because there are a lot of “believers”, whereas anyone who proposes a perfectly sound argument for universal mathematics gets slammed for being pseudo-science that must be rejected at all cost.
Tegmark has been called a charlatan, while some priest is treated with the greatest deference. I find that odd juxtaposition very strange.
It’s your own glowing faith in him that begs the analogy.
Perhaps you shouldn’t present Tegmark as though he were a high priest.
Perhaps it feels like you’ve lost perspective and think math is the ultimate answer to everything, even something like, how we human individuals deal with our own understanding of the world and the fearful mysteries that haunt most?
As for the OP: “Why are we defending the concept of God?”
I find it confusing.
I myself don’t think “God” needs defending.
What’s to defend about an assumption?
A belief system.
I myself think that the reality of the “God” concept is self evidence and therefore understanding why the “god Concept” is so powerful, that, I believe, is worth investing time in.
That didn’t happen. The victim number does not apply here.
[quote=“citizenschallengev4, post:3, topic:10510, full:true”]
[quote=“write4u, post:2, topic:10510”]
Tegmark has been called a charlatan, while some priest is treated with the greatest deference.
It’s your own glowing faith in him that begs the analogy.
Perhaps you shouldn’t present Tegmark as though he were a high priest.
Perhaps it feels like you’ve lost perspective and think math is the ultimate answer to everything, even something like, how we human individuals deal with our own understanding of the world and the fearful mysteries that haunt most?
As for the OP: “Why are we defending the concept of God?”
I find it confusing.
I myself don’t think “God” needs defending.
What’s to defend about an assumption?
A belief system.
Ask a zealot if God needs defending, he will tell that he’ll die defending God.
Religious wars have claimed more deaths than any other cause.
Christian Martyrdom: Who? Why? How?
DR. TODD M. JOHNSON
Professor of Global Christianity and Mission
Christian persecution has captured the imagination of the media, mostly because of the tragedy occurring in the Middle East. Stories of struggling Christians have been highlighted in The Economist, the Boston Globe, The Republic, and the BBC.
We estimate that more than 70 million Christians have been martyred over the last two millennia, more than half of which died in the 20thcentury under fascist and communist regimes. We also estimate that 1 million Christians were killed between 2001 and 2010 and about 900,000 were killed from 2011 to 2020.
more… Gordon Conwell
If you are a psychiatrist helping people with that famous religious “guilt trip”, based on the belief of a metaphysical Intelligent Designer who punishes for your original sins.
I had a proselytizer shove a pamphlet in my hands with the declaration “Here, you need this”.
I had the distinct desire to shove that pamphlet into his mouth and tell him “here
you need this”.
I myself think that the reality of the “God” concept is self evidence and therefore understanding why the “god Concept” is so powerful, that, I believe, is worth investing time in.
Yes , if you are a psychiatrist!
IMO there is no “reality of God”, there is only the reality of a false belief in a god, just as there is the reality of people believing in a flat earth. It doesn’t count as knowledge.
[quote=“lausten, post:4, topic:10510, full:true”]
[quote=“write4u, post:2, topic:10510”]
whereas anyone who proposes a perfectly sound argument for universal mathematics gets slammed for being pseudo-science that must be rejected at all cost.That didn’t happen. The victim number does not apply here.
Oh, I have discussed Tegmark on a physics forum and he was literally labeled as a charlatan by supposedly objective scientists.
And in the next post they cite a universal mathematical equation???
It’s very confusing when you air a grievance here that actually happened somewhere else. People are weird, I know.
That’s why I like CFI. But I just wanted to bring attention to the paradox.
Ouch, that’s god, I mean good. Master at diversion, I’ll hand you that.
Yipes, more than any other cause?
Write, you are a rationalist aren’t you?
Bring down the temp of your claims.
Hunger statistics show progress. But it’s fading.
The number of people affected by hunger has decreased by 189 million people since 1990. But in recent years the positive development has stopped. Since 2015, we have seen an increase in hungry people globally every year.
1990: 1011 million
1995: 989 million
2000: 900 million
2005: 945 million
2010: 821 million
2015: 784 million
2016: 804 million
2017: 821 million
2018: 822 million
also see - Losing 25,000 to Hunger Every Day | United Nations.
Yeah? . . . and then what?
Why are you implying that a regular person, or an especially curious non-psychiatrist, doesn’t have “Standing” to tackle that question?
Why, such a suggestion?
That’s a genuine head scratcher.
Guess I’m not quite ready to write off humanity outright.
I do see faith and community doing good things for some people and simply dismissing them as too stupid to worry about or deal with, well,
that may work for MAGA, but, most god fearing aren’t MAGA, so what’s to do with them?
Well that’s reassuring, I though you were talking about me, because I agree with scientist, from what I’ve heard coming out of Max’s mouth, he sure as heck sounds more like charlatan, than scientists!!!
But why should he care, the 5 million dollar man is laughing all the way to the bank.
What paradox?
Getting called out for talking way beyond what serious science can claim ?
Recently I again starting listening to Max’s book Our Mathematical Universe, and I can barely get through his contrived introduction with its just so stories for softening up his audience.
Man, that’s the stuff of intellectual entertainment and of an entirely different class then what the likes of Solms, or Damasion, or Lane, or Carroll, or Hazen, or Shubin, or Godfrey-Smith, or Al-Khalili offer up.
These men tell stories that are busy offering up bits and pieces of solid information (not what ifs, and lets suppos’ns) along with a coherent storyline to enable the audience to absorb the information - and then reprocess it within the constellation of understanding one has already achieved.
But that answer is also a diversion. I am objectively discussion what’s true, not what is supposed to be “good”. And the question of punishing apostacy with death remains unanswered.
And have they solved the hard question yet? NO!
IT is Tegmark who proposes that humans already have all the tools that make us conscious.
The problem cannot be solved by asking the “hard questions”, but by collecting “hard facts”.
Tegmark does not barter in “what ifs”. He barters in “what is”, finding what is there already and how that makes it all work, not what is “missing” that will somehow reveal answers to the mystery.
There is nothing missing. Every brained animal is conscious to a DEGREE. That means, all brained organisms already have all the tools necessary for consciousness!
Instead of reading his “Mathematical Universe”, I suggest watching
Tegmark’s ; " Consciousness is a mathematical pattern"
IMO, it is a perfectly logical presentation of a scientific discussion on 'consciousness".
In this video he does not pose a “what if” or “suppose”. He uses irrefutable facts.
The beauty of mathematics is that it functions in a self-referencing quasi-intelligent manner (action ↔ reaction), even if it has no brains or neural system.
Remarkably, a single cell will respond to internal and external stimuli and "learn from the experience.
Actually yes. As usual it comes down to definitions and expectations.
Let’s take it from the top, please state the “Hard Problem” of human consciousness:
.
.
.
Till tomorrow, 
I won’t be satisfied with less than total understanding . No mysterious unknowns.
I truly believe that when we solve the problem, it will have it’s roots in an emergent sentience during the dynamics of self-referential neural processes.
That was a decent post by CC, one that deserves some thoughtful reflection, not more heat like this.
There has been ample discussion over the last decades about the difference between discussing what is true, and what people do with their beliefs. That is, how people act. To understand this, simply go find a believer, I’m sure there is one in your life somewhere who is reasonable. If you ask a couple of questions about truth, you will quickly find that it’s not important to them, that it’s the symbolism and the cherry-picked statements about love that keep them going to church.
Yes, I know, the liberal churches give cover to the fundamentalists, that’s a nuanced discussion, and whatever conclusion you might come to, it doesn’t stop the soup kitchen from feeding the hungry child. And, yes, I know there are fathers that beat their daughters based on their scripture. You aren’t going to change that with logic statements about what’s provable.
That would be the religion search for absolute truth.
Science isn’t about finding absolute truth, because the doesn’t have absolute powers of understanding. I mean we can’t even figure out how to poisoning ourselves into oblivion.
Oh you mean a God? Consciousness as God. Well why didn’t you say so?
Now that we got that straight - there’s nothing else to discuss.
I’ll take the mystery and accept that I’ll never know the ultimate truth, nor does it matter. Because I’m understanding my place in the world and time and within my own skin, is more important and in that regard I’m doing pretty good, mystery not withstanding.
For me I’m happy with: Consciousness as an emergent property of biology because that’s the only place consciousness matters. And that takes us over half way to dissolving the mythical Hard Problem.
No , it is a search but it is a search without god, therefore not religious.
It’s the presumption to some ultimate answer (=absolute truth) that crosses the line into religion, in my eyes.
Again, just because something is backed by rigorous math, doesn’t make it science.
1 Like
But this started with “total understanding”. We don’t have that. We don’t have proof that we will find that, or a TOE, or whatever. Saying that science will discover something, or will lead to a certain conclusion, is a non scientific statement.
1 Like
What is the argument against “total understanding” of universal dynamics?
Illustrating the Impact of theMathematical Sciences
Today’s mathematical research, both pure and applied, is paving the way for major scientific, engineering, and technological breakthroughs. Cutting-edge work in the mathematical sciences is responsible for advances in artificial intelligence, manufacturing, precision medicine, cybersecurity, and more. Find out how the mathematical sciences are helping to improve our everyday lives by checking out the stories and infographics below.
There’s nothing wrong with a desire for total understanding. There’s something wrong with claiming that you have it when you don’t. As this, and almost every link you put up says, in a variety of ways, we are “paving the way”. Science is the paving, it’s not the certainty that we have gotten there or even will get there.
Your evidence is, we are paving the way. Your question is “What is the argument against” already being there? Do you see how I can’t answer that? Because that’s not what I’m arguing. It’s something you’re implying, and you don’t have a coherent logic that gets to that implication.