My journey into atheism and theories on life

[levi]

Far as I can tell, the idea of atoms and smaller falling apart is one thing that's not really understood in the whole distant futureology thing. There's no idea that they'll be physically ripped asunder due to the universe expanding - why would that happen? - but there is the idea that possibly even down to protons, they have a half life so they'll eventually decay away to pure radio waves. That will just accelerate the big freeze as far as I'm reading it; if they don't then it'll still end up that way, just take a lot longer.

Dark energy is another thing that does affect how rapidly we're going to end up heading that way, but that's something I've not really read up on yet, so I'm ignoring it for now

 

[T.T.]

Apparently free neutrons have a half life of about 10 minutes, but it stabilizes it is in a nucleus.

 

[SNESFAN]

Far as I can tell, the idea of atoms and smaller falling apart is one thing that's not really understood in the whole distant futureology thing. There's no idea that they'll be physically ripped asunder due to the universe expanding - why would that happen? - but there is the idea that possibly even down to protons, they have a half life so they'll eventually decay away to pure radio waves. That will just accelerate the big freeze as far as I'm reading it; if they don't then it'll still end up that way, just take a lot longer.

Dark energy is another thing that does affect how rapidly we're going to end up heading that way, but that's something I've not really read up on yet, so I'm ignoring it for now

The part of the big rip is every area of spacetime in an infinite timeline will eventually get larger to the point where the space between the electron and the neutron become large enough to become unbound and literally rip apart atoms. Starts with "ripping" galaxy clusters apart as gravity no longer keeps them together (being observed now), and works it way down to smaller structures, galaxies, then solar systems, then planets, then compounds, then atoms themselves. Gravity is the opposition to that expansion and on galaxy clusters it's being observed and we are accelerating, so it's logical to move that timeline forward.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe#Big_Rip

The other, on the same link refers to big freeze as a similar yet slightly varying theory. Both depend on the geomety of spacetime. Both are almost universally accepted as probable theories.

The idea of decay or in another term entropy, energy going towards an equilibrium state, at least in my mind, could still be what is fueling spacetime expansion. A unknown source is fueling it's acceleration as observed. Spacetime is 'something' rather than a philosophical 'nothingness', so spacetime has energy in a non-zero state so that too would be looking to diffuse. If spacetime is finite (which could be argued) then the act of trying to diffuse by stretching it's self is another way of saying entropy could be causing expansion to increase.

There's not, and at the same time a whole lot to read into dark energy, it's needed mathematically to make certain models to work, and dark in being that it's unknown. They are looking for something observable to plug into the equation rather calling it dark energy. One idea is what I was trying to suggest.

 

[Caine]

What you describe here is irreligion.

First time I heard of the term. As with any classification, it is hard to be absolute. But I suppose I am an agnostic, irreligious, atheist.
That is, I think it is impossible to know, I do not practice and am strongly convinced that it is all bullshit (but do not hold that as a belief).

i kind of imagine it as the set of people that atheists surround themselves with -- probably others that think similarly -- which is like "gathering for church", but in a less formal way -- talking about science, hard-core philosophies, and Dresden Codak .

I do not think that I particularly surround myself with atheists. It is a bit of a mix, though the majority of the Netherlands is irreligious. According to wikipedia (24% atheist, 34% agnost, 28% Ietsism, i.e. something-ism (unspecified belief in some transcendent force) and 14% theism, with 67% being irreligious). Those percentages are roughly reflected in my club of friends.

I am not entirely sure how it goes in the US, but here it is not uncommon for such audiences to mix and speak about stuff. From the outside it sometimes seems like the US either segregates according to belief and political opinion or declares such topics taboo. In contrast, here politics and religion are "popular" topics of conversation since anyone has an opinion about it. If you meet a stranger you talk about weather, politics, complain about the current situation or you do not talk at all. I exaggerate a bit, but you get the gist.

i don't think atheists "just" "don't believe in god(s)"; i consider atheism to have a strong belief in the sufficiency of reason. instead of sola fide, sola ratione. of course, i think atheists strongly take up rationalism as a rationale for not believing in gods.

Perhaps that is true. Though I see it more the other way around, the strong sense of rationale leading to not believing in gods.

the "faith" that atheists have is, then, in their ability to be rational and make reasonable (truthful?) statements, despite the chaos that birthed and bred humanity. (at least, as far as i see it.)

I would not call that faith. It is more that rational thinking has brought a lot of good into the world (especially compared to irrational thinking, but perhaps also (subjectively) compared to religious thinking). The argument for rational thought has much more evidence supporting it and thus I would not refer to it as belief of faith. It also feels very strange to use the word faith for something, I would sooner say I am convinced that or I am confident in or anything along those lines.

My journey into AUTISM and theories on life.

Wrong forum or thread, please check: http://wrongplanet.net/forums/

 

[rygD]

First time I heard of the term. As with any classification, it is hard to be absolute. But I suppose I am an agnostic, irreligious, atheist.
That is, I think it is impossible to know, I do not practice and am strongly convinced that it is all bullshit (but do not hold that as a belief).

That is what I like to see, mixing things up in ways that are unexpected. I think you forgot one. Take it further, and disregard common classification and labels. We are not as simple as many wish we were, so make people think and question their beliefs and way of thinking. There is no need to be emotionally invested in such things (and probably better for everyone involved if that is not the case), so, in the event that someone tries to draw you into an emotionally charged debate/argument in such topics, know that it is perfectly acceptable to end your participation...had I tried that back in the 90s it would have made things easier for me, especially in the places I lived. I wonder how I would have turned out if I grew up where you live. Don't forget to question your own beliefs on all levels along the way.

In the US it is rather mixed (in my experience). In the bible belt you do have more visibly and vocally active religious types, especially of the protestant christian variety. You also have the presence of many other religions, and atheists/irreligious people (whether they are the same or not). Because they wear it on their sleeves and are outspoken, topics dealing with aspects of religious practice and belief do seem to come up in general discussion a bit more than in other places in the US I have lived or visited. The hardcore religious assholes are still a minority in the bible belt (although it doesn't always feel that way since they tend to gather together and try to force their ways on others). In all places I have been, there usually seems to be a mix of people involved in general discussions, but I never took a poll. Even in the bible belt, many of the rather faithful are willing to discuss and think deeply about most topics, although their beliefs will sometimes/often influence their opinions (remember, I am not just talking about protestants, or even christians, as I often encounter Wiccans, neopagans, Satanists, some Muslims, an occasional Jew, and people doing their own thing, and others...but that is quite possibly because of me rather than diversity. I see occasional signs of Buddhist and Hindu presence, however I have not confirmed that, and it is possible that it is mostly people using their artifacts and imagery for fashion purposes, and those religions are less represented than it seems, although I suspect in larger cities that isn't as true.). There is a lot of mixing of those with various religious (or lack of) beliefs and political opinions, and it is definitely not taboo to discuss such things. A 5 mile drive in any direction from my house would show that, plus tons of churches. I suppose some people stick to "their own kind".

"Conviction causes convicts."

 

[ible]

hm, yes, you may be an exception, rygD, as i get the sense that people are a bit more closed off about religion in general in the US. if you are "the same" it's easier to converse, but if you're different people would rather not offend each other. (of course, a big simplification.) maybe it's just "here" in the midwest (where i'm from, but not where i am). glad there are exceptions, though.

 

[FBnil]

My understanding of quantum computers is that it deals mostly with probabilities rather than absolutes.

It is not, you can absolutely know if none of the overlapping posibilities is false, for example.
Here is the Perl language guru Damian Conway:
(rather long, but interesting, because he brings all the theory to practical perl code...)

 

[levi]

(rather long, but interesting, because he brings all the theory to practical bullshit...)

Fixed that for you. Of course, this is the usual mode of theoretical physicists - bullshitting about reality until they turn out to be right.

 

[SNESFAN]

It is not, you can absolutely know if none of the overlapping posibilities is false, for example.
Here is the Perl language guru Damian Conway:
(rather long, but interesting, because he brings all the theory to practical perl code...)

Very interesting video, it's neat to see how he plans to get around the problems isolating probable values. That doesn't really devalue the argument that quantum computers don't inherently deal with absolutes though, but you can get the probabilities to represent an absolute based off the probability. The issue still remains that of the probabilities the processor gives you, the non probable results still represents a non zero probability.

Maybe I didn't fully get what he was saying, might have to watch it again.

Round 1 of watching though suggested you can get it to do work, and much more accurate work (than previously explained anyway) and exponentially faster work doing non-linear looping processes sounds extraordinarily interesting I have to admit. When ran in a processor that can do things massively parallel simutaniously has my mind swimming with lots of possible applications. If what he's saying is true that it returns a result and goes back in time to the point you requested the result and produces additional work, that sounds like actual magic.


The stuff with rods seemed like a complete waste of time except for being like a fun bar trick I suppose. The "reversing time" bit by basically running the script backwards sounds like a bunch of hooey to be perfectly honest, reading the alphabet backwards does not equal reversing time despite how fancy he made it appear.

 

[rygD]

hm, yes, you may be an exception, rygD, as i get the sense that people are a bit more closed off about religion in general in the US. if you are "the same" it's easier to converse, but if you're different people would rather not offend each other. (of course, a big simplification.) maybe it's just "here" in the midwest (where i'm from, but not where i am). glad there are exceptions, though.

While I am the exception in many cases, with this I know I am not. It is not uncommon for people to randomly bring up religion with strangers, either to convert them or draw them to their church. They also hand flyers out, or put them on windshield in parking lots (American English here, sorry). This happened to some degree from Missouri to Texas, east to Virginia, and south at least to Georgia (I have visited Florida a few times, never for long, and mostly the tourist areas, and I don't recall it happening there). In two schools in different states there was a very religious aspect to some classes, with one requiring a bible studies type class. That one was really odd to me (we can discuss in more detail privately if you wish). There is also the whole requirement to acknowledge creationism as a theory, or at least give a disclaimer before discussing evolution that is present in science/biology classes (I don't know if this is still done). I took two colleges out of my list of places I would potentially go to due to certain religious class requirements, although those are private, so I guess they can do what they want. I am reconsidering one due to a degree plan that seems a better fit for me than the one I had to put on hold at the public university I was attending. Middle school was the hardest for me coming from areas that weren't like that (kinda made making friends a bit weird), despite having previously lived in an area with a high percentage of Catholics. They didn't really shove it down your throat, though. I don't think this sort of thing happened much up north (at least not to me).

It may just be a bible belt thing.

 

[T.T.]

Having lived in the bible belt for a time (specifically Alabama) I can say it's mostly a southern thing. Where I live now (Idaho) religion isn't randomly brought up with strangers. Granted, that may also be because a good chunk of the religious people here belong to the same church.

 

[ible]

an argument against "the universe is a simulation" based on the complexity required:
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-09/uoo-gth092617.php

 

[WizardStan]

plain words, thermal Hall conductance implies a generation of energy currents in the direction transverse to either temperature gradient

"In plain words..."
"plain words..."
"plain..."

 

[SNESFAN]

an argument against "the universe is a simulation" based on the complexity required:
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-09/uoo-gth092617.php

The argument is that the complexities of the universe makes it impossible to simulate? Fair enough.

I don't like the the idea of dismissing an argument due to a sense of arrogance that we know what the requirements would be to simulate our universe.

I would agree with the idea that using traditional computing and our understanding of our experience that simulating every particle and atom to the n'th degree in real time would be probably impossible.

There are some arguments that come to mind I can think of though. While I am in the pro simulation camp, I'm not saying these people are wrong, just they sound a bit quick to say they are right.

-What if its not real time? Like a pre-rendered cgi, taking weeks to render a complex scene. There is no way of telling what speed the simulation would be running in comparison to the system running it. Could be dealing with multiple magnitudes of difference in scales of time.

-our computing methods are by no means the only way to calculate or simulate a system. Just because it wouldn't work given our methods doesn't mean a method or system couldn't exist that could do it. Over the years I've heard lots of common things we take for granted today would have been viewed as impossible or improbable back then.

 

[Caine]

Doesn't the complexity argument hinge on the assumption that the laws of physics which govern the "real" world are identical to those we observe in the simulated world.
Time is indeed a good example, but perhaps other quantities are vastly different too.

 

[ible]

sure, lots of interesting hypotheticals, but until the evidence suggests otherwise, isn't it a bit faith-based right now ? (or, "it would be interesting if!" at least.)

it's similar to me with the "many worlds" hypothesis (quantum mechanics). if we can't interact with those other worlds, we are postulating a lot of stuff that we can't measure ("philosophical baggage" so to speak), which occam's razor would like to cut out. i'd prefer zero worlds, since that drops the universe right out from under you a bit (just like relativity did, time-wise), and doesn't need any extra assumptions to arrive at standard quantum mechanics...

 

[Caine]

I agree with that view on the many worlds hypothesis. If it is unmeasurable, then why should we care? Same holds for the simulation view. Unless we can "break out", it is irrelevant.

Such theories are perhaps most useful in just making the math work, though one could and should question the validity.

 

[levi]

Many worlds is a neat mind exercise that simplifies some of the probabilties mess that quantum thinking can get you into. It might be a neat way of working things out mathematically too, but that remains to be seen right now as far as I know. And as much as I understand it, it doesn't explain the double slit experiment well wherein the particles (electrons, photons what have you) in that the particles seem to know what the theoretical other particle that made the other choice at the probabilistic junction did, as well as other particles in the past and the future that are going to hit the detector screen. I guess I don't see how it contains entanglement in general for that matter.

The simulation hypothesis (not sure if it has a proper name) doesn't really explain anything that we've observed, just makes the explanations more complicated. I'm not saying it's not possible, but Occam's razor cleaves it into the bin marked 'nice idea, now do some proper work' because it adds complexity for no real benefit other than a vague woolly feeling that you've got one over everyone else. Which I guess is how new faiths start up so I can see the attraction, but to a rationalist like myself it's the type of thinking you should resist, because it goes nowhere.

 

[rygD]

Doesn't the complexity argument hinge on the assumption that the laws of physics which govern the "real" world are identical to those we observe in the simulated world.
Time is indeed a good example, but perhaps other quantities are vastly different too.

Pfft, time...*rolls eyes*...whatever you want to believe, I guess.

Strangely, I can't decide what I really think of time on anything other than a basic concept level. Back when I was much younger I thought about it a lot, but always ran into problems.

Many worlds is a neat mind exercise that simplifies some of the probabilties mess that quantum thinking can get you into. It might be a neat way of working things out mathematically too, but that remains to be seen right now as far as I know. And as much as I understand it, it doesn't explain the double slit experiment well wherein the particles (electrons, photons what have you) in that the particles seem to know what the theoretical other particle that made the other choice at the probabilistic junction did, as well as other particles in the past and the future that are going to hit the detector screen. I guess I don't see how it contains entanglement in general for that matter.

Ghosts. Or

With really powerful computers unlike the ones we are familiar with. They are probably playing a game. If they manage to notice us I hope they change how the settings for how everything works just to fuck with us. Ancient astronaut theory aside, wouldn't any sort of creator entity/deity by definition be an alien?

I need to go look into some things so I can better follow the conversation here.

 

[levi]

Or there's always Douglas Adams theory (in the first H2G2 book I think) that the earth was a simulation/computer itself designed to answer some question we can't understand because it was made by a higher intellect (the mice in this case).