Why accept consensus as reality?

Faith & Science Conversation
129

Eternity is the simplest, most parsimonious extrapolation. That means an infinity of universes from eternity, by Kolmogorov - not my - complexity. All with the same utterly deterministic constants. Nature - not God - oms in the self tuned keys or harmonics of c, e, G and h. Everywhere. The alternative is complete absurdity out of the mouth of madness. Lovecraftian. You’re in good company, many postmoderns can’t do eternity. And they’re right ultimately not to do too much parsimony, rationality, which does not explain the brute fact evidence of the accelerating expansion of spacetime driven by negentropic dark energy. Our feeble brains will never understand that absolute truth. They can’t even come up with social justice.

The absolute fact of the multiverse gives us four levels of nine types. Some more absurd than others. Which is why I favour 11D brane collisions in ergodicity. Quilted, inflationary, brane, cyclic or landscape feel more rational than quantum (many-worlds), holographic or simulated.

One consensus I disagree with as it is as imparsimonious (my word) as many-worlds, is that for reasons I have never been able to obtain, the relativity of simultaneity requires the block universe B-theory of time. What do you think?

130

You have made some pretty tall claims. Why can’t you tell us who you are? What kind of scientist are you? In what peer-reviewed scientific journals have you published?

4 Likes
131

Do you know about Mein Kampf?

2 Likes
133

What, as great as Jenner or Pasteur or Banting or Fleming?

3 Likes
134

Hmmm.
Hard to word my doubts appropriately.

135

And @Klax , this round and round and unvetted pet book references felt familiar.

1 Like
136

Ah. Now I see the miscommunication.

I am a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ. That’s not a glib statement. I read what Jesus says and try to do that.

I have no “church” to conform to. So I cannot tell you how I differ from this non-existent entity.

I do meet with other members of the body of Christ because God speaks though His people. But I test all things that I hear from everyone. I test it by the teachings of Jesus Christ.

There are many things I don’t agree with in the church I was in from 9-24 years of age. And the church I attended from then until about 40. Even when there I could see that there are areas that are not the teachings of Christ. And these areas often couldn’t be questioned. I don’t have those areas myself.

Jesus told the Pharisees (quoting Isaiah) that their lips were close to God but that their hearts were far from him. That their worship of God was empty because they taught teachings of man as the commands of God. That is such a strong saying of Jesus that, sadly, we believers fail to take to heart. The norm is to ignore Jesus words and teach our own extrapolations as the commands of God. We think our denomination “distinctives” are God’s commands. We have no fear of having hearts far from God by teaching man’s commands as the commands of God.
There are things I feel very strongly about such as NOT being a pacifist. I think it is wrong and evil to not defend others (especially your own family) from an evildoer set out to harm them. When one young man I met with started sharing his ideas supporting pacifism I expressed my thoughts also. Another woman who knew me well asked me “Is that what Jesus says?” I replied “No”.
I can share what I think is right and why I think this extrapolation is a teaching of Jesus Christ. But I cannot claim my extrapolation IS the teaching of God.
When we say what Jesus says we are establishing his Lordship. When we say our own extrapolations as the teaching of Christ we are usurping his Lordship. Jesus told his followers that all authority has been given to him. We (or the apostles) are teach what he said with all authority. We can share our extrapolations with whatever fervor we have but must make the distinction of these doubtful things and recognize our brothers and sisters are NOT our servants but Christ’s.

I know this does not fit the type of answer you are looking for. But I do not have nor accept the concept of “church” you seem to expect of me.

137

Surely a member of the National Academy of Sciences!

2 Likes
138

Like what? Ok you have mentioned pacifism. Anything else?

I liked the idea of pacifism when I was a child and it had nothing to do with Christianity but more to do with my extremely liberal upbringing. I grew out of the pacifism though I would never take this extreme judgmental stance to say that pacifists are evil as you have done. People are entitled to their own personal morality like vegetarianism and I see more evil in people trying to force their personal moral choices on other people with judgements like that than for the personal moral choices they make. I am not vegetarian, but have some personal moral choices like that.

So what are some of these things you think “Jesus says” and what are some of these “extrapolations” you believe in?

139

My initial reaction to the Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) was in response to how it was presented as needed because it is infinite. The idea that anything infinite must include everything. This is clearly false. Not only is the number system infinite on the integers but there are an infinite set of fractions between each one (or any two points within it). So we can have an infinite set of nonoverlapping infinities.
To suggest it based on the physics I haven’t given much thought to. I’m more of a minimalist on what we know even though I enjoy considering various notions on what we do not. My wild guess would be that we still don’t get the quantum world and that none of the proposed means to have it make sense are right. We may never understand it…or we may if we keep trying.

It is the glory of God to conceal a matter,
and it is the glory of a king to search out a matter.

And we live in an age where many can reach the place of a king in not having to give so much of our time to have the food we need to live. So we have more time to search out a matter. And an internet. :slight_smile:

140

Where are you getting that from? That is no part of Everett’s many worlds interpretation of quantum physics.

That is incorrect. I can easily demonstrate that infinite sets to not include everything.

Sorry… I am a physicist so great distortions of math and physics will get me to speak up against this.

141

Just wondering, what are your thoughts on the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser? Have you seen the actual evidence from such an experiment.
Sabine H. states the evidence is not what was what was described by others.
Obviously I am just a dabbler in these things.

142

I haven’t been following this discussion and TJO’s thread closely, but FYI (and his/her?) interest I’m also a scientist with a google-H-index of 40. The thing is, H-indices, as a measure, have their own assumptions and biases and are not very comparable across different fields of science, so to flaunt an “h-index” as something globally meaningful per se is not especially useful. Yes…it means you’ve published some stuff which is great.

4 Likes
143

I consider pacifism to be evil if one fails to protect his family during a violent incident against them. We must stand up for one being so wronged and defend them from someone breaking the law and harming them.

I mentioned pacifism as something where I stand against myself in wanting to claim that it is Jesus teaching when it is an extrapolation of it. I’m not going to then accept anyone else’s extrapolation either.

I read the accounts of Christ and know that many gave their lives because they saw Christ alive after his crucifixion and death. Many people die for something they believe to be true even though it is not. But it improbable that someone would give their life for something they know to be false. Seeing a risen Christ was not simply a matter of belief to the many who saw him.

So accepting that Jesus is who he said he was and showed it by his resurrection, I look to his teachings.
Nothing is out of bounds including the notion of the trinity. Jesus clearly taught about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But to define God above what he revealed is foolish. The “required” trinity notion goes beyond what Jesus taught, is divisive, and is a usurpation of the Lordship of Christ. It is also used to wrongly judge others.
To say A=B and B=C but A!=C is also silly. I mean maybe that’s how God is but that’s not anything he revealed.
That Jesus is God and that Jesus is man are both said in the accounts of his life, death, and resurrection. I don’t play the 100% numbers game (100% man and 100% God) which makes Jesus a 200% person. Also there are ways he was a man which are unlike God and ways he was God which are unlike man. It is also clear that the Jesus is submissive to the Father and will be so eternally and that Jesus said his Father is greater than he is. My answer is I don’t know and we’re not deciding who God is for him. I worship the God who is even if I don’t understand how his revelation all works together.

Accepting Jesus teachings means I accept the Old Testament as God’s word and as it testifies about him but the law and the prophets has been filled up in doing to others as you would have them do to you. Also Jesus said that part of the OT law was there because of the hardness of the people’s heart. So his law given was adjusted based on what they were able to accept.
Jesus also said he would send scribes and prophets so I also give credence to the writings of his eye witness followers and those accepted by them.
I don’t see any notion of a “canon” as if God is finished speaking. I do see Jesus clearly stating he is the one teacher and we’re just brothers and sisters. But the notion of Sola Scriptura as if God only speaks through the Bible is self contradictory teaching of man because no verse says it is only scripture. The scriptures are filled with God speaking though his son, other physical appearances, visions, dreams, a burning bush, signs, writing in stone, etc. To try to say God can now only speak through the written word is just plain silly.

I don’t see any support for the protestant pastor or catholic bishop in the scriptures. We are to gather as gifted believers where we encourage each other to love and good works. We should gather around one man but that man is Christ not some other religious leader.

I am explaining how I start and then build up from there to follow the Lord Jesus Christ. I’ve mentioned a few “consensus teachings” I reject because it is not Jesus teachings but man’s. But I’m sure there are many as a consensus is not even a part of my consideration of Jesus teachings. Although I do give weight to the history on the writings and their acceptance. But that is a historical consideration.

I do enjoy listening to Michael Heiser, a scholar and historian of OT and Second Temple period. He relays information on various topics form other scholars who have studied it. And from reading the literature of the people at the time it is quite enlightening to see how the people it was written to understood things. But I also like to check on the original sources he mentions also.
His naked bible podcast website is quite informative including the understanding during Jesus times by some Jews about the Two Powers of Yahweh. He talks of it here Naked Bible 433: The Epistle of Jude Part 2 | The Naked Bible Podcast

144

We can never understand, even in the transcendent. Nobody understands QM as it is. Where was MWI presented as needed because it is infinite? And I agree, I see no reason whatsoever and howsoever that universes repeat in infinity. The infinity of universes yet to come in to existence included.

As for the eraser

a theorem proved by Phillippe Eberhard shows that if the accepted equations of relativistic quantum field theory are correct, it should never be possible to experimentally violate causality using quantum effects

that’ll do me.

145
  • At this moment in my life, I am not a fan of an “all or nothing” view of consensus according to which–it seems to me–"Hold no belief that is not ‘consensually believed’ " is the rule. The alternative is, I think, "Hold no belief that is ‘consensually believed’ ".
  • In the former view, “consensus says” is a game of “Simon says”: e,g, “Simon says: ‘stand on your left foot, flap your bent arms, and cluck like a chicken’. Ooops, you lost your balance and your right foot touched the floor; you’re out.”
  • It is a fact, I am sure, that the real number line is, theoretically, an infinity of abstract things called “numbers”, i.e. nobody I know can hold, touch, or see a number, until it’s written.
  • The marvelous thing about any specific number in the line is that it is essentially a point (or location) and has no dimension in and of itself.
  • The next marvelous thing, IMO, is that a “unit measure” consists, numerically, of an infinite number of numbers.
  • Additionally, a “unit measure” is an infinitesimally small subset of the real number line.
  • It’s inconceivable to me to think of a “unit measure” that is not a product of consensus and its meaning and value is very much dependent on consensus.
  • I happen to believe–in good conscience–that a cosmos exists in which I live, move, and have my being. I believe that that (or this) cosmos is boundless in volume and age at this time and will continue forever.
  • A cosmos boundless in volume is boundless because Absolute Space is boundless. An eternal cosmos is unbounded in duration because Absolute Time is boundless.
  • A boundless cosmos in Absolute Space and Absolute Time is, IMO, physical, real, and neither provable nor falsifiable, regardless what any consensus opinion says.
  • “All or No Consensus” thought is powerless to tame, control, or explain the Cosmos in which I believe I live, move, and have my being. “All or No Consensus” thought is also powerless in changing my belief about the Cosmos in which I believe I live, move, and have my being.
146

I was a math major/computer minor in college so I did have some math.

Yes, it is incorrect that an infinite set must include everything. And I explained why and gave an example of an infinite set of non-overlapping infinities. Are you reading the posts or just glancing for errors? :upside_down_face:

147

The power of what any person believes is their own choice on to believe.
We can believe something based on evidence and logic or any other reason or no reason at all.

I choose to base my beliefs on evidence and logic as the best means to belief in what is true.

To not accept consensus as a determiner of reality instead of evidence and logic does NOT mean something is wrong because it is or is not a consensus. It just does not answer the question what is physically true at all.

One can never hold a number as it is an abstract concept (and a real one). Ink on a paper is never the number 3.

It could be an absolute space and time but that is not what is shown by the evidence of the properties of the physical. Entropy is seen. The universe is a closed system in fact if it is infinite it is an ultimate closed system. The evidence shows it would wear down. So the idea of an infinite past is untenable if this evidence is correct. No?

148

What evidence do you think there is?

149

That matter has entropy,