Poll: Religious Evolution

Posts: 254

Joined: 27 Jul 2011

This would be called “personal religion” which a lot of people, even those who also participate in the communal aspect of religion, already practice.

Instead of relying on all the older logic there came a new idea that there was something like a deity but it’s alot more complex than what any “holy” book now can describe, kinda like theology with the athiest mindstate “We’re no longer trying to claim that we know everything, we know nothing, all we can be sure of is the maker, and our sciences further our understanding of this being”

And this would be called “deism”.

They don’t like to preach or particularly even share the idea, they take the “if you can feel it you can, if you can’t you can’t” mindstate, with more peaceful passive views than anything else, no restrictions and no herecy.

What would you guys think of that kind of futureistic theology

I think it’s exactly the same as what a lot of theists who are not fanatical about their beliefs have already been practicing for over two centuries. Many of America’s founding fathers, for instance, were deists who treated their beliefs in exactly the way you describe.

Zeconte nailed this. This reply is spot on.

As to the OP, religion will not die, nor will it evolve. No mere change in form can save the outdated substance of our Bronze Age ideologies. Religion can, however, revolve into something new, something far more meaningful to our information age. The challenge is to find moral guidance in a unified theory of mega phenomena. By mega phenomena I mean gravity, dark matter, dark energy, black holes, time dilation, time itself — the arrow of time, entropy, and evolution.

 POSTQUOTEEDIT

Posts: 254

Joined: 27 Jul 2011

Why should any of that be an object of moral guidance? I don’t see it.

Well, that’s the thing about religion. It drives its moral guidance from an external source. The old Bronze Age religions have it that morality comes from God(s), or the creator. Over time it shifted a bit among some believers to the first mover or watchmaker (deists). Whatever; the essence is the same: moral guidance comes from outside the self.

This is seen as a higher form of guidance. Since it’s outside the self its objective, universal, and eternal. Moral guidance based on an individuals beliefs, philosophies, or a “personal code” are subjective, specific, and malleable, and, therefore, deficient. Then there’s the middle ground of moral guidance based on societal norms, customs, and law. These too are somewhat transient and tribal, and, therefore, again, deficient.

Religion teaches that man is part of nature, that there is a correction with universe, and this is reflected in religious moral teaching. Unfortunately the source of this teaching is some book(s) supposedly, written either under divine inspiration or, better yet, with direct participation from the big guy him/her/it self. And that’s just the start of the problems. But the notion of the cosmic connection is emotional and rooted deep in the human psyche. That’s one of the reasons why so many today, in this information age, still cling to the old Bronze Age religions.

And that’s the thing about those mega phenomena I listed (and have listed). They are clearly our best clues as to what’s really going on in the universe, and they hold the promise of renewing that connection. We need to study those clues to divine the message(s) they hold. Some say it’s impossible, that we will never know the secrets of the universe, but people used to say other things we find silly today, like man will never fly, or man will never walk on the moon. Like those problems, all it will take is dedication, perseverance, and hard work.

The time is right. The old Bronze Age religions are well past their prime. A new age is upon us and with it the need for a new religion. Its not evolution its revolution.

 POSTQUOTEEDIT

Posts: 254

Joined: 27 Jul 2011

I actually want religion to die. Independently of whether it affects my life, I’d rather no-one on Earth believe in a deity or the supernatural, because I’m convinced that such beliefs are false, and I prefer for people to not have false beliefs.

Religion doesn’t need a deity or the supernatural, only faith that the universe’s natural laws have a moral aspect and can give guidance on issues of good and evil.

 POSTQUOTE

Posts: 546

Joined: 25 Aug 2011

Shadowstar38:
I don’t think anyone actually wants religion to die. They just want the one’s they don’t believe to not effect their lives. The more laws that are put in place based on secular reason, the closer we are to making everyone happy.

I actually want religion to die. Independently of whether it affects my life, I’d rather no-one on Earth believe in a deity or the supernatural, because I’m convinced that such beliefs are false, and I prefer for people to not have false beliefs.

Religion doesn’t need a deity or the supernatural, only faith that the universe’s natural laws have a moral aspect and can give guidance on issues of good and evil.

That strikes me as even more obviously false than the existence of souls.

Shadowstar38:
Not every religion has a supernatural component.

I have other problems with religion, but for edge cases like the ones without supernatural components (can you name three?) the definition of “religion” gets vague so could you clarify what you mean by the word?

Either way, I think that’s as silly as wishing no one on Earth had opposing political stances.

Well, no, I think it’s more analogous to wishing everyone on Earth agreed on a specific political issue so that we could move on and deal with more important things. Which isn’t that difficult: For instance, almost everyone agrees that hereditary absolute monarchies are a bad idea, and it’s not at all implausible that at some point in the future that’ll be something everyone on Earth agrees on.

Posts: 254

Joined: 27 Jul 2011

Religion doesn’t need a deity or the supernatural, only faith that the universe’s natural laws have a moral aspect and can give guidance on issues of good and evil.

That strikes me as even more obviously false than the existence of souls.

I’m sure it does, as it likely does to many people, but, as I said, for a long time the proposition that man could fly or walk on the moon seemed equally obviously false to many people. Perhaps we don’t know enough about the universe’s natural laws to say, but I believe we do and an argument can be made that they do contain a moral aspect, at least on a macro scale, and can give some guidance on issues of good and evil.

Posts: 18037

Joined: 2 Nov 2007

Posts: 546

Joined: 25 Aug 2011

Third-eye:

Religion doesn’t need a deity or the supernatural, only faith that the universe’s natural laws have a moral aspect and can give guidance on issues of good and evil.

That strikes me as even more obviously false than the existence of souls.

I’m sure it does, as it likely does to many people, but, as I said, for a long time the proposition that man could fly or walk on the moon seemed equally obviously false to many people. Perhaps we don’t know enough about the universe’s natural laws to say, but I believe we do and an argument can be made that they do contain a moral aspect, at least on a macro scale, and can give some guidance on issues of good and evil.

Well, that’s kind of beside the original point, I was just reporting in as a guy who does actually want religion to die because someone said he didn’t think anyone actually wanted that.

But, I suppose I’ll bite anyway: Assuming that it was coherent for the laws of the universe to have a moral aspect to them (I don’t think it makes any sense for something that doesn’t have a mind to have anything to do with morality), and assuming further that the laws of the universe actually did have a moral aspect to them (how? Why? I’d say it totally doesn’t look like that’s the case, but I’m not sure I have enough of a mental picture to say that for sure because it doesn’t even make enough sense to me that I could imagine a world where it was the case), and assuming further that we can detect this moral aspect… why should we care?

Why should a moral position encoded into the laws of the universe have any privileged position over my opinion? Surely, sapient minds, which are actually capable of thinking about morality, matter more than a rule that’s just magically there for no reason.

Posts: 254

Joined: 27 Jul 2011

I agree. But I don’t believe what’s happening in the universe is all pure random or chance, not in the most macro sense anyway.

Skeleon:

They aren’t laws like we use them in interhuman relations.

Again I’m talking in the largest macro sense. The more micro you get the more variables and the more complex things get. I’m not suggesting we can do away with societal norms and laws, and there will always be a need for counselors and courts.

Skeleon:

And I fail to see any morality in galaxies colliding, stars detonating and destroying entire solar systems and things generally going about their way without regard for consequences. It’s what happens. That doesn’t make it good or bad.

What if its not just “what happens”? What if its not all random chaos, a bunch of disconnected events? What if there is a purpose at work, a goal to be achieved? That’s what I’m suggesting, that the universe has a purpose and is working to achieve a goal. That’s what all that stuff I keep talking about, gravity, dark matter, the arrow of time, etc., all the mega phenomena, all the clues — that’s what they are —, all part of the universe working to achieve a goal, working for a purpose. And I’m also saying that if we understood that purpose and that goal, that we might draw moral guidance and lessens from that knowledge and understanding.

That’s not to say I think there’s an intelligence at work, certainly not as we might understand it, certainly not consciousness. But a force none-the-less, like magnetism or electricity. In fact I believe magnetism and electricity are part of… um, it.

Skeleon:

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding your point, but to me you sound awfully close to the is-ought-fallacy when you imply that there’s morality in merely how things are and behave.

I’m saying that if the universe is acting to achieve a purpose and a goal — and again Im talking in the broadest sense here, not the destruction of a mere galaxy here or there, that being only a small part of what’s going on — and we understood that purpose and goal, that then we might be able to draw moral lessons from that knowledge and understanding.

And again Im talking only in the broadest macro sense.

Posts: 18037

Joined: 2 Nov 2007

Again I’m talking in the largest macro sense.

I’m not sure what that means. On the most macro level I’m aware, this universe is presumably doomed to heat death. So it doesn’t seem all that… planned or moral, either. All we get are temporarily focused energy which allows complexity to crop up for a limited period of time. Eventually, that’ll be gone. Uniform lifelessness and lack of complexity is what’ll come in the end. But maybe that’s toomacro?

What if its not just “what happens”? What if its not all random chaos, a bunch of disconnected events? What if there is a purpose at work, a goal to be achieved? That’s what I’m suggesting, that the universe has a purpose and is working to achieve a goal. That’s what all that stuff I keep talking about, gravity, dark matter, the arrow of time, etc., all the mega phenomena, all the clues — that’s what they are —, all part of the universe working to achieve a goal, working for a purpose. And I’m also saying that if we understood that purpose and that goal, that we might draw moral guidance and lessens from that knowledge and understanding.

Okay, let’s grant you all that for the sake of argument for now. Even then… how would that ever be applicable to us? For all we know the purpose of the universe by whatever entity is supposedly in charge is to create the largest, densest black hole possible. That’s not conducive to human existence. So it wouldn’t be conducive to human morality, either. If we’re to truly talk on such a macro scale, any and all things you could bring up would simply not be applicable to us since we don’t exist on that macro scale.

That’s not to say I think there’s an intelligence at work, certainly not as we might understand it, certainly not consciousness. But a force none-the-less, like magnetism or electricity. In fact I believe magnetism and electricity are part of… um, it.

Right, I can see that. A Deistic sort of notion, a non-conscious force. But I still don’t understand the leap from that to anything that would be relevant for human morality. Because, frankly, there’s nothing moral about magnetism and electricity or any of the other natural forces from what I can see. In fact, morality in my mind requires… well… minds. It’s intersubjective, after all, and as such non-conscious entities couldn’t really… have it.

I’m saying that if the universe is acting to achieve a purpose and a goal — and again Im talking in the broadest sense here, not the destruction of a mere galaxy here or there, that being only a small part of what’s going on — and we understood that purpose and goal, that then we might be able to draw moral lessons from that knowledge and understanding.

But what could that moral lesson be? Other than “we’re irrelevant, so don’t act pompous towards other humans” or something like that? I still fail to see it applying to us precisely because we are so tiny on that very macro scale.

Posts: 254

Joined: 27 Jul 2011

Well, no, not random. That’s why there are laws to describe occurrences, after all. But you’re taking it several strides further.

OK, here my thumb-nail sketch of what I believe is going on. Understand this is very much a works in progress and there are holes that need filled in and pieces of the puzzle that need fitted on. But anyways….

It starts with the notion that matter/energy is an anomaly; it should not exist, at least not as we understand it. Sure, we understand it gets created frequently on the quantum level, where subatomic particles spontaneously pop into a multidimensional plain of existence we call space-time. But they exit only for an instant as they immediately collided with their negative counterparts (generally referred to as antimatter) and annihilate out of space-time, out of existence. Larger eruptions, even massive eruptions like the Big Bang which created massive amounts of particles, might be relatively common too, but again particles typically exist in space-time for only an instant before they annihilate out of existence.

What we call the Big Bang (BB), that massive eruption some 14 billion years ago, was different. For some unknown reason after that eruption one in every billion or so particle somehow survived.

Ok, here’s the important part: The universe, or a significant part thereof, reacted to this strange turn of events by immediately attempting to eliminate the surviving particles, to erase them out of existence. It did this by creating a process that started with what we call today Dark Matter. Dark Matter is a net or web of sorts which formed to capture the wildly dispersed particles and bring them together.

Dark Matter captures matter by warping space-time creating channels or canals into which particles collected. This process enhances matters own natural ability to warp space-time, what we call Mass. As mass builds up the process of eliminating matter begins. The end result is a black hole, the place were matter/energy is eliminated, but the mechanism is arcane, slow, and sloppy. It releases the energy stored in the matter and creates more complex matter and other phenomena along the way: dust clouds, stars, planets, solar system, galaxies, galaxy clusters, and life.

Ok, here’s the other important part: The process of eliminating matter/energy involves the dilation of space-time: space stretching and time slowing — relative to other space-time — as matter/energy is pushed to elimination. The thought then is that space-time dilation, or the transcendence of dimensional limits of space and time, is… um, highly significant, and reflected in life, evolution, the history of human civilization, and morality.

In practical terms space-time dilation manifests itself in mechanisms of locomotion and communication. Nature has created many amazing mechanism of locomotion but the most amazing is its mechanism of communication, in particular and most importantly the knowledge of survival. We call it DNA, the DNA molecule. The pattern of successful species found in its DNA is mostly fixed but there can be subtle mutations. And if these mutations prove advantageous to survival the chances of the enhanced DNA passing to the next generation increases. We call this process of enhanced DNA transmission Evolution. Its really simply natures way of transcending time by transferring knowledge of survival from one generation to the next.

Life is a unique form of matter in that the process of space-time dilation is not being forced on it so much as it is acting from within it, or being channeled through it. In lower organisms we call it the “survival instinct”. In higher organisms we call it the “Will”, the sprit, the soul. Basically it’s the innate desire of all living things to transcend space and time, to grow, endure, procreate, and multiply.

Man is unique in that his innate instinct to transcend space and time is enhanced by his skill of language and his ability to create tools and artifacts. Early inventions such as the wheel and writing became the basis of our most important civilizations. Roads, ship design, and the harnessing of wind power further the growth, and turned civilizations into empires. History has shown that the culture with the most advance technology of transportation and communication became the dominant social, political, and military power of its time.

Today, space-time dilation is represented best by our modern mechanisms of transportations and communication. It might seem strange to many but the fact is planes, trains, and ever the humble automobile, are all endowed by us, their creators, with a certain “divine” essence, far greater than any religious icon, the ability to transcend space and time. And above it all stands the interplanetary vehicle, our chariot to the stars. It is in such a vessel that we will most fully forged the cosmic will to dilate space-time.

But what about morality you say? Well, I’ve babbled on for long enough. I’ll save that bit for another post, if you’re interested.

Posts: 546

Joined: 25 Aug 2011

Third-eye:
I agree. But I don’t believe what’s happening in the universe is all pure random or chance, not in the most macro sense anyway.

Well, no, not random. That’s why there are laws to describe occurrences, after all. But you’re taking it several strides further.

OK, here my thumb-nail sketch of what I believe is going on. Understand this is very much a works in progress and there are holes that need filled in and pieces of the puzzle that need fitted on. But anyways….

It starts with the notion that matter/energy is an anomaly; it should not exist, at least not as we understand it. Sure, we understand it gets created frequently on the quantum level, where subatomic particles spontaneously pop into a multidimensional plain of existence we call space-time. But they exit only for an instant as they immediately collided with their negative counterparts (generally referred to as antimatter) and annihilate out of space-time, out of existence. Larger eruptions, even massive eruptions like the Big Bang which created massive amounts of particles, might be relatively common too, but again particles typically exist in space-time for only an instant before they annihilate out of existence.

That’s not how it works, if matter was annihilated with antimatter whenever it appeared, that wouldn’t destroy the mass/energy, it would convert the mass into energy.

The particles and antiparticles that appear at the quantum level disappear are temporary changes in the energy at a region of space-time due to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.

What we call the Big Bang (BB), that massive eruption some 14 billion years ago, was different. For some unknown reason after that eruption one in every billion or so particle somehow survived.

I don’t think we have any particular reason to think the matter/energy came into existence at the moment of the big bang, as opposed to it having always existed and the big bang was just a thing about space-time.

Whether it did or not, however, it’s obviously not the same thing as quantum fluctuations. It’s not a quantum fluctuation that ended differently somehow, it’s a completely different thing.

Ok, here’s the important part: The universe, or a significant part thereof, reacted to this strange turn of events by immediately attempting to eliminate the surviving particles, to erase them out of existence. It did this by creating a process that started with what we call today Dark Matter. Dark Matter is a net or web of sorts which formed to capture the wildly dispersed particles and bring them together.

Dark Matter captures matter by warping space-time creating channels or canals into which particles collected. This process enhances matters own natural ability to warp space-time, what we call Mass. As mass builds up the process of eliminating matter begins. The end result is a black hole, the place were matter/energy is eliminated, but the mechanism is arcane, slow, and sloppy. It releases the energy stored in the matter and creates more complex matter and other phenomena along the way: dust clouds, stars, planets, solar system, galaxies, galaxy clusters, and life.

Black holes don’t work that way, they release energy via hawking radiation. Energy is conserved.

Also, how do you account for Dark Energy, which is more abundant than Dark Matter and pushes the universe outwards?

Ok, here’s the other important part: The process of eliminating matter/energy involves the dilation of space-time: space stretching and time slowing — relative to other space-time — as matter/energy is pushed to elimination. The thought then is that space-time dilation, or the transcendence of dimensional limits of space and time, is… um, highly significant, and reflected in life, evolution, the history of human civilization, and morality.

This is just gibberish. There’s not much that makes enough sense to debunk but here’s one point: the conditions that cause time dilation contract, rather than expand, space.

In practical terms space-time dilation manifests itself in mechanisms of locomotion and communication. Nature has created many amazing mechanism of locomotion but the most amazing is its mechanism of communication, in particular and most importantly the knowledge of survival. We call it DNA, the DNA molecule. The pattern of successful species found in its DNA is mostly fixed but there can be subtle mutations. And if these mutations prove advantageous to survival the chances of the enhanced DNA passing to the next generation increases. We call this process of enhanced DNA transmission Evolution. Its really simply natures way of transcending time by transferring knowledge of survival from one generation to the next.

Life is a unique form of matter in that the process of space-time dilation is not being forced on it so much as it is acting from within it, or being channeled through it. In lower organisms we call it the “survival instinct”. In higher organisms we call it the “Will”, the sprit, the soul. Basically it’s the innate desire of all living things to transcend space and time, to grow, endure, procreate, and multiply.

Man is unique in that his innate instinct to transcend space and time is enhanced by his skill of language and his ability to create tools and artifacts. Early inventions such as the wheel and writing became the basis of our most important civilizations. Roads, ship design, and the harnessing of wind power further the growth, and turned civilizations into empires. History has shown that the culture with the most advance technology of transportation and communication became the dominant social, political, and military power of its time.

Today, space-time dilation is represented best by our modern mechanisms of transportations and communication. It might seem strange to many but the fact is planes, trains, and ever the humble automobile, are all endowed by us, their creators, with a certain “divine” essence, far greater than any religious icon, the ability to transcend space and time. And above it all stands the interplanetary vehicle, our chariot to the stars. It is in such a vessel that we will most fully forged the cosmic will to dilate space-time.

Time dilation is not about “transcending” anything, it’s just a consequence of the speed of light being constant from all reference frames.

Nothing about biology has anything to do with time dilation, and that doesn’t really matter because time dilation isn’t magic.

Seriously, this is pure nonsense.

Posts: 254

Joined: 27 Jul 2011

The particles and antiparticles that appear at the quantum level disappear are temporary changes in the energy at a region of space-time due to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.

Yeah, that’s how I originally had it. And Dark Matter is converting matter back to energy. Then I was thinking something more was going on. I was clearly over thinking it. I will edit the earlier post.

Rowan93:

I don’t think we have any particular reason to think the matter/energy came into existence at the moment of the big bang, as opposed to it having always existed and the big bang was just a thing about space-time.

Whether it did or not, however, it’s obviously not the same thing as quantum fluctuations. It’s not a quantum fluctuation that ended differently somehow, it’s a completely different thing.

Sorry but that’s not how I understand it. Certainly we don’t have any particular reason to think the matter/energy existed before BB. Perhaps I’m wrong and you enlighten us more, perhaps provide some links?

Rowan93:
Black holes don’t work that way, they release energy via hawking radiation. Energy is conserved.

Sure, matter to energy. But the important part is what’s happening to time-space. I say it’s eliminated inside a black hole, or at least at singularity.

Rowan93:
Also, how do you account for Dark Energy, which is more abundant than Dark Matter and pushes the universe outwards?

Well, notice I said only part of the universe is acting on matter (converting it back into energy, yes, thank you). And also notice I said Dark Matter came after BB. Dark Energy existed before BB. It’s the force behind the quantum fluctuations, and it’s still there (here?), working against Dark Matter. The fate of the universe is in fact all about this duality.

Rowan93:

This is just gibberish. There’s not much that makes enough sense to debunk but here’s one point: the conditions that cause time dilation contract, rather than expand, space.

Yeah, space contracts. Again that’s how I originally had it. Lately however I was thinking perhaps its really the opposite that going on. Again I was over thinking it. I will edit the earlier post.

As to the gibberish comment, well of course you’re certainly entitled to your opinion, but understand, this part is not science, nor is it meant to be.

Take another look at the topic of this thread. What I’m on about is religion not science. Sure, I talk a lot about science but that’s only because I feel that religion in the Information Age must be consistent with science. But of course religion goes beyond science. Science gives knowledge and a certain understanding but it can’t be the basis of faith, only nihilism. Two thousand years of organized religious devotion suggests that we, as a species, need more than that.

Rowan93:

Time dilation is not about “transcending” anything, it’s just a consequence of the speed of light being constant from all reference frames.

Sure, in a narrow scientific context you are correct. I’m looking at the broader conceptual concept.

Rowan93:
Nothing about biology has anything to do with time dilation, and that doesn’t really matter because time dilation isn’t magic.

Evolution, DNA, it about communication, communicating lessons in survival. Its a transfer of knowledge, so that a generation can survive with a knowledge beyond what it can gain in the short span of its own lifetime. In man that same process is accelerated through language, writing, publishing, etc.

As to the magic comment, there is no magic here, just a way of looking at the universe. It also seems that this comment is be a bit of an emotional outburst, which is uncalled for.

Rowan93:

Seriously, this is pure nonsense.

No, seriously, thank you for your comments. That’s why I post my stuff after all, to solicit comments. Sure, I understand that most are going to be negative, even cruel. I have no delusions about the nature of anonymous posting, but you rose above it for the more part. I got turned back around on some important points and that’s always a good thing. So, again, thanks.

Posts: 1640

Joined: 16 Jan 2013

Posts: 546

Joined: 25 Aug 2011

I don’t think we have any particular reason to think the matter/energy came into existence at the moment of the big bang, as opposed to it having always existed and the big bang was just a thing about space-time.

Whether it did or not, however, it’s obviously not the same thing as quantum fluctuations. It’s not a quantum fluctuation that ended differently somehow, it’s a completely different thing.

Sorry but that’s not how I understand it. Certainly we don’t have any particular reason to think the matter/energy existed before BB. Perhaps I’m wrong and you enlighten us more, perhaps provide some links?

Well, we don’t have any particular reason to believe either hypothesis over the other, at least as far as evidence goes, but personally I think that, in absence of evidence, that the matter-energy was always there seems more likely than that it simply appeared, because of the law of conservation of energy.

Although that said, many physicists, such as Stephen Hawking, say that “before the big bang” isn’t even a thing that makes any sense, because that was the beginning of time i.e. there was no time before the big bang for a “before” to exist in. I’m not sure if I agree with that, or if it leads to useful conclusions, but it’s good to keep in mind I guess.

Rowan93:
Black holes don’t work that way, they release energy via hawking radiation. Energy is conserved.

Sure, matter to energy. But the important part is what’s happening to time-space. I say it’s eliminated inside a black hole, or at least at singularity.

It’s not eliminated, it just takes a particular, unusual… I’ll say “shape”, at a black hole.

Rowan93:
Also, how do you account for Dark Energy, which is more abundant than Dark Matter and pushes the universe outwards?

Well, notice I said only part of the universe is acting on matter (converting it back into energy, yes, thank you). And also notice I said Dark Matter came after BB. Dark Energy existed before BB. It’s the force behind the quantum fluctuations, and it’s still there (here?), working against Dark Matter. The fate of the universe is in fact all about this duality.

Nothing is driving the universe to generate particles, quantum fluctuations are decreases in local energy as often as they are increases (particles are temporarily disappearing as often as they’re appearing). It’s not something driven by a force, it’s just a consequence of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.

Rowan93:

This is just gibberish. There’s not much that makes enough sense to debunk but here’s one point: the conditions that cause time dilation contract, rather than expand, space.

Yeah, space contracts. Again that’s how I originally had it. Lately however I was thinking perhaps its really the opposite that going on. Again I was over thinking it. I will edit the earlier post.

As to the gibberish comment, well of course you’re certainly entitled to your opinion, but understand, this part is not science, nor is it meant to be.

Take another look at the topic of this thread. What I’m on about is religion not science. Sure, I talk a lot about science but that’s only because I feel that religion in the Information Age must be consistent with science. But of course religion goes beyond science. Science gives knowledge and a certain understanding but it can’t be the basis of faith, only nihilism. Two thousand years of organized religious devotion suggests that we, as a species, need more than that.

On a second reading, and given clarification by your further comments here, I’ll retract the “gibberish”. I’m still quite convinced that it’s wrong, but it’s understandable; it’s the same misunderstanding of how black holes work as earlier on, followed up with some woo.

Rowan93:

Time dilation is not about “transcending” anything, it’s just a consequence of the speed of light being constant from all reference frames.

Sure, in a narrow scientific context you are correct. I’m looking at the broader conceptual concept.

I think the point I’m working towards is that there is no broader conceptual concept, it’s a specific piece of physics jargon that refers to a specific physical phenomenon. I mean, you might use it more broadly as a metaphor, but if you mean the word literally then the “narrow scientific context” is the only one you should use it in.

Rowan93:
Nothing about biology has anything to do with time dilation, and that doesn’t really matter because time dilation isn’t magic.

Evolution, DNA, it about communication, communicating lessons in survival. Its a transfer of knowledge, so that a generation can survive with a knowledge beyond what it can gain in the short span of its own lifetime. In man that same process is accelerated through language, writing, publishing, etc.

As to the magic comment, there is no magic here, just a way of looking at the universe. It also seems that this comment is be a bit of an emotional outburst, which is uncalled for.

Evolution doesn’t really work to promote the survival of individuals, it promotes the abundance of genes that increase their own abundance in the next generation. For an extreme example; a gene that makes you have twice as many kids then kills you at age 30 will win at evolution, and completely take over the species.

Also, of course, genes are not knowledge, they’re physical modifications, Lamarckism is long-dead.

Rowan93:

Seriously, this is pure nonsense.

No, seriously, thank you for your comments. That’s why I post my stuff after all, to solicit comments. Sure, I understand that most are going to be negative, even cruel. I have no delusions about the nature of anonymous posting, but you rose above it for the more part. I got turned back around on some important points and that’s always a good thing. So, again, thanks.

Yeah, sorry, my bad, I know the right way to argue with people is to try to reach mutual understanding and progress, but that was kind of bypassed by the thought “this guy’s saying concrete things about physics, which I know a thing or two about! It’s time to go to town!”

EDIT: Quotes fail