Thursday, April 6, 2017

Even More Hate Mail - "The Greatest Minds In Science ....." (blah, blah, blah)

I don't know.  If we're supposed to believe that this multi-universe option to solve the atheist-materialist conundrum caused by modern physics is legitimate, on the basis of the equations they come up with to determine all possible positions of electrons, what would the equations dealing with all possible aspects of my typing out that "M" at the beginning of that sentence in my question below be like?   I would suspect that, while it would be impossible to calculate something like that, it would have to come up with far more possible values for all of the myriads of variables in that one physical act (never mind intentional choice) than those dealing with an electron.  All of them requiring a universe in which all of those possible variations in the variables would be expressed in a concrete material form.   And you think the Genesis story* - even taken as a figurative, instructive description, not as young earth creationist "science" - is absurd.

At least I'd like a really good explanation that all of the many physicists who insist on that multi-universe agree on as to why my question on that matter isn't relevant.  

Or, maybe, to get around the problem of my experienced choice in typing that "M" being determinative, they'll claim that I didn't really choose that but that it merely exists in their stupendously infinite and concrete mega-supreme multi-universe system which, by the way, we don't even know exists except within their imaginations - none of them really being able to fathom what they've imagined, I'd guess no two physicists imagining exactly the same ensemble.  In which case where did all of those infinite universes come from and why they exist as they do?  And, yes, there is the problem that if the equations that our multi-universe creating physicists dream up are so efficacious as to either create or expose other universes, there would certainly have to be other universes in which other physicists have come up with the disconfirmation of their conjectures. 

I think the most parsimonious explanation is that those other universes exist as nothing but wishful thinking by atheists who have proved how decadent they are willing to make science in order to impose their atheism on science.  That has happened in cosmology, in neuro-science, in biology, and certainly in the social sciences over and over and over again since at least the advent of modern science.  There is no magisterial wall between atheist ideology and science as there is, in fact, one that keeps religion out.  Neither religion founded in the supernatural nor atheism based on vulgar materialism really have any place in science, though I'm afraid a lot of people who get paid to write papers and publish them would be hard put to come up with something to get into the journals and to show their departments to try to get tenure if such a wall against atheist religious preference was enforced.  They would be hard put to come up with something to do that with if atheist-materialist faith were kept out of science.   I think the current faculties of the social sciences, neuro-sciences and cosmology would largely have to be put out on the dole if that were done.

Hey, maybe firing them all would tip the political balance in favor of liberalism, assuming they haven't talked themselves out of ideas like equality, equal justice, and our equal moral obligation to give them to everyone wasn't obliterated in their materialist wishful thinking due to their atheist faith in natural selection.  I think Horowitz and Putin are good examples of what so often comes out at the end of atheist materialism.  Vulgar materialism and the monumental greed and depravity that constitute its morals and sacraments. 

*  I'm really tired of rehashing the first few chapters of Genesis along with the story of the flood.  I think the story of Joseph at the end of the book is far more worth going over.  Especially considering the points Brueggemann makes about him acting as an agent of Pharaoh instead of according to the Jewish tradition is both a lot more important for us today and far more interesting.  Especially as Brueggemann point out, you've seen one Pharaoh you've seen them all and a lot of them are around today. 


  1. The funniest thing about the "multi-verse" theories is the extreme solipsism of them. First, math-obsessed physicists decide math is the echo of the universe; then they decide their math only makes sense if there are multiple universes; then they decide that means there must be multiple universes; and voila! Multi-verse solves all our problems!

    Except math is based on deduction, and science on induction, and you discard induction in favor of deduction at your peril. Deduction requires the general principles already be known; induction requires that they be discerned from specific instances. Math works from general principles; using it to establish general principles is to engage in tautology.

    Or wishful thinking; whichever comes first.

    1. I like how they break all of the supposed virtues of science, from the law of parsimony to the law of the conservation of mass and energy to (in some of their multiple universe schemes) the second law of thermodynamics. Can you imagine what they'd say if someone else insisted on those things to prop up their non-atheism?

      I do think it all comes back to their preference for atheism, I think that's the basis of materialism, it certainly is in the literature. They have a deep emotional hatred of God and the possibility of a supernatural and a deep emotional need for something that has an absolute concrete reality and they're willing to go to the most absurd lengths in the history of human alleged intellection to impose it as science, impeaching the reliability of science in the process.

      I really, truly, believe that atheism, expressed, these days, as both high-brow and vulgar materialism are the greatest sources of decadence and corruption in the world today. Considering the actions of those who allegedly were religious in the past but whose every action betrayed their professed belief, I strongly suspect they were just lying about that while believing in vulgar materialism in their innermost hearts. Including not a few Popes and other religious figures. I've read speculation that the infamous Alexander VI was an atheist.