A Reasonable Religion

[GOODBEATGUY2001]

And with the widespread popularity of religion among the uninformed & misinformed, Sklanskynity should be a long-term positive expectation. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

In a nutshell, yes, that is what NotReady's belief system comes down to.


[/ QUOTE ]

There is a sense in which this is true. If it is proper to judge God by any standard outside of God, He isn't God. He graciously provides evidences, including reason, testimony and history, but the final say so is His. Self-evidently.

[Dan Mezick]

David,

You seem to be strongly replused by all forms of revealed religion and accordingly, you tilt towards deism.

I note with interest that you capitalize with the big "G".

I read all your posts along these lines.

I notice that you articulate few if any distinctions between spirituality and religion.

I'd be keen on hearing your comments, opinion and analysis regarding the arguments of the following math/logic oriented web sites:

Theory of Reciprocity- A theory of physical reality
http://www.theory-of-reciprocity.com/

Cosmic Ancestry- A Theory of origins of life on earth.
http://www.panspermia.org

[David Sklansky]

Any thoughts I have on these matters have a probability attached to them. It amazes me that most people don't think this way. As for how something can start from nothing, one possibility that I don't see discussed, relates to the fact that time can be considered the fourth dimension. And just like the two dimensional inhabitants of Flatland can walk on a sphere in what they they think is a straight line and get back where they started (because they actually exist in a three dimensional world) perhaps we live in a five dimensional universe where time itself repeats.

[goofball]

It's been a while since I studied string theory but according to it we live in a universe of more than 4 dimensions. Most people don't really seem to know this I think.

Of course you see your religion as wiht X probability, just like see christianity as having a non (but closer to)zero probability of being accurate. How could anyone not?

[Exsubmariner]

There have been many debates about the number of dimensions present in the universe. My limited understanding of quantum mechanics is that this is necessary because of the spin on various types of quanta. Some have suggested that there are as many as fourteen dimensions. The latest thinking on the nature of the universe is that it is one of many multiverses and that it is possible to create another universe inside this one and have it break off to form it's own bubble in the multiverse. Space time as we know it may only be a collison between two or more bubbles in the multiverse. There could be other collisions....for example, where the force of magnetism is not as strong as the force of gravity.
The most fascinating thing that I find about probability when faced with eternity is that if something can occur, no matter how improbable, it WILL eventually happen. This is why I am going to try to win the WSOP one day. If I keep trying as long as I have too, I will eventually be successful. Best part about an event like that is that it only has to happen ONCE. Kind of like the first spiral of DNA floating in a mud puddle. The world was forever different after this one insignificant improbable event. But it did happen....ONCE.
I guess I must be a fatalist.
In terms of time, Einstein's calculations proved that time cannot be reversed but can be stretched and shortened. The reason tomorrow is tomorrow and not yesterday is that the universe is bigger tomorrow than it is today. It has been hypothesized that if the universe began to fall back in on itself, tomorrow would stop being tomorrow and become yesterday. In a sense, repeating time.
X

[PairTheBoard]

Exsubmariner -
"It has been hypothesized that if the universe began to fall back in on itself, tomorrow would stop being tomorrow and become yesterday. In a sense, repeating time."

Great. More Reruns.

PairTheBoard

[Exsubmariner]

OH GOD....
I haven't thought of that. I don't know how I could handle Richard Hatch and his tiny penis offending the X Navy seal.... I swore off network TV after that.... Now I won't be able to keep my oath..... I'm DOOOOOOOOMMMMMEEEEED..... NNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

[David Sklansky]

"The most fascinating thing that I find about probability when faced with eternity is that if something can occur, no matter how improbable, it WILL eventually happen"

Not if each failure reduces the probability. If I have a 100 unit starting bankroll playing single deck blackjack and a photographic memory, I'll have about a 2% edge even if I flat bet one unit at a time. If I play for eternity any streak you name will eventually happen. But what will almost certainly NOT eventually happen is that I go broke.

For many years I have suspected but have not proved that this surprising fact may be what is behind certin intractable number theory problems. Goldbach's Conjecture for example. Each time you check out a bigger even number, pure probability reduces the chances that you will find it to be not the sum of two primes. And the sum of those probabilities, if I am not mistaken, converge.

Suppose you mark off the digits of pi's expansion two at a time. Will any of those two digit "numbers" ever be a perfect square? If the digits of pi behave essentially randomly, the answer must be (rigorously speaking the probability approaches 100%) yes. Just like your original assertion. Because, counting 00 as a square, we have an infinite number of chances to hit a 10% shot. But if I marked off the digits first by two, then four, then six etc, each new "number" would have a drastically reduced chance to be a square. In fact if the sequence was in fact truly random digits, the probability of ever coming up with a perfect square is about 11%. So it seems to me that if I conjectured no perfect square would arise marking pi off this way, I could be correct for essentially no (provable ) reason. (Whearas if there were in fact no square in pi marking it off two at a time, there would exist a proof for this, since probality alone couldn't account for it.)

[Exsubmariner]

"If I play for eternity .... almost certainly NOT eventually happen is that I go broke."

I hate to nitpick a point but I think that almost certainly statement is what undoes you. It is possible you will, no matter how small the likelyhood. Although, the house may go bust before you do. I wonder if the house in God's casino can ever go bust????

"And the sum of those probabilities, if I am not mistaken, converge."
I think you're right. Don't quote me but it rings a bell.

"So it seems to me that if I conjectured no perfect square would arise marking pi off this way, I could be correct for essentially no (provable ) reason."
I honestly believe that the root of many religions begin with an assertion that has much in common with this one. It is, but cannot be understood, and therefore any explanation about the whyfores cannot be reasonably disputed and thus you wind up with a prophet of some sort.

Another interesting tidbit about the number Pi. I think Sagan wrote about this, but I'm not sure of the exact origin. In the endless chain of numbers after the .14 about some million or billion or trillion or so digits down the chain (not really sure where but they go on forever) there is a series of 1's and 0's. Those 1's and 0's, in binary, are the entire series of numbers after the decimal that came before them. Now how did that get in the fabric of the universe? In order to find it, you have to be able to do math and build a computer that can do complex calculations.... I definately think this fact should be added to the dogma of Sklanskyanity. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I am enjoying this immensely.
X