Newton's Law of Gravity held sway for quite a long time until perturbations in the orbit of Mercury were detected. Mercury does not orbit precisely in accordance with Newton's equations. The discrepant orbit of Mercury is what initially provoked Einstein to develop hypotheses of space-time curvature that have since been confirmed innumerable times. Thus gravity was never a law, but a flawed description of a process as Sarma describes. Now it appears the easily observed force of gravity does not even exist; it has been replaced by space-time curvature and the general theory of relativity.

Consider how little we know of dark matter, dark energy, and the disconnects between quantum mechanics and human observed reality. Along with radical changes in our understanding of gravity, these are some of the discombobulations that lead to Sarma's conclusion.

Weirdness: Perhaps there is a parallel between Mercury's orbit leading to the general theory of relativity and the precession of the equinox leading to your theories.

LanDroid wrote: ↑Fri Dec 23, 2022 10:44 pm Newton's Law of Gravity held sway for quite a long time until perturbations in the orbit of Mercury were detected.

In referring to the law of gravity I include the theory of relativity, for which Newtonian mechanics is an adequate approximation for almost all non-astronomical purposes. The power of gravity is broadly defined by the inverse square law, with special cases for objects travelling at near light speed or near something heavy. Einstein refined Newtonian physics, which remains the basis of terrestrial engineering except with satellites. That stands in conflict with the sweeping assertion you quoted that “the laws of physics do not exist”.

My complaint about this statement about laws of physics not existing is its implication that the cosmos lacks consistent mathematical order. When we ask if laws of physics exist, there are at least three possible answers. Firstly, we can say yes, we have current partial descriptions of how the universe works that have high levels of predictivity; second, we can say yes there must be ultimate unknown consistent mathematical rules that determine the motion of matter; and third, we can say no, because our current knowledge is incomplete there are no such laws of physics.

“Exist” in this statement is equated to “have a complete description in current science”. The non-existence claim therefore requires answer three. But saying something does not exist just because you don’t understand it is a sloppy epistemology.

The fact that current science does not fully understand the laws of physics does not at all imply such laws will not be discovered in the future, or that the universe lacks consistent mathematical structure.

The problem here, getting back to belief in God, is that asserting the universe must be consistent is a statement of faith. It is a faith that drives all scientific discovery where an apparent inconsistency is seen as an anomaly to be resolved. Science assumes a law of consistency, as an a priori article of faith. But the positivist insistence on the radical exclusion of faith means this principle of consistency is somehow ignored in scientific epistemology, leading to absurd conclusions like the idea that laws of physics do not exist.

Dark matter and dark energy, as I understand them, are place-markers for the failure of general relativity to explain gravity at galactic scale based on observed mass. Astrophysicists don't say maybe these anomalies show the universe is inconsistent, they see them as puzzles to be resolved against the core principle of consistency.

I am going into this in such length because the psychology of faith is central to belief in God. If we defined God as the consistency of the universe, this would be something that could only be perceived by logic and accepted by faith, not proved by observation. Consistency of the ultimate laws of physics can be defined in Kant’s terms as a necessary condition of experience.

My approach equates God with the laws of physics. I think this makes good sense as a way to explain divine attributes of omnipresence, omnipotence, infinity and eternity. There is also a good case for omnibenevolence. It means Biblical monotheism can be read as allegory for intuition of the consistent laws of physics.

LanDroid wrote: ↑Fri Dec 23, 2022 10:44 pmPerhaps there is a parallel between Mercury's orbit leading to the general theory of relativity and the precession of the equinox leading to your theories.

The Mercury perihelion anomaly was an important empirical proof of relativity. Einstein's prediction of this anomaly was cited by TS Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions as a paradigmatic triumph of paradigm shift. The parallel with my work on precession, and the resulting progression of the perihelion, is that I claim the abundant anomalies in conventional literal faith are leading to a paradigm shift at least as significant as relativity, with a shift of religious consciousness to accept that all religious claims are better understood as allegory, not as history. An implication here is that historicism in religion is essentially an evil corruption of an original high moral wisdom into delusional popular dogma. This correlates with my hypothesis that observation of precession was the key structural principle in the construction of Christianity.

What that all means regarding belief in God is that Christian language about God is primarily a useful way to engage the deep mysteries and pressing ethical concerns of existence, with profound insights into the human condition. The poetic language of belief is useful for social cohesion and ethics, as a form of respect for people who are not trained in philosophy, as a way to mobilise moral concern, and as an entry point to discussion of the complexity of life. Belief faces the epistemological critique that its actual referent is allegorical, in the consistent order of nature, and that this is distinct from the claimed referent in God as a supernatural intentional entity. Belief in God is essentially a popular simplification of a complex natural process/idea/construction.

At the risk of going 'round in circles, I'll take another stab at this.

In referring to the law of gravity I include the theory of relativity, for which Newtonian mechanics is an adequate approximation for almost all non-astronomical purposes.

The universe operates however it does independent of human thought or mathematics. The "laws" of physics are approximations independent of the actual workings of the universe. Newton's "law" of gravity was supreme for about 200 years until proved incorrect by Einstein. As we've said, it's a useful approximation for everyday life, but can't explain the orbit of Mercury. One would expect actual "laws" of nature or physics to be as scripture purports to be: unchanging truths. Instead they're more like legislature, subject to continuous revision. In fact hard core scientists admit even the most solid understandings are provisional. For example I think Neil deGrasse Tyson gets into trouble when he says "Whether you believe it or not, Science is true." That's a problem because the current consensus or standard model has so many huge holes that major revisions may be forthcoming. If Tyson means the scientific discovery process is true, that's another thing.

My complaint about this statement about laws of physics not existing is its implication that the cosmos lacks consistent mathematical order. When we ask if laws of physics exist, there are at least three possible answers. Firstly, we can say yes, we have current partial descriptions of how the universe works that have high levels of predictivity; second, we can say yes there must be ultimate unknown consistent mathematical rules that determine the motion of matter; and third, we can say no, because our current knowledge is incomplete there are no such laws of physics.

Mathematics is a human discovery that is undergoing constant revision. We do not know if your statement in bold about the existence of a theory of everything is true. We are unable to reconcile the sub-atomic realm with our own. If certain quantum mechanic theories are true, then we must - not might - we must exist in a flood of multiverses. 100 years ago we did not know galaxies existed. Just a few years ago we thought there might be 50 Billion galaxies; now we're trying to determine if there might be as many as 20 Trillion! On top of all that plus dark matter & energy, scientists are trying to investigate if the universe is ultimately a computer simulation.

So in all this chaos are these evolving "laws" worthy of reverence as Einstein believed? Will they ever achieve a reasonably complete understanding? Suggest reading the article that Sharma linked to previously for more...
https://www.quantamagazine.org/there-ar ... -20180604/

Perhaps one way out would be to say something like "I worship the complicated workings of nature even as we do not currently and may never understand them." But again there is nothing supernatural about that and it sounds a bit like a mystery cult.

LanDroid wrote: ↑Tue Dec 27, 2022 4:00 pm At the risk of going 'round in circles, I'll take another stab at this.

These sort of conversations are more like a spiral or double helix than a stationary circle. The conversation of dialectic doubles back on previous discussions to deepen dialogue.

LanDroid wrote: ↑Tue Dec 27, 2022 4:00 pm The universe operates however it does independent of human thought or mathematics.

Mathematics is the orderly cosmic language of the universe, providing the consistent predictability of physical nature. It is quite wrong to imagine the universe as some random chaos without pattern or law. This principle of consistency is what I described as the basis for belief in God, not as an intentional personal entity but as the ordering principle of the cosmos.

LanDroid wrote: ↑Tue Dec 27, 2022 4:00 pm The "laws" of physics are approximations independent of the actual workings of the universe.

This alleged “independence” wrongly implies that accurate perception is not possible. For example, the rate at which the power of gravity declines has been measured with extreme accuracy, showing scientific perception of the actual workings of the universe.

LanDroid wrote: ↑Tue Dec 27, 2022 4:00 pm Newton's "law" of gravity was supreme for about 200 years until proved incorrect by Einstein. As we've said, it's a useful approximation for everyday life, but can't explain the orbit of Mercury. One would expect actual "laws" of nature or physics to be as scripture purports to be: unchanging truths. Instead they're more like legislature, subject to continuous revision.

I asked scientist friends about this. One replied that “gravity follows inverse square according to current tests. There are some caveats - the simplest gravity calculations assume point sources for gravity but reality is more complicated. For a planet like Earth, you can get a fairly good calculation of an orbital trajectory if you assume a point source, but for more accurate calculations you need to add in perturbations from the somewhat uneven mass distribution of the planet - it isn’t exactly spherical and there are mass concentrations here and there (also, the Moon has really significant mascons). It gets more complicated if you are calculating the gravity near a irregularly shaped asteroid, in a large gas cloud, etc. Also, unlike Newtonian physics, it isn’t just about distance. Rotation can have an effect too, hence frame dragging.”

What this indicates is that Newton’s inverse square law remains true under relativity, but understanding its application to predict actual motion is very complex.

LanDroid wrote: ↑Tue Dec 27, 2022 4:00 pm In fact hard core scientists admit even the most solid understandings are provisional. For example I think Neil deGrasse Tyson gets into trouble when he says "Whether you believe it or not, Science is true." That's a problem because the current consensus or standard model has so many huge holes that major revisions may be forthcoming. If Tyson means the scientific discovery process is true, that's another thing.

This concept of the “hard core scientist” reminds me of the philosopher David Hume’s argument against induction, that we cannot know if the sun will rise tomorrow, or indeed if any effect will have a necessary connection a cause. In practice that level of extreme scepticism is utterly absurd, because it conflicts with the basic principle of universal consistency. We do in fact have faith that the future will conform to the past when it comes to basic predictions, but these “hard core” atheists want to exclude any concepts of trust, faith and consistency from their nihilistic logic. Provisional understanding only relates to questions at the boundary of knowledge, not to the vast array of fully confirmed facts that form the basis of normal science and general life.

LanDroid wrote: ↑Tue Dec 27, 2022 4:00 pm Mathematics is a human discovery that is undergoing constant revision. We do not know if your statement in bold about the existence of a theory of everything is true. We are unable to reconcile the sub-atomic realm with our own. If certain quantum mechanic theories are true, then we must - not might - we must exist in a flood of multiverses. 100 years ago we did not know galaxies existed. Just a few years ago we thought there might be 50 Billion galaxies; now we're trying to determine if there might be as many as 20 Trillion! On top of all that plus dark matter & energy, scientists are trying to investigate if the universe is ultimately a computer simulation.

These are interesting questions for philosophical speculation, but they lack all practical relevance. My personal hunch is that the whole multiverse concept is bizarrely ridiculous and not worth worrying about, except if you are concerned about pondering scholastic questions like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I prefer to limit philosophy to questions that have real cultural effect. The meaning of belief in God is a good example, given that the emotional comfort of psychological fantasy remains such a primary if often unstated real reason for belief. Belief in God can be a practical simplification of the recognition of unknown mystery. As such, there can be practical benefit in cutting through the Gordian Knot of logical conundrums to instead accept belief as necessary for social cohesion and moral improvement. In a context where our civilization stands on the brink of possible collapse due to climate change, it is valuable to ask how religion can contribute to the public conversation. Unfortunately that contribution is useless from both the left and right of religion, with the left insisting that social justice is more important than cooling the planet, and the right insisting that emotional fantasy is more important than empirical observation. These defects are not necessarily inherent to belief in God, although in practice they seem to be. So it is a core moral challenge to ask if belief in God can be reformed to become compatible with empirical observation and logic. I think it can.

LanDroid wrote: ↑Tue Dec 27, 2022 4:00 pm So in all this chaos are these evolving "laws" worthy of reverence as Einstein believed? Will they ever achieve a reasonably complete understanding? Suggest reading the article that Sharma linked to previously for more...
https://www.quantamagazine.org/there-ar ... -20180604/

Just because there are things we don’t know does not imply we are living in chaos. This article continues the syndrome of invalid inference, implying that because we don’t know some things therefore we don’t know anything. Reverence is a highly loaded term, with its political tradition linked to domination by authoritarian dogma. In asking what we should revere, the formulation I have come to is to say we should revere the conditions of reality that are conducive to human flourishing. That essentially defines God as whatever about the universe is of lasting benefit to our existence, helping us to imagine what moral and political changes are needed for our species to continue to flourish on our planet for thousands or even millions of years. I find the story of Jesus Christ immensely helpful in this big existential question. A further dimension of reverence, linked to wonder, awe and sanctity, is the view that complexity is intrinsically good. Our planet is by far the most complex place in the known universe, with the human brain the most complex thing on Earth. The pathological tendency to destroy complexity, seen in indifference to biodiversity that has evolved over hundreds of millions of years, is a great evil in this light.

LanDroid wrote: ↑Tue Dec 27, 2022 4:00 pm Perhaps one way out would be to say something like "I worship the complicated workings of nature even as we do not currently and may never understand them." But again there is nothing supernatural about that and it sounds a bit like a mystery cult.

The word ‘cult’ has a pejorative meaning, like reverence for dogma. Cults are renowned as insular bastions of authoritarian insanity, enforcing beliefs that contradict evidence by separating their adherents from the wider society. It is essential in moral terms that evidence and logic should be core values, promoting a spirit of contestable accountability and transparency for all claims. ‘Mystery’ also comes under heavy suspicion from secular culture, notably in the rejection of New Age and alternative ideas. Generally this suspicion is justified, placing the onus for burden of proof on people who hold wacky beliefs. But we should always remain open to the possibility that claims now regarded as mystical might one day be justified by evidence.

Your line "I worship the complicated workings of nature even as we do not currently and may never understand them" reflects the mystical theology of pantheism, the idea that equates God and nature, and that human language about a transcendental God as personal intentional entity is allegory for natural process. The recognition that there are features of reality that we cannot understand is a key to the humility of both science and mysticism. Of course, the concept of worship is not accepted in science. The epistemology of worship is about an attitude of reverence for the whole, recognising we cannot know the nature of this whole or how we connect to it but expressing faith that this sense of connection is essential to our identity.

Having spent quite a bit of time with Kierkegaard this holiday season, I find myself motivated to discuss faith a bit. The Medieval church made quite a fuss over doctrinal belief, to the point where it was essentially identified with the term "faith" (pistis) used in the New Testament. This is not totally off-base with the way the gospels and the epistles use the term, but neither is it really on target. What it leaves out is a whole dimension of the original term, referring to "trust". The way it was explained to me was like how one responds to a witness in a trial: do you "believe" the witness? If you have trust in them.

If you read some of Paul's stuff on faith, in Romans, especially, his idea of "salvation by faith" turns out to be heavily loaded with this "trust" dimension. Very little on doctrinal correctness - in fact he has much more to say about not disputing over doctrine than he has to say about believing the right things.

So we should ask, not "Do you (cognitively) believe in God?" (which is a modern question stemming from the church's obsession with doctrine and control) but "Do you trust God?" Now, a modernist is likely to be put off by the question, wondering how they can trust what they do not believe exists. But if we recognize the New Testament contrast between the Kingdom of God, which is within you, and motivates extensive sharing and care for the helpless widows and orphans, and the kingdoms of this world, essentially Rome with their crucifixions and hordes of slaves taken in war, then the question of trusting God translates very nicely into modern terms.

Do you trust nuclear weapons and Stinger missiles? Or do you put your trust in "soft power" which motivates people to defend their freedoms and argue for the truth, even when it costs them something?

belief is no longer necessary when you *know.*
it is much like asking someone if they believe that Earth is flat when they've experienced the planet's roundness in space.
I am willing to participate in satisfying any curiosity and skepticism that this might arouse---in fact, that's why I'm here now.

belief is no longer necessary when you *know.*

I think Carl Jung is also famous for saying that. This reminds me of a "Kodak moment," a conversation I had with a protestant minister where I expressed the mere aspiration / yearning / hope to have actual knowledge of the existence of God rather than relying on faith, etc. (I was much younger then and knew some people that claimed such knowledge.) The next Sunday that minister spoke from the pulpit about the sheer unmitigated arrogance of those who demand that God reveal himself to them, etc. I felt he was poking his finger directly in my chest; I left that aspiration and faith behind shortly after that...

LanDroid, I'm sorry that happened to you. Were you a child at the time?

I went to a Christian therapist once and within a few minutes of talking he proceeded to insult me deeply. I informed him I was an atheist, and the look of disgust on his face was shocking. He said, "That's spiritual abuse." Who am I abusing if I don't even believe a god exists?

vibemanlove wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 12:31 pm belief is no longer necessary when you *know.*
it is much like asking someone if they believe that Earth is flat when they've experienced the planet's roundness in space.
I am willing to participate in satisfying any curiosity and skepticism that this might arouse---in fact, that's why I'm here now.

We can actually see the roundness of Earth, so I don't think you're making a proper comparison.

Can you see God? Saying you see God's impact or effect is meaningless and circular. First, show me that God exists, and then we can discuss his impact or effect. We cannot start by assuming a god exists, and then say, "Wow, look at all the amazing stuff God does!" That's no different from saying, "Look how loving, powerful and merciful the Flying Spaghetti Monster is!"

Chris OConnor wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 9:31 pm

vibemanlove wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 12:31 pm belief is no longer necessary when you *know.*
it is much like asking someone if they believe that Earth is flat when they've experienced the planet's roundness in space.
I am willing to participate in satisfying any curiosity and skepticism that this might arouse---in fact, that's why I'm here now.

We can actually see the roundness of Earth, so I don't think you're making a proper comparison.

God is a nonentity, strictly speaking. The nature of God is entirely separate from matter, although theoretically infused through all matter. As such, comparing God to the Earth is a category mistake, as the methods of evidence used to describe the Earth do not apply to God. Personal experience of God can be explained as a construction of psychological imagination, not as evidence for the existence of a specific entity.

None of that detracts from the ideas that God is full of grace and glory and grandeur, but it does detract from the idea that God has personal intentions as a supernatural entity. It is better to think of God as an analogy for whatever we value most highly and best enables us to flourish.

Chris OConnor wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 9:31 pm
Can you see God? Saying you see God's impact or effect is meaningless and circular. First, show me that God exists, and then we can discuss his impact or effect.

If you define God as the collective existence of divine attributes, such as wisdom, love, truth and beauty, then we can see how these attributes have impact, but not how a hypothetical entity who has these attributes has impact and effect.

Chris OConnor wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 9:31 pm We cannot start by assuming a god exists, and then say, "Wow, look at all the amazing stuff God does!" That's no different from saying, "Look how loving, powerful and merciful the Flying Spaghetti Monster is!"

It was great to discover in our recent Booktalk fiction book, Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut, that his science fiction idea of the Tralfamadorians, beings who see all moments of time at once like strands of spaghetti, appears to have inspired the Flying Spaghetti Monster. We can find similar memetic origins for God in human imagination.