How do you deal with life now that you are an atheist? (With a little of my life)

[Arkilogue]

You appear to be telling us what any potential universe would be like, and that you have a model for it. How do you know any of this is true? We have one data point. You're making assumptions that other universes must be follow a bunch of rules similar to the ones this one has. Your "falsifiable criteria" is based on modelling this universe and comparing it against itself, as far as I can see. We can't retest it. This universe fits your criteria. Can I perform any additional tests that could actually falsify it? Just recounting the same data you already decided fits your model is not another test.

Yes and that each one is exactly* the same. It's completely deterministic model as there is only one Thing to be expressed or quantized.

The beginning state prior to existence I am working from is no different than the singularity of time, space and matter proposed by the Big Bang theory...only I'm canceling out the external "nothing space" that does not exist. There is no perspective outside the singularity. It is not "infinitesimally small" because that is a false perspective of scale (our scale) overlayed with it....in an imagined nothing space outside of it that does not exist. The singularity has no boder, it contains all space, time and matter. It is not a finite amount relative to a nothing space outside that does not exist.

Instead of the false perspective of treating the singularity like a particle, I'm treating it like a field of matter in equilibrium with no external border that "quantum fluctuates" in a regular pattern of waveforms that are all finite spatial expression of the original infinite field of matter. It is completely deterministic and geometrically self limiting.


The model geometrically predicts a slight negative curve of space time. If it's proved to be positive or flat, the model is falsified.
If the dark energy constant was found to be 40% or 92% or any other percent beyond current refined calculation by a reasonable amount (half a percent), the model is falsified.
If a fourth density of quarks are found to be render-able in particle accelerators it would falsify the model.
If our local observable universe doesn't have a preferred direction of motion or hemispherical asymmetry in the CMB it would falsify the model.
If anti-matter could not be "created" it would falsify the model.
If the travel of electric current didn't go hand in hand with a magnetic field effect with infinite range it would falsify the model.

If space-time reversed expansion it would certainly falsify the model, but it would be met with warmth.



Help me answer you, what are you looking to be able to falsify about it?

[robvalue]

So I repeat the test you've already done. Like I said, that's not a retest. I can't falsify it because you already know the answer.

I might as well say, "The universe is designed if there are two apples in this bowl. It can be falsified because there might not be two apples in the bowl. But go ahead and recount them as many times as you like."

Falsify about it? You've just made a model which fits this universe and declared it correct. That's not even a test. I want to know how you know what potential universes are like. You're just basing it on this universe. So it's not surprising you get the answer you want. You could just as easily prove it isn't designed, if it meets the same criteria, because you'll get the same result. You're drawing no connection between the two things because there is no further independent test you can do.

This isn't science. It's not a new way of doing science, it's just assuming your conclusion. You're just saying "Designed stuff would act this way. Oh look, it acts that way." I can just as easily say the contrary. Where is your non-designed control data for comparison? And I mean actual data, collected from another actual universe?

[RozKek]

Ark, I don't know if what you're saying makes sense, but I do know if it does, it doesn't mean it's correct. You've yet to provide some evidence for your claims. No equations? No tests? No labs? Not peer-reviewed?

[Arkilogue]

So I repeat the test you've already done. Like I said, that's not a retest. I can't falsify it because you already know the answer.

I might as well say, "The universe is designed if there are two apples in this bowl. It can be falsified because there might not be two apples in the bowl. But go ahead and recount them as many times as you like."

Falsify about it? You've just made a model which fits this universe and declared it correct. That's not even a test. I want to know how you know what potential universes are like. You're just basing it on this universe. So it's not surprising you get the answer you want. You could just as easily prove it isn't designed, if it meets the same criteria, because you'll get the same result. You're drawing no connection between the two things because there is no further independent test you can do.

I didn't make it to fit this universe, I "made" the model first. It comes from naturally arising geometric self limitations and they describe/predict the structures, forces and fields found in each universe. They also happen to describe the one's in this universe and elegantly solve for many of the remaining mysteries like the matter/anti-matter asymmetry.

I'm 100% certain it can be expressed as a mathematic equation, I simply don't have the skill to yet....and I may never.

---

This isn't science. It's not a new way of doing science, it's just assuming your conclusion. You're just saying "Designed stuff would act this way. Oh look, it acts that way." I can just as easily say the contrary. Where is your non-designed control data for comparison? And I mean actual data, collected from another actual universe?

I'm not saying "designed stuff would act this way" I'm say a round vibrating container of water predicts a round internal standing wave, a square container predicts a square wave, a spherical container predicts a spherical internal standing wave-form. What are atoms?

A maximum density sphere pack of equal sized spheres predicts an expansive spatial constant of no more than 74% on each sphere

There is no need or possibility of data from another universe.

---

Ark, I don't know if what you're saying makes sense, but I do know if it does, it doesn't mean it's correct. You've yet to provide some evidence for your claims. No equations? No tests? No labs? Not peer-reviewed?

Because most of it has already been done and I am comparing data already collected by others. The model has greater predictive and explanatory power than the BBT or the Many Worlds theory through a more elegant solution.

Correct, incorrect, certainly both in many places......it's a good idea and I'm still hammering it out into the proper language and delivery.

But next time I book an evening at the LHC to find the forth density family of matter, I'll let you know. So far the surety there isn't, is at Sigma 5.3

[Excited Penguin]

I'm twenty and your story is very similar to mine barring some details. I can relate to you.

I know about the whole feeling invincible shtick in young males, people should talk more about it. I don't know if it exists in young females too, though. You're right that it's pretty much indiscriminate in who it affects. I felt like I wouldn't die long after I lost religion and became an atheist at the age of fourteen. I still believe that in a sense - or, rather, I tend to ignore the fact that I'm not going to live forever, else I'd get a little too depressed with how fast time goes and that it's all for nothing.

[robvalue]

I'm going to give up this discussion. Thanks for trying to explain Ark,but I don't think we'll make any more progress.

[robvalue]

I'll give it one last go. This is how science works:

1) Observe
2) Create a hypothetical predictive model
3) Test the model repeatedly
4) If the model is proving unreliable, go back to step 2 and improve it.
5) Get other people to review your work and test your model. If problems are found, go back to step 2 and improve it.
6) You have a working, practical model.

You have got as far as step 2. You have a hypothetical model. Let's say you can run a test T on a universe and it produced two results, D and N.

For a universe U, the model predicts U is designed if T(U) = D, and it predicts U is not designed if T(U) = N.

Now onto stage 3. Test the model repeatedly to see how accurate it is. In this case, we need lots of different universes, some designed, some not. We then need to run the test on them, to see whether the predictive model is accurate or not. If we get flawless accuracy over a very large number of test subjects, with the model successfully separating the designed universes from the non-designed ones, then we can say we have a working, practical model, if the results are confirmed by stage 4.

Then we take this model and apply it to our universe, being confident that the result is probably accurate.

You have omitted the whole of the procedure in italics. You've simply assumed your model is correct, after no testing whatsoever. And of course, you have left it out precisely because we don't have access to large numbers of universes. We have this one. We have nothing to compare it to, except bits of itself, and models based on itself.

[LadyForCamus]

I'll give it one last go. This is how science works:

1) Observe
2) Create a hypothetical predictive model
3) Test the model repeatedly
4) If the model is proving unreliable, go back to step 2 and improve it.
5) Get other people to review your work and test your model. If problems are found, go back to step 2 and improve it.
6) You have a working, practical model.

You have got as far as step 2. You have a hypothetical model. Let's say you can run a test T on a universe and it produced two results, D and N.

For a universe U, the model predicts U is designed if T(U) = D, and it predicts U is not designed if T(U) = N.

Now onto stage 3. Test the model repeatedly to see how accurate it is. In this case, we need lots of different universes, some designed, some not. We then need to run the test on them, to see whether the predictive model is accurate or not. If we get flawless accuracy over a very large number of test subjects, with the model successfully separating the designed universes from the non-designed ones, then we can say we have a working, practical model, if the results are confirmed by stage 4.

Then we take this model and apply it to our universe, being confident that the result is probably accurate.

You have omitted the whole of the procedure in italics. You've simply assumed your model is correct, after no testing whatsoever. And of course, you have left it out precisely because we don't have access to large numbers of universes. We have this one. We have nothing to compare it to, except bits of itself, and models based on itself.

Maddening, isn't it?

[quip]

Hi,


So, the question is: How do you face the unavoidable reality of life, with no God by your side?

Meditation.

[RozKek]

Ark, I don't know if what you're saying makes sense, but I do know if it does, it doesn't mean it's correct. You've yet to provide some evidence for your claims. No equations? No tests? No labs? Not peer-reviewed?

Because most of it has already been done and I am comparing data already collected by others.  The model has greater predictive and explanatory power than the BBT or the Many Worlds theory through a more elegant solution.

Correct, incorrect, certainly both in many places......it's a good idea and I'm still hammering it out into the proper language and delivery.

But next time I book an evening at the LHC to find the forth density family of matter, I'll let you know. So far the surety there isn't, is at Sigma 5.3

Well then, go ahead and get it peer-reviewed. I won't be surprised if it's wrong. I doubt that you, alone, have made some sort of discovery that everyone else has missed out on, you can't even put it out mathematically to check if everything is correct. I call bs. And it doesn't matter, you still need to do experiments, have equations or something along those lines as mentioned above because you don't know if everything is correct.