1. Fleas on the Horizon: In Defense of God

Comment #138069 by dkv on March 3, 2008 at 8:51 pm

The needless debate is going to kill the reason of science... In many cases the rationalist apply the principle of "I dont know" but in the case of God.. they aggressively pull the defenceless God.
Blasphemy challenge... the root of all evil etc have ruined the successful attempt at evolution.

2. Physicist Neil Turok: Big Bang Wasn't the Beginning

Comment #132556 by dkv on February 25, 2008 at 1:26 am

We Dont know when the Universe started.
Most probably it started where the time was not defined.
When the light travelled at an exceedingly high rate.

3. Defying Gravity in Science Class

Comment #128770 by dkv on February 17, 2008 at 11:09 pm

Nobel prize deals with a subset of knowledge.
And there is no nobel prize for mathematics..
The point is we cannot keep on debating in the hope that someday someone will give Nobel Prize.
If we think we think for the pleasure of thinking..The pleasure beomes more sexy if institutions support it... but thats it.
There is no other advantage.Wisdom reminds me of the fact that one must remain humble ...it is the most difficult skill to learn for any knowledge seeker.
There were many brilliant people who lost their lives before thier ideas were recognized again proving the futility of materialistic search in knowledge...

4. Defying Gravity in Science Class

Comment #128764 by dkv on February 17, 2008 at 10:44 pm

Nobel prizes ?? for what ?
Isnt it sufficient to know that we know more.

5. Defying Gravity in Science Class

Comment #128756 by dkv on February 17, 2008 at 10:26 pm

Probability of anything.
But that will take us away from the discussion on gravity...
Gavrity is caused by Gravitons... which are self interacting and they can have weird properties.
Now there is no reason to assume that Gravitional Constant G remains constant in time and space...
There is a chance that Gravitional Constant has non-linear properties.
The Earth quakes can then be explained as consequence of this non-linear component in the Gravtational equation...
We were experiencing anamoly in standard Gravity but we were not recognizing it in fundamental way...
It is impossible to have any mass of significance without "earthquakes"...
There is chance that you might suddenly expereince an earth quake for no reason at all.

The truth is we are neglecting the true nature of gravity and we tend to assume landing on Moon explains gravity.
(I explain it by Anomaly in Randomeness which is pure physics.)

6. Defying Gravity in Science Class

Comment #128742 by dkv on February 17, 2008 at 9:40 pm

To give you a hint the probability is never zero even theoretically.

7. Defying Gravity in Science Class

Comment #128740 by dkv on February 17, 2008 at 9:28 pm

I will not discuss too much here.
I have already discussed it.
The main topic of discussion is gravity.

8. Defying Gravity in Science Class

Comment #128735 by dkv on February 17, 2008 at 9:04 pm

You are totally wrong..
If you have read the theory carefully then it should be known to you that Black holes do not allow anything to escape not even light.(we are talking about microscopic blackholes)
The only thing which works then is the interaction between virtual particles.. which comes into existence because of what we call uncertainity principle(or more precisely due to inherent probabilistic nature of physics).
======================================
The effect of Moon do not account for the Monster Waves in Ocean... Read more.
============================
The dark matter etc add additional uncertainity to the true nature of Gravity..
It might turn out that Gravity as we know is consequnce of a different theory.
Naive understanding of gravity (or gravitation more precisly) doesnt help.
========================
Anamoly in Randomness is my theory ... you are free to disagree.

9. Defying Gravity in Science Class

Comment #128727 by dkv on February 17, 2008 at 8:05 pm

In quantum mechanics the gravity doesnt work the way it works on large scale..
Black holes emit energy.In other words the ball of energy defies gravity due to the uncertainity principle.
Monster tides in the oceans also tend to defy gravity.. They rise 20-25 meters high.

And all this happens in a real world..
The exact nature of Garvity is not yet known...
The apple from tree doesnt "always" fall on the Earth. If a supernova explodes in near vicinity then the apple might get effected in strange ways.

The formation of Galaxy defies any Gravitational equation...

We live in a small world.
There is an inherent anomaly in Randomness.

10. Ben Stein Wins Intelligent Design Money

Comment #128047 by dkv on February 15, 2008 at 11:21 pm

An exceptionally simple theory of everything.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.0770

11. Ben Stein Wins Intelligent Design Money

Comment #128044 by dkv on February 15, 2008 at 10:57 pm

Faith is a advice.

12. Ben Stein Wins Intelligent Design Money

Comment #128032 by dkv on February 15, 2008 at 10:23 pm

A analogy exists in real world.When FBI captures an Iraqi undercover agent ... his fate will be similar.Or when Israeli captures a Muslim terrorist his fate will be no different...(and vice versa)
The question is whether there is a possibility ?

13. Ben Stein Wins Intelligent Design Money

Comment #128025 by dkv on February 15, 2008 at 10:00 pm

There is a possibility that all the religion bashers will get roasted in hell like insects...they will might get subjected to inhumane torture by the devil who will throw their half conscious body in boiling oil.
Any doubts so far?

14. Ben Stein Wins Intelligent Design Money

Comment #128001 by dkv on February 15, 2008 at 9:18 pm

We are sexual and add sustainable to it and we become intelligent..
Consider following what if scenarios:
What if we are moving Towards Sustainable Pleasure?
What if whatever constitues us in contained in everything which is part of the universe.
What if genes came into existence to increase pleasure?
(Physically I think increase in similarity means increase in pleasure)
What if there was no singular point of origin of the Universe?
What if the Masses just came out like tress on a flat earth...and then the principle of similarity worked on it?
The theory of Evolution is far from complete.
If you find those scenarios irritating then that explains the success of Ben Stein's argument.

15. Pleas for condemned Saudi 'witch'

Comment #127042 by dkv on February 14, 2008 at 6:23 pm

Recently ,some school children bruned down the witches in Africa.. They did not go through the legal procedures to ascertain the facts before launching the witchhunt...
Bewtiched serial has been very popular in Modern media ... And the ghost hunters have been regularly the theme of Modern cinema...

All Religions tend to practice the Ghost Exorcism.. I think we should start looking at the possibilities from scientific point of view ...
It may turn out that the basic impedance towards the research on Ghosts comes from philosophical differences between Materialism and Spiritualism ...
Materialism is actually considered scientific because materialism demands something physical to appreciate its value.. Physics of physicality has been incomrephensible so far.
However some physcial theories like Holographic Universe have actually went beyond the Materialism ... but fail to provide any material benefits ....
Given a theory we ask what is the material benefit of believing in such a theory ...?
However we tend to forget that there might be some psychological benefits...

16. Exorcism undergoes a revival across Europe

Comment #126678 by dkv on February 13, 2008 at 11:36 pm

There are three aspects to the problem.
1.Whether Ghost exists or not?
2.If Ghost exist then what method should be employed to get rid of it.Even the Exorcist fail.
3.If Ghost is someone without physical body then why cant we apply the same psychological principles on Ghost as we apply to a normal human being.
(the idea overlaps with terrorist-hostage situation)

17. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125701 by dkv on February 11, 2008 at 9:31 pm

Multicultarism is here to stay.. there are inherent advantages of promoting diversity ...
Most rationalist it seems fail to realize this.
The dream of one religion or one framework of law for everyone is too unpractical...
The criticism of Muslims or Christians or Hindus is based on the assumption that there was something inherently wrong in the Evolutionary Manifestations of ideas or events.
In fact there was no choice ....Diversity is what was expected and thats what is there.

How can an Evolutionist debate Multi-culturalism?
It is a natural consequence of Evolution.
If the gene theory cant live with religions then the gene theory must change...

18. Richard Dawkins talks about The God Delusion

Comment #124326 by dkv on February 9, 2008 at 5:18 am

I think therefore I am.
If I dont think then it doesnt matter.
Ideally I would like to demonstrate that existing person doesnt exist.

19. Richard Dawkins talks about The God Delusion

Comment #124319 by dkv on February 9, 2008 at 5:04 am

One religious story says that God take avatars to conquer evil...as if God had no idea what the future will be when evil takes birth..clearly even Gods can not predict the future in a way as required by science.. but over a large period of time the future can become more predictable.

Who created the Universe or How the universe came into existence is debatable from both point of views..
The idea of putting thoughts into people's mind is interesting but does that happen actually is again debatable... there are concepts like conciousness ,ghosts etc which are not recognized by science ....
I think science needs to recognize some these concepts in order to explain such phenomenon. I already discussed that ghost is a necessity if life is to be logically relevant..
It might turn out that God is not the only candidate running for the post of creator...

The deep philosophical implications of Ghost can result into an alternative reality ... Life and the Universe might just turn out to be a dream.
Consider the statement : Life is dream... then
there is no way to prove one way or the other...
Dream is something which we understand.In dreams we find people interact with them ... eat , drink talk everything so much like a reality...
Therefore life as a dream remains a possible candidate to explain Universe.

20. Richard Dawkins talks about The God Delusion

Comment #124308 by dkv on February 9, 2008 at 4:32 am

Probability can be applied to some physical problems that includes entropy and quantum mechanics...
However probability can not be applied to every physical or mathematical problem.
When probability works for entropy you are saying that probability is driving the entropy ... where as I am saying that probability worked for the problem of entropy that too under special cirumstances...
There is a difference in two views... your view makes it appear as if probability can be realized for every real problem ... where as my view questions the problem itself ..if problem allows application of probability only then probability can give meaningful results...

To explain it more clearly assume a probability driven world in which raw probability drives the casuality ....
Consider the box problem again... from the point of view of observer who has no prior knowledge about the contents of the box .. calculates the probablity and finds the probability increasing with the number of boxes ...(even if I tell the person that the boxes are fake then from his mathematical point of view the chance of me being correct is only 50%) In a probability driven world the box explodes as N tends to infinity..

[quote]
I think we can, and we are.

God is supposed to be eternal, omniscient and all-powerful. That is, of necessity, infinitely complex - if God knows everything, then He must contain the information about everything, and in a way that is structured so that he can know it.

We know that minds are complex - it takes millions of years to evolve them. Many theists say that this complexity is improbable.

But if you invoke God to explain this complexity, you are introducing the very thing you are trying to explain (the complexity of mind), but infinitely bigger.

[/quote]
I dont think any religion denies the role of devil. If God was omnipotent then how the Devil came into existence?
Clearly the religious claim is not understood properly.
No religion can make such a claim as you are saying... It is possibility that what they are trying to convey is something different ,some framework in which God tends to be omnipotent if given enough time...i.e. Instant action is not allowed even at the level of God...then we can explain how Devil found its way...
No religion claims that the God created universe in no time... we all know there is an upper limit to speed at which information can travel...
Time or some kind of sequence is required by each of them...
I am not commenting on the validity of God but on the understanding of the problem itself... and I wonder whether there is any inherent reason in science to discuss God?
Moreover the statement that the God exists carries statistical validity...what better proof can one expect when we believe so much in statistics of entropy and quantum mechanics??

21. Richard Dawkins talks about The God Delusion

Comment #124294 by dkv on February 9, 2008 at 3:43 am

I am simply saying that probability in mathematics doesnt translate into realization in physics...
Probability can not be ignored if the problem allows its application..
Not every problem in mathematics or physics can be answered using probability.

I dont think there should be any problem with that result.

Question is can we scientifically state that God is highly improbable?
Are we formulating the problem in a correct way so that we can apply probability?

22. Richard Dawkins talks about The God Delusion

Comment #124289 by dkv on February 9, 2008 at 3:22 am

[quote]
Entropy tends to increase because systems, as a whole, tend to move from more ordered to less ordered - from "less probable" to "more probable". You can actually extract energy from this tendency, so I suggest that your statement [/quote]
What you extract is the energy of the movements of molecules which is understood to driven probability at least statistically...
in other words probability can be applied to real problem for theoretical understanding(all the contants are empirical) and not vice versa.
Entropy is related to kinetic energy and it is a statistical measure of randomness...
Classical entropy doesnt make sense if there are few molecules...or if the particles are fermions ..
Infact quantum entropy is totally different concept... once again illustrating that it is not the probability which is working but nature of the real problem ...After highest levels of entropy is achieved no one knows what happens next ... any further increase in temperature actually increases the order!!
If tomorrow more we discover something new or some new variable the probability which we use today might not work...
Definition of problem is definite requirement for probability to work.
Even in some ordinary cases the probability fails us.
I think we are rushing for a conclusion...
==========================
A scientist has publised his paper claiming time is an illusion ...
"Carlo Rovelli, a physicist at the University of Marseille in France, has found
just that. In the past year, he and his colleagues have worked out a method to
compress multiple quantum events in time into a single event that can be
described without reference to time (Physical Review D, vol 75, p 084033).
"

23. Richard Dawkins talks about The God Delusion

Comment #124284 by dkv on February 9, 2008 at 2:44 am

I already shared an example in which the probability of an event increases exponentially but the event itself never manifests because mathematical probability was high...in other words mathematical probability doesnt tranlate into reality... probability is not a potential energy for reality....and that is what I meant ...

If you dont believe me take N boxes write transcription "If the box is opened the future will not be available" and send it to someone who doesnt know anything about it... but understands probability .He calculates the chances assuming there is a 50% chance of explosion...(as the statement can also be false )
From his point of view the probability of explosion increases with each box but from your point of view the chances are 0...
But how do we explain the real world application of probability ?
It turns out that probability can be applied to Physics but probability in itself can not lead to physics.
This is what meant.
When we say God is improbable are we not discussing a similar situtation in which the boxes carry a transcription "If the God box is opened the reason will vanish".. ?
we are debating a statement mathematically....
which may or may not have roots in the reality ... we are playing with numbers without really understanding the true nature of application of probability or science.

[quote]
"People don't choose their birth. By the time people realize what the situation is, they're already invested in life. They've got friends, families, goals, responsibilities, etc. It's probably true that my life will be meaningless 10 million years down the road, but right now, at this moment, it matters a lot to me and those who care about me. I care about mortals. What kind of idiot wouldn't care about living, loving and responsibility in the absence of a god?
"[/quote]
One finds reason only to find how unreasonable life is!!

24. Richard Dawkins talks about The God Delusion

Comment #124258 by dkv on February 8, 2008 at 11:51 pm

I gave a example to demonstrate the nature of highly improbable in mathematics when the event space is not fully known...
In the example above the chances of future not becoming available is very high but in reality this doesnt happen...(notice the difference between mathematics and physics)

Consider another example : In an urn N balls of unknown colors are kept... the observer is asked to find out the colors without directly observing them ...he is allowed to pick randomly from the urn and after each observation the ball is replaced in the closed urn.
Will the observer ever be able to tell the exact number of colors in the urn with 100% confidence?
How many attempts will ensure 100% success ?
The answer is infinite number of attempts will be required to say anything for sure even when the number of balls is just 2.
Probability is just probability nothing less nothing more..The observer can only attach a confidence level to his answer.

Another example : Lets conduct a virtual experiment with a die having infinite number of faces... The chances of getting 1 point or 6 point in an attempt tends to 0...however nothing stops the occurence of 1 or 6 point in the first attempt.

The "mathematical" improbability doesnt necessarily translate into casuality in "reality".
We can only wonder if an highly unlikely event occurs because we know probability ...but that doesnt Violate the mathematics. And how does it matter whether we are in tears to see the miracle of nature or sit quietly without any interest!!

The existence of God is debatable as long as we attribute the qualities as mentioned in book..i.e omnipresent , omnipotent, omniscient locally..
There is no literature to suggest that Gods or God carry those property locally in time ... As far as I know God tends to become omnipresent and/or omnipotent and/or omniscient over large period of time. He doesnt stop you from committing a sin today...but over a period of time he promises to take care of morality... Infact no one can deliver instant justice ...because the information of the crime itself travels at a finite speed.
============================================

Anyways ,
What if we debate the existence of Ghost?
Isnt it possible that Ghost are far more probable than God?

If you are interested in logic then is there any logical reason for you or anyone to take the next breath? Whats the point in continuing life if there is no inherent reason ?

A more fundmental problem of logic is whether life is logically relevant?
There are people who believe in the Ghosts..
Almost all Ghosts(or spirits) have the ability to influence the mind or the body of the host.

(The argument implicitly assumes existence of souls which has strange properties. It is as invisible as air.. and chances of direct observation are very small.)

Most of us are looking for a logical proof or a statement from an institution of good reputation...
If few people claim to have seen the ghost then most of us will not believe.

No institute is going to support the concept of Ghosts because science demands far too much to accept anything...
Only those events are discussed which can be reached physically in time or logically in mind.

(in physics there are quarks , gravitons which are logically predicted but are not observed.. some of the quarks can not be observed directly at all)

Question is can we reach to the ghost logically...?

Let us "believe" that Life is logically relevant.In other words there is a reason to take the next breath. Or there is a reason to search for the reason.

Evidence for logical irrelevance of life:
1.All life forms take birth , reproduce and die.
2.Life offers many reasons during the process however at the time of death all reasons stand void because the owner of the reason dies like a machine.
Consider a simple exmaple : Twins A and B are born to a mother.A dies after birth but B goes on to live a life and gives the theory of everything..but eventutally dies...
Do we observe any logically difference in the life history of A and B? Both die.
There are no reasons for B to live...
3.If B is a logical creature and discovers this fact at some point during his lifetime then there is no logical reasons for him to take the next breath.

Therefore we safely conclude that the life is logically irrelevant contradicting our "faith" that life is logically relevant...
However if life is logically irrelevant then life can not be derived logically...because death is certain...(as far as we know) and any attempt to
find reason is evolutionarily futile... (in other words search for reason extends beyond logic itself..if things or events can occur outside the reason then why should we deny the possibility of Ghost and on what basis?)

We might get tempted to argue that emotions are logically relevant but emotions are generated by chemicals in our brain and no emotions lasts forever. There is no reason to be happy in the first place because the pain is inevitable ....

But most of us do not commit suicide or suffer from depression...
Therefore the life must be logically relevant(atleast to logical creatures so that there is always some reason to take the next breath)...logical integrity can only be achieved if we assume there is a continuity of life... which means after death the physical body dies but the soul lives on.... and there is something to gain out of life.
Therefore souls are logically required to keep the life understandable.. if souls are required then Ghosts are also logically possible.

If life is logically irrelevant then there is no reason to search for the reason in the first place. Its like searching for scientific reason in homeopathic medicine when medicine has reasons outside logic...( 1 drop of poison is diluted in thosands of oceans and as the dilution increases the durg becomes more potent!!)
Making the existence of science a miracle in itself...
Without soul or continuity in life science is a miracle because it can not explain its own existence.

(I had posted this comment earlier but I dont know what happened to it..)

25. Richard Dawkins talks about The God Delusion

Comment #124230 by dkv on February 8, 2008 at 9:39 pm

[quote]He has only every gone as far as to say that the existence of God is extremely improbably.[/quote]
Extremely improbable doesnt translate into anything physically.There is no direct correaltion between Maths of probability and Physics.If we leave aside the God debate then I can show that Mathematically extreme improbability doesnt mean anything physically.

Consider N boxes with transcription "If you open the box then future will not be available"
The transcription can be either true or false..In absolute mathematical sense there is a 50% chance that the transcription is true for each box...
The chances that future will be available is (1-(1/2)^n).... the chances of not finding future increases exponentially with the number of boxes..
(you can perform this experiment at home.)
The probability doesnt translate into casuality.

If there is an unknown variable in the problem space of probability then at no stage we can define the absolute truth...We can only commit to a confidence level of truth and counter intuitive results are a definite possibility...

Therefore if God is ONLY highly improbable then it means nothing more than saying that since we have not see Him so far therefore the likelyhood of finding him in future is small.
The framework of Science is not only asking for the evidence of God but for large scale evidence of God within the constraints of lab...and in addition the definition of God is itself not understood properly.Thus making the debate unwanted within the framework of science.

26. Richard Dawkins talks about The God Delusion

Comment #123892 by dkv on February 7, 2008 at 10:53 pm

The discussion on God was uncalled for.If millions believe in God then there must be some reason behind it.The greatest disappointment comes from the Science Vs. Religion debate.
Why to discuss religion in the first place..?
Actually such a debate exposes the inherent insufficiency of reason...
I believe that Religion can be explained from evolutionary point of view in a positive way without diluting the scientific argument.
By the way the first pendulum clock was invented for a church.. we can not deny the role of religion in the history of science.
Sometimes I feel the greatest question(who created the universe and how ) has been kept alive thorugh the religion... when actually there was no one and no reason to create !!!
We suprisingly never gave up the question atleast in the last 50000 years...What difference it would have made had we simply given up the question...!!??
We would have lived a like animals..
Religion served the evolutionary purpose for science... and unfortunately gene theory finds it difficult to digest...