What is religion ?

[Veritas Aequitas]

That future optimum, will you call that religion ? Why not ?

The term 'religion' has too much negative baggage from the evil acts, scandals, corruption, abuses, etc. it was associated with in the past and at present.

I had stated, the trend of managing TMT is moving away from organized and instutionalized religion towards individual[s] taking their own responsibility to deal with the TMT [existential pains and angst].

Christianity at present is most optimal but as individuals take their own responsibilities, they would be moving toward a more spiritual path [partly religious] like Buddhism-proper, and therefrom to be weaned off from religion altogether.

The future non-religious paths [whatever it will be called] in dealing with the inherent TMT will inherit all the positives from the past religion together will modern and effective practices.

Well, this theory is just another way of universal explanation of existential pain, which lead to another way to inhibit existential suffering, a psychological way.

But this way leads to the same myths :
- Individual salvation : while salvation is actually always organized by institutions, cultures, sociétés.
- Universality : while this way will also leads to the same rejection of the other ways, promoted by different cultures, seen as primitive, or by other intern groups seen as dangerous idéologies.

I am not too sure of the above points.

Base on what I think, here is my views:

The root cause is the existential crisis where the majority resorted and is resorting to the idea salvation [soteriology] in the past and at present.
While salvation is actually always organized by institutions, cultures, sociétés. in the past and the present and has its pros, it has generated terrible cons of evils as well.
The future solution is when we understand the Principles of TMT, there would not be a need for salvation [soteriology] in the future to deal with the inherent and unavoidable existential crisis.

What we look forward in the future are foolproof [no side effects] solutions to deal with the existential crisis and it existential pains and angsts.
nb: my emphasis 'foolproof' and taking care [to the best of abilities] of all possible side effects that may crop up; many often overlook this point of mine.

There will still be institutions, cultures, sociétés in the new approach, but they will merely assist and facilitate individual[s] to improve; they will not be imposing any authority to coerce individual[s] to comply with any of their rules.

Note I am looking at solutions to deal with the existing cons in the future [next 50, 100, 150 years or more], but we need to initiate the planning now.

[godelian]

This definition is interesting because it opposes religions to naturalism.
This opposition is forged in eighteen century with the opposition of christianism and what they called natural religion.
But https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_religion actually is not natural.

One consequence of the naturalist denying of a separate first cause, is that their "un-created" universe would be eternal.

There would be no beginning of times. Hence, our time would be an actual infinite. The main problem with that view is that infinity absorbs all arithmetic. Time would not be able to expand or progress. The very fact that time does progress requires it to be finite. That means that there must be a beginning of times. Hence, naturalism is not compatible with observable structure of our universe.

The observable structure of our universe is compatible only with the existence of a beginning of times. So, then the question arises: What exactly happened in that beginning?

[Veritas Aequitas]

This definition is interesting because it opposes religions to naturalism.
This opposition is forged in eighteen century with the opposition of christianism and what they called natural religion.
But https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_religion actually is not natural.

One consequence of the naturalist denying of a separate first cause, is that their "un-created" universe would be eternal.

There would be no beginning of times. Hence, our time would be an actual infinite. The main problem with that view is that infinity absorbs all arithmetic. Time would not be able to expand or progress. The very fact that time does progress requires it to be finite. That means that there must be a beginning of times. Hence, naturalism is not compatible with observable structure of our universe.

The observable structure of our universe is compatible only with the existence of a beginning of times. So, then the question arises: What exactly happened in that beginning?

That you assume there is something out there is due to an evolutionary default of externalness that has facilitated basic survival.
That this assumption is reified as real is the dogmatic ideology of philosophical realism and theism, i.e. there is some mind-independent reality out there, it exists regardless of whether there are humans nor not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
This reification of an assumption as real is a psychological issue, not epistemological.

Why Philosophical Realism [also theism] is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

If you insist, demonstrate ["prove"] what you claimed as mind-independent i.e. the external world and time is really-real.

What about this options?

• Giving Up Philosophical Realism, What is there to Lose?
  viewtopic.php?t=43083
  
  What is there to lose if theists give up theism?

There is nothing solid to lose if theists were to give up philosophical realism and theism except psychological terror from TMT.
Terror Management Theory
viewtopic.php?t=43101
It is the fear of this terror re TMT that some Islamists use their own terror to suppress non-believers that threaten to stir up this TMT-terror in them.

As for Naturalism, a naturalist is also an empirical realist, i.e. what is really real is not assumed but confined to what is empirically justified and justifiable.
That is! there is no need to speculate there is something really real beyond [transcend] what emerged and realized in tandem with the self and can be empirically verified.
The Transcendent Grounds of Science is illusory.
viewtopic.php?t=43091

Thus

The observable structure of our universe is compatible only with the existence of a beginning of times. So, then the question arises: What exactly happened in that beginning?

If we don't a damn, so what?
The focus is on the present.

[godelian]

If you insist, demonstrate ["prove"] what you claimed as mind-independent i.e. the external world and time is really-real.

It is not possible to prove anything about the physical universe, simply because we don't have a theory to prove it from.

The observable structure of our universe is compatible only with the existence of a beginning of times. So, then the question arises: What exactly happened in that beginning?

If we don't a damn, so what?

The Abrahamic belief in a first cause is a commitment that has turned out to be very compatible with the observable structure of the universe. Of course, in that case, we somehow assume that the universe exists. If it does, our universe cannot be eternal, simply for mathematical reasons.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If you insist, demonstrate ["prove"] what you claimed as mind-independent i.e. the external world and time is really-real.

It is not possible to prove anything about the physical universe, simply because we don't have a theory to prove it from.

If you cannot 'prove' justify or demonstrate it, then your statement about the ultimate state of the universe do not have any credibility or objective at all.

The observable structure of our universe is compatible only with the existence of a beginning of times. So, then the question arises: What exactly happened in that beginning?

If we don't give a damn, so what?

The Abrahamic belief in a first cause is a commitment that has turned out to be very compatible with the observable structure of the universe. Of course, in that case, we somehow assume that the universe exists. If it does, our universe cannot be eternal, simply for mathematical reasons.

"The Abrahamic belief in a first cause is a commitment that has turned out to be very compatible with the observable structure of the universe."

But, the observable structure of the universe is grounded on the credibility and objectivity of the human-based [collective of subjects] scientific framework and system.
According to Popper, whatever the scientific truths or knowledge, they are at best merely polished conjectures or hypothesis.

Science have not confirmed an absolute first cause, by default science cannot assert anything in the absolute sense.
As such science cannot confirm the Abrahamic belief in a first cause.

Therefore, the Abrahamic belief in a first cause is merely a speculation, it would be delusional to insist it is really real without reasonable "proof".

[godelian]

If you insist, demonstrate ["prove"] what you claimed as mind-independent i.e. the external world and time is really-real.

It is not possible to prove anything about the physical universe, simply because we don't have a theory to prove it from.

If you cannot 'prove' justify or demonstrate it, then your statement about the ultimate state of the universe do not have any credibility or objective at all.

It is not possible to prove that the universe actually exists because we have no theory to prove that from. Proving is always done "from" a theory. Where is this theory?

Science have not confirmed an absolute first cause, by default science cannot assert anything in the absolute sense.

Science never proves anything because it lacks a theory to do that from. Science is not mathematics. Science is about experimentally testing observable stubborn patterns. Science is not about proving anything. It is possible to observe, however, that arithmetic is possible in our universe. Hence, the universe as observed cannot be eternal. Science would not be possible if the universe were eternal because every experimental test ultimately rests on the ability to perform arithmetic.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is not possible to prove anything about the physical universe, simply because we don't have a theory to prove it from.

If you cannot 'prove' justify or demonstrate it, then your statement about the ultimate state of the universe do not have any credibility or objective at all.

It is not possible to prove that the universe actually exists because we have no theory to prove that from. Proving is always done "from" a theory. Where is this theory?

Science have not confirmed an absolute first cause, by default science cannot assert anything in the absolute sense.

Science never proves anything because it lacks a theory to do that from. Science is not mathematics. Science is about experimentally testing observable stubborn patterns. Science is not about proving anything. It is possible to observe, however, that arithmetic is possible in our universe. Hence, the universe as observed cannot be eternal. Science would not be possible if the universe were eternal because every experimental test ultimately rests on the ability to perform arithmetic.

Note I put 'prove' in ' ..' meaning demonstrate, justify not as in the mathematical sense.

Agree with you on the limitation of science.
But you are using science to make your claim,

"The Abrahamic belief in a first cause is a commitment that has turned out to be very compatible with the observable structure of the universe."

How can you get credibility with "observable structure of the universe other than relying on science.
Since we agree science is limited, your claim is also limited.

"The Abrahamic belief in a first cause is a commitment that has turned out to be very compatible with the observable structure of the universe."
So how can you demonstrate credibility and objectivity with the above statement, else it is a merely speculation of empty hot air.

[godelian]

How can you get credibility with "observable structure of the universe other than relying on science.

I did not rely on science. I did not experimentally test anything. I exclusively relied on mathematics.

The observable universe allows for arithmetic. It does not absorb it.

If the model's signature for its otherwise unknown theory contained an infinite cardinal ("non-standard model"), then it would absorb all arithmetic.

This is the result of Tennenbaum's theorem:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-sta ... arithmetic

Tennenbaum's theorem shows that for any countable non-standard model of Peano arithmetic there is no way to code the elements of the model as (standard) natural numbers such that either the addition or multiplication operation of the model is computable on the codes.

Computers do not work in an eternal physical universe because computation does not work in them.

[Skepdick]

The observable universe allows for arithmetic. It does not absorb it.

Which arithmetic does the observable universe allow for?

The one where 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples; or the one where 1 puddle + 1 puddle = 1 puddle; or the one where 1 elementary particle + 1 elementary particle ..... = 1 universe?

Tennenbaum's theorem shows that for any countable non-standard model of Peano arithmetic there is no way to code the elements of the model as (standard) natural numbers such that either the addition or multiplication operation of the model is computable on the codes.

The map is not the teritory. You are confusing properties of the construction for properties of the universe...

Any relationship between mathematical constructions and reality is arbitrary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_projection_fallacy

[Skepdick]

One consequence of the naturalist denying of a separate first cause, is that their "un-created" universe would be eternal.

It would be eternal, indeed. However you are a finite being with finite memory, so such a universe would appear finite to you. No computer can compute infinite information in finite time - that violates thes Shannon limit.

You'll always hit singularities. Which is precisely what we are observing in physics and cosmology.

There would be no beginning of times. Hence, our time would be an actual infinite. The main problem with that view is that infinity absorbs all arithmetic. Time would not be able to expand or progress.

That's not true. The negative integers are a prime example of that. Time progresses just fine, you just don't know where 0 is.

Our current 0 is The Big Bang or thereabout. Every observable event is "local" with respect to that zero; or in the language of Einsteinian physics - every event is in the light cone of The Big Bang.

The very fact that time does progress requires it to be finite.

That means that there must be a beginning of times. Hence, naturalism is not compatible with observable structure of our universe.

Nonsense. You can't think of a total order without minimal or maximal elements?

The observable structure of our universe is compatible only with the existence of a beginning of times. So, then the question arises: What exactly happened in that beginning?

The beginning of what? Your memories? You began to remember...

Our memories are the interval [x,y] on the continuum (-inf,+inf)

[Veritas Aequitas]

How can you get credibility with "observable structure of the universe other than relying on science.

I did not rely on science. I did not experimentally test anything. I exclusively relied on mathematics.

The observable universe allows for arithmetic. It does not absorb it.

If the model's signature for its otherwise unknown theory contained an infinite cardinal ("non-standard model"), then it would absorb all arithmetic.

This is the result of Tennenbaum's theorem:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-sta ... arithmetic

Tennenbaum's theorem shows that for any countable non-standard model of Peano arithmetic there is no way to code the elements of the model as (standard) natural numbers such that either the addition or multiplication operation of the model is computable on the codes.

Computers do not work in an eternal physical universe because computation does not work in them.

With mathematics you can only get something theoretical.
In any case, a mathematic model and conclusion is still human-based and contingent upon the human conditions.

If you want to get to something really real it has to be scientific based on empirical observations.

[Skepdick]

If you want to get to something really real it has to be scientific based on empirical observations.

Nonsense.

"First we guess it"

Empiricism comes at the end. Not at the beginning. The key point here is that the scientific method is NOT "based on empirical observations".

It's based on guessing.

https://youtu.be/EYPapE-3FRw?si=AD1dAhxtzBTiUmm0

[Veritas Aequitas]

If you want to get to something really real it has to be scientific based on empirical observations.

Nonsense.

"First we guess it"

Empiricism comes at the end. Not at the beginning; so nothing is "based" on it.

https://youtu.be/EYPapE-3FRw?si=AD1dAhxtzBTiUmm0

You are relying on scientific realism, i.e. presuming there is something pre-existing to be discovered by science.

My approach is based on scientific antirealism, i.e. there is nothing transcendental beyond what science concluded via observation.

The Transcendental Ground of Science
viewtopic.php?t=43091

[Skepdick]

If you want to get to something really real it has to be scientific based on empirical observations.

Nonsense.

"First we guess it"

Empiricism comes at the end. Not at the beginning; so nothing is "based" on it.

https://youtu.be/EYPapE-3FRw?si=AD1dAhxtzBTiUmm0

You are relying on scientific realism, i.e. presuming there is something pre-existing to be discovered by science.

My approach is based on scientific antirealism, i.e. there is nothing transcendental beyond what science concluded via observation.

The Transcendental Ground of Science
viewtopic.php?t=43091

No, I am not. Guessing a working principle is anything BUT realism.

Also... you are fucking confused about the implications of your own claims. If science is "based on empirical observations" then what is it that you are empirically observing? What is it that you are subjecting to empiricism?

[godelian]

If you want to get to something really real it has to be scientific based on empirical observations.

There is nothing to experimentally test in cosmology. At best, you can do some observational studies. So, you can collect some observational data and then speculate or otherwise conjecture about what you've just seen. Observational studies do not carry the same weight as experimental test reports. There is a lot of scope for misinterpretation in cosmology. I do not consider its theories particularly authoritative. The same observational data could be interpreted completely differently in the future.

Tennenbaum's theorem won't change, however. If a universe's signature, i.e. the set of its non-logical symbols, contains a nonstandard number, i.e. an actual infinity, then computation is not possible in this universe. The fact that our physical universe does support computation means that its signature cannot possibly contain an actual infinity.

ChatGPT: Can an actual infinity be observed in the physical universe?

In short, no, an actual infinity has not been observed in the physical universe, and it's unclear whether it could ever be directly observed, given the limitations of our current understanding of physics.

The hypothesis of eternal physical universe is incompatible with the structure of the physical universe and therefore unsustainable.