On October 27 2014 18:00 SoSexy wrote: The title is misleading. As always, this gets down to the definition of 'nothing'. 'The Big Bang could have occurred spontaneously because of quantum fluctuations' just move the question one step back, as one could ask - where did quantum fluctuations come from?
In my experience (I did a lot of reading, as a philosopher of religion) usually one side argues that 'nothing' is 'really' nothing and therefore nothing could come out of it, while the other argues that 'nothing' is a 'something with intrinsic properties, such as quantum fluctuations'.
If you are interested in the debate between this two positions, you could watch this debate between William Lane Craig (who argues for the first position) and Sean Carroll (who holds the latter):
Where did quantum fluctuations come from? Where did god come from? It's the same question so why would you choose god instead of something that could make sense? And yea people who are exposed to mental illnesses are also exposed to believing in god because its the same part of the brain that controls it. It would be about damn time that people started to accept that religion is an illness. And yea where mental illnesses usually come from? Unstable childhood. Be nice to your children people.
So off topic, sorry. I'm mad. Eager to see if I get banned, nuked or left alone for saying how it is.
On October 27 2014 22:04 Jockmcplop wrote: Mathematicians show that the process of inflation is quantum mechanical in nature.
Bunch of people on forum argue about assumptions that were never made.
Surprise me TL go on.
I've always been surprised about how very specific areas in specific fields of science get debated by people who are not involved in that specific field of science let alone involved in that specific area of that specific field. It is similar to having a medical doctor work on a satellite. But I guess that is why we have the internet so everyone can become an expert in under 30 minutes of wiki-ing.
And in the words of Feynman "Scientists are explorers. Philosophers are tourists." Any child can ask why, a scientist spends years/decades/centuries trying to find out.
It's easy for a scientist to say 'science>philosophy' based on immediate practical success. But would science even exist without philosophy? Wasn't the birth of modern science during the seventeenth century a philosophical process in the first place? It's similar when you compare math with physics. Math is more abstract, but no one would dare to say that it's useless in science; it's actually the opposite. On the other hand, math is based on logic which was originally a branch of philosophy.
The border between science and philosophy are in my view rather nebulous, and often transitory. Basically, when we don't know and can only speculate, we call it philosophy. When we can actually investigate and can perform reproducible and consistent results, we call it science.
Science springs from philosophy, but is never beholden to it. The empirical will always supersede the purely theoretical.
I didn't know that was Teo's field actually so was cool to know. One of the best TL strat writers and also a guitar baller, dat man crush is growing...
I have been spurned. Sudoku is the only option.
In this area of physics where you study what happened 13 billion years ago it's hard to empirically check if what you found out in theory is true. So from this point of view, it's related with philosphy.
It doesn't matter wether something is easy or hard to prove empirically, especially in a field that is at the edge of technology like physics. Science at its basis still demands that, in order to claim understanding over something, you need to unite a mathematical model with empirical observations that confirm that model, etc etc. Philosophy just requires the abstract/logical part, which is why there is no such thing as, say, philosophers that study elementary particles.
On October 27 2014 23:06 Teoita wrote: Also, it's no coincidence that math and philosophy were extremely close to each other in ancient Greece, where essentially both "moderen" math and philosophy started off.
This is false, sorry. Very little Greek philosophy is very "mathematical," and the most "mathematical" Greek philosophy is the most religious/mystical (Pythagoreanism). It's also very unhistorical to think about "modern philosophy" as somehow being invented in Greece and then transmitted to us through an unbroken lineage. Greek philosophy is very, very different from mathematicized analytic philosophy which dominates the Anglo tradition today.
Hm, fair enough i guess. I havent studied philosophy since high school so i really dont know anything about it. My point was simply that, say, Plato or Aristotle were kind of the starting point in the development of philosophy, exactly like Euclidean geometry was (again, kind of) the starting point for modern math. I wasn't claiming that they are identical (of course, both have made huge leaps forward since then).
The other problem is that if you try to police the boundaries of the discussion to banish "religion" by appealing to a rationalist philosophical tradition supposedly originating in Aristotle (Plato is not going to serve your purposes here) you are going to find that that lineage reaches us first through Islam and then through Catholic Scholasticism. The (fraught, undecidable, and hysterically policed) distinction between religion and science is mostly the product of French Enlightenment rationalists, certainly not the Greeks. But you might not be so happy about the kinds of things those thinkers were saying, either.
If you go around arguing about being and nothingness, you are unavoidably within the coordinates of theological discourse. "Religion" has been there from the beginning, you can't get rid of it. "Atheism" is a position you could hold, but it's still a *theological* position (since denying the existence of God is a claim that contains theological content).
So basically, yeah, y'all are being pretty rude and unthoughtful when you attack that poster on the first page.
People what the fuck? So sexy literally just said that he was a phisolopher of religion and immediately some people jumped at him insulting him and questioning him for no reason. He didn't say "this is false, god is the truth" "fuck science and all it lies" or something like that, he just said he was a phiolopher and people got crazy? I think some people really have severe teaumas with religion...
But anyway, it's interesting but I'm not sure I understand the concept completely
So basically, yeah, y'all are being pretty rude and unthoughtful when you attack that poster on the first page.
Color me surprised. I think a lot of people are made very uncomfortable by the thought that religion, philosophy, and science are quite "bound up," so to speak. Lashing out is one way to deal with that discomfort.
Kudos to Teoita and the few other posters who refrained from dropping a hammer and instead sought to provide some actually useful information.
On October 27 2014 22:04 Jockmcplop wrote: Mathematicians show that the process of inflation is quantum mechanical in nature.
Bunch of people on forum argue about assumptions that were never made.
Surprise me TL go on.
I've always been surprised about how very specific areas in specific fields of science get debated by people who are not involved in that specific field of science let alone involved in that specific area of that specific field. It is similar to having a medical doctor work on a satellite. But I guess that is why we have the internet so everyone can become an expert in under 30 minutes of wiki-ing.
And in the words of Feynman "Scientists are explorers. Philosophers are tourists." Any child can ask why, a scientist spends years/decades/centuries trying to find out.
It's easy for a scientist to say 'science>philosophy' based on immediate practical success. But would science even exist without philosophy? Wasn't the birth of modern science during the seventeenth century a philosophical process in the first place? It's similar when you compare math with physics. Math is more abstract, but no one would dare to say that it's useless in science; it's actually the opposite. On the other hand, math is based on logic which was originally a branch of philosophy.
The border between science and philosophy are in my view rather nebulous, and often transitory. Basically, when we don't know and can only speculate, we call it philosophy. When we can actually investigate and can perform reproducible and consistent results, we call it science.
Science springs from philosophy, but is never beholden to it. The empirical will always supersede the purely theoretical.
I didn't know that was Teo's field actually so was cool to know. One of the best TL strat writers and also a guitar baller, dat man crush is growing...
I have been spurned. Sudoku is the only option.
I see what you mean. Scientific discoveries can't be linked directly with philosophy, but they are. You can't make 'discoveries' in philosophy, it's more about slow processes that can last decades or centuries, but they will change deeply the way you think, and also the way you do science.
The limit of the empirical is that you can check that a statement is true for X different cases one by one, but you will never be able to prove that it is true for infinite cases. You can , instead, do that with a theoretical proof. The limit of the theoretical is that nothing ensures you that you didn't make mistakes in the logical steps. So you need to check if it actually works in reality. In this area of physics where you study what happened 13 billion years ago it's hard to empirically check if what you found out in theory is true. So from this point of view, it's related with philosphy.
One small objection; just because it happened 13 billion years ago, does not mean we cannot prove it empirically, nor that we should relax the standards of proof expected for a theory to be considered substantiated. It mayand likely will be very hard. We may need centuries more before we can say with any certainty one way or the other. In that case, we'll just have to be patient. Nothing learned from philosophy will inform a person about the nature of quantum physics and whatever rules it may operate by.
This is a fairly common misconception; the idea that introspection and spiritual and philosophical pursuits will yield some kind of knowledge or insights that are applicable to realms of science that are totally unrelated to these efforts. Physics would be one of these.
"Atheism" is a position you could hold, but it's still a *theological* position (since denying the existence of God is a claim that contains theological content).
That's not quite true. It is the position of being unconvinced by claims that have not met their burden of proof, not rejecting them as false. It is a position completely devoid of content, and the word itself is more or less worthless as I see it. We don't define ourselves by what we stand in opposition to or simply choose not to give any serious consideration.
Also, as for being rude or thoughtless; my problem was not the content of his argument, it was that he linked a video with WLC, an incredibly dishonest and disreputable person with no scientific credibility.
On October 27 2014 22:04 Jockmcplop wrote: Mathematicians show that the process of inflation is quantum mechanical in nature.
Bunch of people on forum argue about assumptions that were never made.
Surprise me TL go on.
I've always been surprised about how very specific areas in specific fields of science get debated by people who are not involved in that specific field of science let alone involved in that specific area of that specific field. It is similar to having a medical doctor work on a satellite. But I guess that is why we have the internet so everyone can become an expert in under 30 minutes of wiki-ing.
And in the words of Feynman "Scientists are explorers. Philosophers are tourists." Any child can ask why, a scientist spends years/decades/centuries trying to find out.
It's easy for a scientist to say 'science>philosophy' based on immediate practical success. But would science even exist without philosophy? Wasn't the birth of modern science during the seventeenth century a philosophical process in the first place? It's similar when you compare math with physics. Math is more abstract, but no one would dare to say that it's useless in science; it's actually the opposite. On the other hand, math is based on logic which was originally a branch of philosophy.
The border between science and philosophy are in my view rather nebulous, and often transitory. Basically, when we don't know and can only speculate, we call it philosophy. When we can actually investigate and can perform reproducible and consistent results, we call it science.
Science springs from philosophy, but is never beholden to it. The empirical will always supersede the purely theoretical.
I didn't know that was Teo's field actually so was cool to know. One of the best TL strat writers and also a guitar baller, dat man crush is growing...
I have been spurned. Sudoku is the only option.
In this area of physics where you study what happened 13 billion years ago it's hard to empirically check if what you found out in theory is true. So from this point of view, it's related with philosphy.
It doesn't matter wether something is easy or hard to prove empirically, especially in a field that is at the edge of technology like physics. Science at its basis still demands that, in order to claim understanding over something, you need to unite a mathematical model with empirical observations that confirm that model, etc etc. Philosophy just requires the abstract/logical part, which is why there is no such thing as, say, philosophers that study elementary particles.
You are factualy wrong. There are whole segments of philosophy like philosphy of math, science, methodology etc. that are closely related to this. There are people who study those areas. In fact thoretical physics is often borderline philosophy. I myself hold degree in both philosophy and material engineering. And promotor of my master thesis was doing PHD courses on some fundamental math problems for mathematicians and physycists.
On October 27 2014 22:04 Jockmcplop wrote: Mathematicians show that the process of inflation is quantum mechanical in nature.
Bunch of people on forum argue about assumptions that were never made.
Surprise me TL go on.
I've always been surprised about how very specific areas in specific fields of science get debated by people who are not involved in that specific field of science let alone involved in that specific area of that specific field. It is similar to having a medical doctor work on a satellite. But I guess that is why we have the internet so everyone can become an expert in under 30 minutes of wiki-ing.
And in the words of Feynman "Scientists are explorers. Philosophers are tourists." Any child can ask why, a scientist spends years/decades/centuries trying to find out.
It's easy for a scientist to say 'science>philosophy' based on immediate practical success. But would science even exist without philosophy? Wasn't the birth of modern science during the seventeenth century a philosophical process in the first place? It's similar when you compare math with physics. Math is more abstract, but no one would dare to say that it's useless in science; it's actually the opposite. On the other hand, math is based on logic which was originally a branch of philosophy.
The border between science and philosophy are in my view rather nebulous, and often transitory. Basically, when we don't know and can only speculate, we call it philosophy. When we can actually investigate and can perform reproducible and consistent results, we call it science.
Science springs from philosophy, but is never beholden to it. The empirical will always supersede the purely theoretical.
I didn't know that was Teo's field actually so was cool to know. One of the best TL strat writers and also a guitar baller, dat man crush is growing...
I have been spurned. Sudoku is the only option.
In this area of physics where you study what happened 13 billion years ago it's hard to empirically check if what you found out in theory is true. So from this point of view, it's related with philosphy.
It doesn't matter wether something is easy or hard to prove empirically, especially in a field that is at the edge of technology like physics. Science at its basis still demands that, in order to claim understanding over something, you need to unite a mathematical model with empirical observations that confirm that model, etc etc. Philosophy just requires the abstract/logical part, which is why there is no such thing as, say, philosophers that study elementary particles.
You are factualy wrong. There are whole segments of philosophy like philosphy of math, science, methodology etc. that are closely related to this. There are people who study those areas. In fact thoretical physics is often borderline philosophy. I myself hold degree in both philosophy and material engineering. And promotor of my master thesis was doing PHD courses on some fundamental math problems for mathematicians and physycists.
Sure, but for example, philosophy of science is concerned with the definitions, implications and methods of the scientific method, rather than the discoveries/theories themselves. The instant you start building a mathematical model to predict the behaviour world around you, you are by definition studying physics, not philosophy.
I'm not saying that there is no overlap whatsoever between the three fields, what i'm saying is that despite there being some overlap it's usually quite easy to tell which one you are studying. Some problems in modern science do come from philosophy though - for example, the anthropic principle.
too many branches claim the big bang is nonsense anyway, the electrical theory is gaining a bit of ground as most of it can be created in a lab just because mathematics comes to a solution doesnt mean its right, pi has been kinda wrong for years
Electrical theory? Afaik the lambda-cdm model is currently, by far, the favoured cosmological model, and it's not just about math. There are several indipendent observations that all confirm its predictions. These are the commonly accepted alternatives; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_cosmology I dont see anything related to electricity...
The video I posted is not a 'propaganda' (as you would say) video of WLC, but a debate with Sean Carroll, a very prominent atheist astrophysicist. In those 2 hours they discuss basically the same topic of this thread, so it might add some insights to people. Also, I don't know why you call him dishonest or such. Even Krauss, after their debates in Australia, recognised he's an honest man (I can Pm you the link to that).
I wanted to add something about philosophy/science. I think that the line that connects philosophy to the beginning of science lies in the modern age, not in the greek world. Soon after Ockham started to dismantle the medieval construction of Theology as 'scientia naturalis', the first 'scientists' started to study the natural world without refering to the Scriptures. Galileo, for example, was never considered a scientist but a 'natural philosopher'. It is after this period that the distinction became clearer and it led to the well-known figure of the scientist.
On October 28 2014 04:36 Teoita wrote: Well it's pretty much accepted that the scientific method as it's known today began with Newton
I would say more with Galileo, but Newton played a huge part too. + Show Spoiler +
Also, do you know that Newton was a complete nut who really believed the Earth was 4000 years old and who wrote more of religion than of physics? I attended a class of History of Science and I was quite shocked o.o
On October 28 2014 04:36 Teoita wrote: Well it's pretty much accepted that the scientific method as it's known today began with Newton
I would say more with Galileo, but Newton played a huge part too. + Show Spoiler +
Also, do you know that Newton was a complete nut who really believed the Earth was 4000 years old and who wrote more of religion than of physics? I attended a class of History of Science and I was quite shocked o.o
Considering what people knew back then, thinking the earth was 4000 years old wasnt being a "nut"
On October 28 2014 04:36 Teoita wrote: Well it's pretty much accepted that the scientific method as it's known today began with Newton
I would say more with Galileo, but Newton played a huge part too. + Show Spoiler +
Also, do you know that Newton was a complete nut who really believed the Earth was 4000 years old and who wrote more of religion than of physics? I attended a class of History of Science and I was quite shocked o.o
Considering what people knew back then, thinking the earth was 4000 years old wasnt being a "nut"
Ahah you're right, I was just comparing that to his strong scientific side
EPT
I think a lot of people are made very uncomfortable by the thought that religion, philosophy, and science are quite "bound up," so to speak. Lashing out is one way to deal with that discomfort. 
