|
On July 11 2013 21:48 TSORG wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 19:44 Reason wrote:
If you challenge my belief in God you are well justified in doing so because there's no evidence for God.
If you challenge my belief in the water cycle you're an idiot.
Trying to equate the two does not make you look intelligent and your question is nothing profound. This post makes it clear that you haven't understood or read a word I wrote.
I read and understood everything you said clearly, this post was not directed at you.
On July 11 2013 18:16 TSORG wrote:
you are right about the last thing you say, most people will react like that, most people wont even take the time to understand the argument.
This is what you wrote, and if you want me to address what you've said fine. I think you're wrong. People here will take the time to understand your argument if you actually make a decent argument and don't just write garbage like "the big bang theory is just a theory" and "oh wow I've offended the religion of science and the groupies jumped on me".
On July 11 2013 19:09 TSORG wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 19:03 xM(Z wrote:On July 11 2013 18:16 TSORG wrote:On July 11 2013 16:43 xM(Z wrote:On July 11 2013 07:27 nihlon wrote:On July 11 2013 05:17 xM(Z wrote:oh wow, i offended the religion of science. the groupies jumped me. no one observed the big bang and no one proved it. fully educated PHDs in physics are arguing and disagreeing amongst each other about the theory of big bang and you found me to pick on?. fuck off and google, i'm only repeating what they're saying. http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/big-bang-theory7.htmhttp://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/bbproblems.htmlhttp://www.nature.com/news/higgs-data-could-spell-trouble-for-leading-big-bang-theory-1.12804http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070219/full/news070219-4.htmlSteinhardt emphasizes that his analysis holds only because, so far, the LHC has not found any discrepancies with the standard model of particle physics. If future runs of the LHC discover exotic particles, then the energy profile of the Higgs will be recalculated accordingly. “But if you take the data we’ve been given and just follow your nose, then inflation and the whole Big Bang paradigm seem to be in big trouble,” Steinhardt says. Cycling cosmos The theory claims to reconcile the notion of a cyclic universe, which expands and contracts for eternity, with the second law of thermodynamics, which seems to imply that the current expansion cannot reverse.
As escape clauses go, this one is jaw-droppingly extravagant. Not only does the turnaround happen less than a thousand-trillion-trillionth (10-27) of a second before a 'Big Rip' in which everything falls apart, but it splits our Universe into countless new and independent ones.
And as the Universe has already gone through an infinite number of cycles, the model predicts an already infinite number of parallel universes, Lauris Baum and Paul Frampton of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill report in Physical Review Letters1. This is what you said: the first part of your post contradicts the second. the big bang idea is not proven. it's just a theory.
as of right now, believing in a big bang is believing in pre-determinsm. it's the same as believing in God.
after the big bang theory gets proven you can speak of determinism within that frame of reference.
(edited for clarity, i think) People objected to: "It's just a theory" (Weird view of science) Putting the Big Bang theory at the level of believing in God, clearly skipping over what actually the theory is founded on. Maybe you should google some yourself and see WHY people actually believe it instead of the opposite... And maybe you should ask yourself why people are jumping on you in several of the main board threads instead of throwing us all into the "groupies" category like we have some secret motive to smear your name. you do realize that "It's just a theory" does not imply that the theory is wrong, right?; and if you'd read those links you'd realize that your last phrase doesn't even make sense. i google it and saw why people believe it and why people don't believe it and ... ?. theory = 5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment. but, if you're so keen in defending theories, why don't you defend this one http://www.thegodtheory.com/(ps: of course they have, bringing past threads and all .. what the hell is that?. all of them acted irrationally, out of instinct, because i challenged their set of believes) you are right about the last thing you say, most people will react like that, most people wont even take the time to understand the argument. But you are wrong to put God within the scientific discourse, and Nihlon is right to say that putting Big Bang theory at the same level as believing in God is skipping over what the theory is founded on. He says it perfectly, and that is exactly the root of the problem. It is not the big bang theory, which, within science, is just a theory (even though it is a very important and well regarded one), it is the metaphysical foundation of science which you could put on a same level as believing in god. Why is that? Because they are both metaphysical foundations which cannot be proven, they cannot be defended with arguments from within the discourse without being circular. Does this put the practice that comes from the scientific foundation on the same level as that comes from these theological foundations? No, the proper practice of science is different than that of religion, however, the moment PEOPLE start to USE science for politics, to make claims and do things which cannot be made or done with science, then this can take religious forms. Thieving magpy has been saying it all along though and he can probably say it better than me, but it is a pointless argument, they do not contradict neccesarily. the question is not: which one is better to believe in - god or the scientific discourse but rather: is the effect (on believers) of those believes the same?. that is indeed the question, and i think the answer is yes.
The answer isn't yes because if you challenge someone's religious beliefs they will just completely disagree with you no matter what you say because you can't convince someone they're wrong if they're basing their beliefs on nothing but fairy tales, however if you present an argument or try to change someone's mind about something that can be proven/disproven/debated you're going to have a much better chance of changing their views and it happens all the time.
tldr; I wasn't talking to you but you're wrong anyway. Your posts demonstrate a lack of understanding, not mine.
|
On July 11 2013 21:30 kwizach wrote:
Saying "it's just a theory" implies a lack of understanding for what a scientific theory is, because it clearly demonstrates you do not get that there is no higher level of systematic scientific understanding, as IreScath explained to you very clearly.
I feel like my quote is taken out on context. Please read it again. I never implied that there is anything greater than a theory. I just wanted to point out that it is okay to question big bang - because it is (like everything else in science) just a theory.
Maybe it wasn't the most nuanced way to put it, and maybe I should have written that the evidence of big bang is not so overwhelming, that it is irrelevant to be looking for evidence against it.
But I like to keep my posts short, because I am too lazy to read through a wall of text just to realize that the main point was already made in the very first line.
|
On July 11 2013 21:44 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 21:42 Umpteen wrote:
Speaking to the original question of the thread:
It's a super hot day. You walk into a friend's new house and see most of his living room is taken up by a gigantic air-conditioning unit. There are tubes and vents everywhere and it's clearly sucking up a lot of electricity doing it's job.
Pointing to the enormous air-con unit you say "Wow, that's a massive investment and inconvenience, but I guess it's worth it. Nice and fresh in here."
Your friend shakes his head. "What, that? No, it's all mind over matter. I just think cool thoughts." So.... what?
The point being we wouldn't have something as unwieldy, vulnerable and expensive as a brain if we didn't need it to do the job it looks as if it's doing. The dualist perspective has never made sense to me in light of that.
No biggie; just hadn't seen it said yet. Carry on 
|
On July 11 2013 22:13 Umpteen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 21:44 Reason wrote:On July 11 2013 21:42 Umpteen wrote:
Speaking to the original question of the thread:
It's a super hot day. You walk into a friend's new house and see most of his living room is taken up by a gigantic air-conditioning unit. There are tubes and vents everywhere and it's clearly sucking up a lot of electricity doing it's job.
Pointing to the enormous air-con unit you say "Wow, that's a massive investment and inconvenience, but I guess it's worth it. Nice and fresh in here."
Your friend shakes his head. "What, that? No, it's all mind over matter. I just think cool thoughts." So.... what? The point being we wouldn't have something as unwieldy, vulnerable and expensive as a brain if we didn't need it to do the job it looks as if it's doing. The dualist perspective has never made sense to me in light of that. No biggie; just hadn't seen it said yet. Carry on
No biggie indeed, just didn't understand what you meant. Please don't go, not much else happening 
On July 11 2013 22:02 Napoleon53 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 21:30 kwizach wrote:
Saying "it's just a theory" implies a lack of understanding for what a scientific theory is, because it clearly demonstrates you do not get that there is no higher level of systematic scientific understanding, as IreScath explained to you very clearly. I feel like my quote is taken out on context. Please read it again. I never implied that there is anything greater than a theory. I just wanted to point out that it is okay to question big bang - because it is (like everything else in science) just a theory. Maybe it wasn't the most nuanced way to put it, and maybe I should have written that the evidence of big bang is not so overwhelming, that it is irrelevant to be looking for evidence against it. But I like to keep my posts short, because I am too lazy to read through a wall of text just to realize that the main point was already made in the very first line.
Yeah, it's okay to question it if you propose an alternative that fits better with collected data. Just questioning it for the sake of it or saying "it's just a theory" is completely pointless, that's all anyone really said.
|
|
|
On July 11 2013 22:02 Napoleon53 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 21:30 kwizach wrote:
Saying "it's just a theory" implies a lack of understanding for what a scientific theory is, because it clearly demonstrates you do not get that there is no higher level of systematic scientific understanding, as IreScath explained to you very clearly. I feel like my quote is taken out on context. Please read it again. I never implied that there is anything greater than a theory. I just wanted to point out that it is okay to question big bang - because it is (like everything else in science) just a theory. Maybe it wasn't the most nuanced way to put it, and maybe I should have written that the evidence of big bang is not so overwhelming, that it is irrelevant to be looking for evidence against it. But I like to keep my posts short, because I am too lazy to read through a wall of text just to realize that the main point was already made in the very first line.
I was more responding to the way xM)Z is using that statement.
|
On July 11 2013 21:58 Reason wrote:
I read and understood everything you said clearly, this post was not directed at you.
In that case sorry, I thought it was aimed at me because you posted directly below my post without quoting anyone.
This is what you wrote, and if you want me to address what you've said fine. I think you're wrong. People here will take the time to understand your argument if you actually make a decent argument and don't just write garbage like "the big bang theory is just a theory" and "oh wow I've offended the religion of science and the groupies jumped on me".
What I said was more of a general statement and not specifically aimed at the population of this forum. If anything, as you say, the level of debate in this forum is quite high.
The answer isn't yes because if you challenge someone's religious beliefs they will just completely disagree with you no matter what you say because you can't convince someone they're wrong if they're basing their beliefs on nothing but fairy tales, however if you present an argument or try to change someone's mind about something that can be proven/disproven/debated you're going to have a much better chance of changing their views and it happens all the time.
tldr; I wasn't talking to you but you're wrong anyway. Your posts demonstrate a lack of understanding, not mine.
And then, to conclude, it seems that you are still not understanding what the level is that I am talking about.
It is not about right and wrong, or truth and falsehood. The answer is yes in my opinion, to the question of how most people create their worldview (of which God, or something else such as the scientific method, can be the foundation) and what effect it has on most people.
This foundation and the metaphysical claims in the area of ontology and epistomology that are related to it will determine what you see as knowledge, as reality etc and will subsequently determine what you see as justification for gaining new knowledge, for methods of proving and disproving relations to reality etc.
To take two proper examples a worldview as proposed by Descartes relies on God to exist, and it relies on that God to be a good God. The method of proof and argumentation he uses is one akin to used in mathematics and logic, and he acquires his axiomas by introspection. He can rationally build a consistent and coherent worldview on top of these foundations, the problem that remains however is that he cannot provide justification for the foundation of his worldview without making some sort of circular argument. Which is indeed what he does roughly when he says that we can have clear and distinct ideas because God exists, and we know that God exists because he is a clear and distinct idea (yes simplification, I know).
The other example is that of the metaphysical assumptions that lie at the heart of the scientific method and practice. There are some variations, but let's take the most commonly accepted one: epistemological/metaphysical realism. To say it simple the ontological and epistemological claims are that there exists a world independent of our perception or consiencesness of it. That there is such a thing as (absolute) truth and that we can know it. It assumes the world is ordered and that all things are testable and explicable. These assumptions however cannot be proven scientifically because to do so would mean we have already accepted these assumptions to be true. Any scientific proof that the method is true would be circular. (Thus some other form of justification is given, a pragmatic justification in the form of abduction. This is beyond the scope of my argument, however I would like to note that with truth as a proper representation of reality.)
In both cases the validity of the method cannot be justified by using the method itself, or the result would be a circular argumentation.Because whatever you believe in, to justify it you need to have arguments and then you need to have arguments for these as well untill you reach a point where you have an argument which you cannot get an argument for and this you shall have to assume to be true. and if this argument influences how you look at the world and what you see as valid evidence to support claims than whatever evidence you bring forth to strengthen this argument is trivial...
The point I am trying to make is that most people only see that they believe in a different system but not that their system of belief is the same. The outcome may be different, the process is the same. And don't say that one side believes in dogma, and the other tries to keep an open mind, etc because you can only make such a claim from within a specific discourse of value and then you already past the point im talking about.
What I am not trying to say is that the belief that God exists is the same as the belief that the Big Bang theory is true, they are not beliefs of the same sort (or atleast, within the world view of a Christian, and within the world view of an Atheist, these beliefs do not constitute the same place). What I am also not trying to say is that the practice of science is the same as the practice of religion.
As to the effect it has on the believers, and the mob being the mob regardless (which Xmz said), i would like to say the following most people (imo all in some field or another) rely on authority to tell them what is true. This has not changed much over time. In modern times the information is more readily available, but it has also grown explosively in quantity to a point where you simply cannot process it all (not in the least due to the speed in which new information is added) even if there wouldnt be so much contradicting info present.
For example if I would study the field of physics this would take alot of time and it would mean I do not have the time to also properly study biology, chemistry, mathemathics etc. This means that even if I would find some spare time to look into biology, let's say evolution, I would be forced to rely on what authorities tell me. Because even if I could comprehend it all by myself without someone chewing it all out for me, I would not have the time, nor the equipment, nor the rescourses or the expertise to run the experiments and verify/falsify by myself if what these authorities say is true. This seems obvious to me, the days of the Homo Universalis are long past, if they ever were present.
Ofcourse we can argue that the method of one authority is preferable over the other, but this doesnt change that we are still relying upon authority.
The post may be a bit incoherent, my excuses, I find it hard to get it across in English.
|
On July 11 2013 22:32 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 22:02 Napoleon53 wrote:On July 11 2013 21:30 kwizach wrote:
Saying "it's just a theory" implies a lack of understanding for what a scientific theory is, because it clearly demonstrates you do not get that there is no higher level of systematic scientific understanding, as IreScath explained to you very clearly. I feel like my quote is taken out on context. Please read it again. I never implied that there is anything greater than a theory. I just wanted to point out that it is okay to question big bang - because it is (like everything else in science) just a theory. Maybe it wasn't the most nuanced way to put it, and maybe I should have written that the evidence of big bang is not so overwhelming, that it is irrelevant to be looking for evidence against it. But I like to keep my posts short, because I am too lazy to read through a wall of text just to realize that the main point was already made in the very first line. I was more responding to the way xM)Z is using that statement.
should have beenI was more responding to how i thought xM)Z is using that statement.
instinctive reply prompted by me challenging the authority of your believes. you don't need to explain yourself.
|
On July 11 2013 19:50 BillGates wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 19:44 Reason wrote:
If you challenge my belief in God you are well justified in doing so because there's no evidence for God.
If you challenge my belief in the water cycle you're an idiot.
Trying to equate the two does not make you look intelligent. There is actually proof. My prayer or more of a rant has been answered. In fact 1 major rant/payer/ask has been answered and dealt with and two a bit lesser, but still huge. That and you can just know it and understand it at a deep conscious level.
That's not proof, quit trolling. If I throw a rock toward the sun and a solar eclipse happens, I don't get to announce to everyone that my rock throw has been answered. Saying a prayer and then having something happen in reality related to the topic of your prayer does not mean the prayer caused it.
"you can just know it" is totally meaningless. No one knows exactly what consciousness is, and right now the more logical approach to figuring it out is via neuroscience and not "just feeling it/knowing it on a 'deep' level"
|
@TSORG:
I thought it was a very clearly presented post, particularly if it's not your first language.
The bit that niggles at me is best expressed in this statement (although it is not the particulars of the statement that concern me):
And don't say that one side believes in dogma, and the other tries to keep an open mind, etc because you can only make such a claim from within a specific discourse of value and then you already past the point im talking about.
It's the idea that since we can construct self-consistent belief systems upon whatever foundation we choose, this on some level makes all belief systems equal (don't worry, I'm pretty sure I understand the level you're talking about).
I would suggest that the level at which such systems can be described as equivalent is more abstract than the universe in which we live. What the hell do I mean by that?
What I mean is: there are belief systems this universe will not permit you to exist by. If I decide I can fly by flapping my arms I may be able to construct a self-consistent system incorporating that belief but I'm still going to die if I step off a tall building. The universe has a very clear opinion on that point.
Since the universe will permit only a subset of all possible belief systems to be successfully entertained, it follows that there is no useful context in which all belief systems can be considered equal. It's like trying to survive by eating the square root of minus one apples: the fact the equation has an answer isn't relevant in context.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On July 12 2013 00:07 TSORG wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 21:58 Reason wrote:
I read and understood everything you said clearly, this post was not directed at you. In that case sorry, I thought it was aimed at me because you posted directly below my post without quoting anyone. Show nested quote +This is what you wrote, and if you want me to address what you've said fine. I think you're wrong. People here will take the time to understand your argument if you actually make a decent argument and don't just write garbage like "the big bang theory is just a theory" and "oh wow I've offended the religion of science and the groupies jumped on me". What I said was more of a general statement and not specifically aimed at the population of this forum. If anything, as you say, the level of debate in this forum is quite high. Show nested quote +The answer isn't yes because if you challenge someone's religious beliefs they will just completely disagree with you no matter what you say because you can't convince someone they're wrong if they're basing their beliefs on nothing but fairy tales, however if you present an argument or try to change someone's mind about something that can be proven/disproven/debated you're going to have a much better chance of changing their views and it happens all the time.
tldr; I wasn't talking to you but you're wrong anyway. Your posts demonstrate a lack of understanding, not mine. And then, to conclude, it seems that you are still not understanding what the level is that I am talking about. It is not about right and wrong, or truth and falsehood. The answer is yes in my opinion, to the question of how most people create their worldview (of which God, or something else such as the scientific method, can be the foundation) and what effect it has on most people. This foundation and the metaphysical claims in the area of ontology and epistomology that are related to it will determine what you see as knowledge, as reality etc and will subsequently determine what you see as justification for gaining new knowledge, for methods of proving and disproving relations to reality etc. To take two proper examples a worldview as proposed by Descartes relies on God to exist, and it relies on that God to be a good God. The method of proof and argumentation he uses is one akin to used in mathematics and logic, and he acquires his axiomas by introspection. He can rationally build a consistent and coherent worldview on top of these foundations, the problem that remains however is that he cannot provide justification for the foundation of his worldview without making some sort of circular argument. Which is indeed what he does roughly when he says that we can have clear and distinct ideas because God exists, and we know that God exists because he is a clear and distinct idea (yes simplification, I know). The other example is that of the metaphysical assumptions that lie at the heart of the scientific method and practice. There are some variations, but let's take the most commonly accepted one: epistemological/metaphysical realism. To say it simple the ontological and epistemological claims are that there exists a world independent of our perception or consiencesness of it. That there is such a thing as (absolute) truth and that we can know it. It assumes the world is ordered and that all things are testable and explicable. These assumptions however cannot be proven scientifically because to do so would mean we have already accepted these assumptions to be true. Any scientific proof that the method is true would be circular. (Thus some other form of justification is given, a pragmatic justification in the form of abduction. This is beyond the scope of my argument, however I would like to note that with truth as a proper representation of reality.) In both cases the validity of the method cannot be justified by using the method itself, or the result would be a circular argumentation.Because whatever you believe in, to justify it you need to have arguments and then you need to have arguments for these as well untill you reach a point where you have an argument which you cannot get an argument for and this you shall have to assume to be true. and if this argument influences how you look at the world and what you see as valid evidence to support claims than whatever evidence you bring forth to strengthen this argument is trivial... The point I am trying to make is that most people only see that they believe in a different system but not that their system of belief is the same. The outcome may be different, the process is the same. And don't say that one side believes in dogma, and the other tries to keep an open mind, etc because you can only make such a claim from within a specific discourse of value and then you already past the point im talking about. What I am not trying to say is that the belief that God exists is the same as the belief that the Big Bang theory is true, they are not beliefs of the same sort (or atleast, within the world view of a Christian, and within the world view of an Atheist, these beliefs do not constitute the same place). What I am also not trying to say is that the practice of science is the same as the practice of religion. As to the effect it has on the believers, and the mob being the mob regardless (which Xmz said), i would like to say the following most people (imo all in some field or another) rely on authority to tell them what is true. This has not changed much over time. In modern times the information is more readily available, but it has also grown explosively in quantity to a point where you simply cannot process it all (not in the least due to the speed in which new information is added) even if there wouldnt be so much contradicting info present. For example if I would study the field of physics this would take alot of time and it would mean I do not have the time to also properly study biology, chemistry, mathemathics etc. This means that even if I would find some spare time to look into biology, let's say evolution, I would be forced to rely on what authorities tell me. Because even if I could comprehend it all by myself without someone chewing it all out for me, I would not have the time, nor the equipment, nor the rescourses or the expertise to run the experiments and verify/falsify by myself if what these authorities say is true. This seems obvious to me, the days of the Homo Universalis are long past, if they ever were present. Ofcourse we can argue that the method of one authority is preferable over the other, but this doesnt change that we are still relying upon authority. The post may be a bit incoherent, my excuses, I find it hard to get it across in English.
I find your post quite coherent in fact, it's just that much of what you say seems wrong to me or at the very least misses the mark. You further do not seem to address any of reason's points.
I find it quite hard to judge how all, many or just some people actually develop their world view, but speculation in this direction also seems fruitless to me.
Some or even all people can and will be wrong. But it seems quite clear to me that, as long as there is an external world, it's true description can only be discovered and not imposed (solipsists need to leave the discussion right away).
That world views cannot be 'proven' from inside is further simply not true. Surely not all claims can be tested against each other but some claims can. As long as the world view allows for correction and rejects dogma.It's simply disingenuous to pretend that all world views are the same in this respect and to propose that we can't detect dogma from within a world view is either a meaningless tautology or flat out wrong (how would you explain revolutionary changes in world views otherwise?).
There is a reason why we don't ask shamans anymore to gut some rabbit in order to make a weather forecast, but put our 'faith' in meteorology and if your world view cannot account for that difference, then it is simply lacking.
Now I do think that there are respectable spiritual claims, but putting them on par with scientific hypotheses because "science can't prove itself" is more than a category mistake, it completely undersells the power of scientific epistemology.
Finally, your last point on authority is neither here nor there. Sure, people do (and have to) rely on experts a lot of times and sometimes it is difficult or impossible to figure out who the real expert actually is. But the fact remains that scientific inquiry allows a transparent path to expertise in principle, whereas other fields of interest do not. This difference makes a whole lot of difference if you ask me.
|
On July 12 2013 01:17 Umpteen wrote:@TSORG: I thought it was a very clearly presented post, particularly if it's not your first language. The bit that niggles at me is best expressed in this statement (although it is not the particulars of the statement that concern me): Show nested quote +And don't say that one side believes in dogma, and the other tries to keep an open mind, etc because you can only make such a claim from within a specific discourse of value and then you already past the point im talking about. It's the idea that since we can construct self-consistent belief systems upon whatever foundation we choose, this on some level makes all belief systems equal (don't worry, I'm pretty sure I understand the level you're talking about). I would suggest that the level at which such systems can be described as equivalent is more abstract than the universe in which we live. What the hell do I mean by that? What I mean is: there are belief systems this universe will not permit you to exist by. If I decide I can fly by flapping my arms I may be able to construct a self-consistent system incorporating that belief but I'm still going to die if I step off a tall building. The universe has a very clear opinion on that point. Since the universe will permit only a subset of all possible belief systems to be successfully entertained, it follows that there is no useful context in which all belief systems can be considered equal. It's like trying to survive by eating the square root of minus one apples: the fact the equation has an answer isn't relevant in context.
Thanks, I like to believe my English is quite good, and I think it is, atleast for common conversation, however when it comes down to more technical and intellectual debates I sometimes find it hard to use the right terminology and to make a coherent response.
As to what you say, you indeed pick out a troubling aspect, and truth be told, the consequenses of what you highlight is what I am most uncertain of. I think alot about what I have tried to make clear and to what you respond, but I find it hard to accept some of the consequenses even though I see that I must in order to be consistent.
The best I can come up with at the moment to parry your criticism, which is justified for sure, is that I do not conclude that the results are equally valuable, that is to say that these self-consistent belief systems which we have constructed are all equal, but that we process we go through to construct such a self-consistent belief system is the same process for every one. Regardless of wether one such belief system has better practical consequenses than the other. I realize that this is a very theoritical point and that it has little pragmatic value (much like skepticism) but I think it is important not to forget it, in order to not overstep the limits of what science can tell us and to avoid that it becomes as rigid as dogmatic as some people claim religion to be.
I hope this is an adequate response.
I would suggest that the level at which such systems can be described as equivalent is more abstract than the universe in
After rereading, I think this is indeed an important point to raise, and I think you are right in saying so. It is also most likely the reason why most people will dismiss it as irrelevant and unimportant, but I disagree with that, perhaps because in it I see an opportunity to achieve some more mutual understanding and tolerance.
|
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/cosmology-02c.html
A new theory of the universe suggests that space and time may not have begun in a big bang, but may have always existed in an endless cycle of expansion and rebirth.
The idea also reproduces all the successful explanations provided by standard picture, but there is no direct evidence to say which is correct, said Steinhardt, a professor of physics.
"I do not eliminate either of them at this stage," he said. "To me, what's interesting is that we now have a second possibility that is poles apart from the standard picture in many respects, and we may have the capability to distinguish them experimentally during the coming years."
"This work by Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok is extraordinarily exciting and represents the first new big idea in cosmology in over two decades," said Jeremiah Ostriker, professor of astrophysics at Princeton and the Plumian Professor of Astronomy and Experimental Philosophy at Cambridge.
"They have found a simple explanation for the observed fact the universe on large scales looks the same to us left and right, up and down -- a seemingly obvious and natural condition -- that in fact has defied explanation for decades."
|
On July 12 2013 01:20 MiraMax wrote:
I find your post quite coherent in fact, it's just that much of what you say seems wrong to me or at the very least misses the mark. You further do not seem to address any of reason's points.
I find it quite hard to judge how all, many or just some people actually develop their world view, but speculation in this direction also seems fruitless to me.
Some or even all people can and will be wrong. But it seems quite clear to me that, as long as there is an external world, it's true description can only be discovered and not imposed (solipsists need to leave the discussion right away).
much of what I say rests on the assumption that the skepticism argument is correct and that we cannot know if we are right about something. The moment someone can convince me/show me/prove me that we this is not the case on basis of another argument than that of pragmatism, I will take back everything I said here.
That world views cannot be 'proven' from inside is further simply not true. Surely not all claims can be tested against each other but some claims can. As long as the world view allows for correction and rejects dogma.It's simply disingenuous to pretend that all world views are the same in this respect and to propose that we can't detect dogma from within a world view is either a meaningless tautology or flat out wrong (how would you explain revolutionary changes in world views otherwise?).
I'm not sure how to respond to this, I will give it some more thought. I do like to point out that I'm not saying that we cannot detect the dogma, we most certainly can and afaik it is not a very controversial amongst scientists that science cannot be scientifically proven. They simply disregard it based on the succesful results of their method and thus opt for a pragmatist approach. I see no fault in this, in fact I think I embrace it.
Much of what I am saying is related to Kuhn's paradigms, although he is mostly talking about scientific development. To pick up a quick quote from him on wikipedia: "Successive transition from one paradigm to another via revolution is the usual developmental pattern of mature science." It is not that whenever something better, more "true", comes along that this immediately replaces whatever was there before, it will take a will for the resistance to build up to the point where the original theory no longer can be held and it will give way for something else (and sometimes it remains if there is no adequate replacement, even though the criticism has pointed out that whatever is in place now, is itself also inadequate). However what is being questioned here is a scientific theory, as in Newton vs Einstein, what is not questioned however are these metaphysical assumptions.
I don't think you are far off to say that my point is almost tautologuous, but I disagree that it is therefore meaningless.
There is a reason why we don't ask shamans anymore to gut some rabbit in order to make a weather forecast, but put our 'faith' in meteorology and if your world view cannot account for that difference, then it is simply lacking.
Ofcourse there is a valid reason, but that reason is pragmatic. The weathercaster is having better results than the shaman and thus we believe him over the other.
Now I do think that there are respectable spiritual claims, but putting them on par with scientific hypotheses because "science can't prove itself" is more than a category mistake, it completely undersells the power of scientific epistemology.
I am not putting them on par with each other, or atleast I try not to, perhaps I havent made that sufficiently clear. Perhaps I should say that they are incommensurable (although I am not sure if I can use the word in this context).
Finally, your last point on authority is neither here nor there. Sure, people do (and have to) rely on experts a lot of times and sometimes it is difficult or impossible to figure out who the real expert actually is. But the fact remains that scientific inquiry allows a transparent path to expertise in principle, whereas other fields of interest do not. This difference makes a whole lot of difference if you ask me.
It indeed does, and I have not denied that.
|
On July 12 2013 02:07 xM(Z wrote:http://www.spacedaily.com/news/cosmology-02c.htmlShow nested quote +A new theory of the universe suggests that space and time may not have begun in a big bang, but may have always existed in an endless cycle of expansion and rebirth. Show nested quote +The idea also reproduces all the successful explanations provided by standard picture, but there is no direct evidence to say which is correct, said Steinhardt, a professor of physics.
"I do not eliminate either of them at this stage," he said. "To me, what's interesting is that we now have a second possibility that is poles apart from the standard picture in many respects, and we may have the capability to distinguish them experimentally during the coming years." Show nested quote +"This work by Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok is extraordinarily exciting and represents the first new big idea in cosmology in over two decades," said Jeremiah Ostriker, professor of astrophysics at Princeton and the Plumian Professor of Astronomy and Experimental Philosophy at Cambridge.
"They have found a simple explanation for the observed fact the universe on large scales looks the same to us left and right, up and down -- a seemingly obvious and natural condition -- that in fact has defied explanation for decades."
Uhm... That sounds like it's talking about the detail of space and time coming into existence at the big bang. It's not saying the Big Bang didn't happen.
Oh god I keep responding to this guy for some reason. It's a problem.
|
@ DoubleReed
i think i should use bolds to make it more obvious A new theory of the universe suggests that space and time may not have begun in a big bang, but may have always existed in an endless cycle of expansion and rebirth.
http://rense.com/general53/bbng.htm
The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.
In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, RAISE SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE UNDERLYING THEORY.
Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt," in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.
i'll just google stuff for you, i'm that nice: http://discovermagazine.com/2008/apr/25-3-theories-that-might-blow-up-the-big-bang#.Ud98JJbvnRk
Time may not have a beginning—and it might not exist at all.
|
On July 12 2013 02:31 xM(Z wrote:@ DoubleReed i think i should use bolds to make it more obvious Show nested quote +A new theory of the universe suggests that space and time may not have begun in a big bang, but may have always existed in an endless cycle of expansion and rebirth. http://rense.com/general53/bbng.htmShow nested quote +The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.
In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, RAISE SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE UNDERLYING THEORY. Show nested quote +Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt," in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding. i'll just google stuff for you, i'm that nice: http://discovermagazine.com/2008/apr/25-3-theories-that-might-blow-up-the-big-bang#.Ud98JJbvnRk
Eric Lerner wrote a book about the Big Bang in the early nineties and tried to prove that it didn't happen. The vast majority of cosmologists rejected his hypothesis because it misconstrued facts about what the Big Bang actually is.
The Big Bang is a model of the behaviour of the universe right after its beginning. Let me emphasize this: the Big Bang theory is not a theory concerning how the universe actually began, or how space and time actually began. It's a theory concerning the way those things behaved early in the universe's life cycle.
As for time not having a beginning/not existing at all...the latter sounds like a completely meaningless statement because it apparently uses a different definition of time than everyone else whereas the former is arguably a logical impossibility.
|
On July 12 2013 02:31 xM(Z wrote:@ DoubleReed i think i should use bolds to make it more obvious Show nested quote +A new theory of the universe suggests that space and time may not have begun in a big bang, but may have always existed in an endless cycle of expansion and rebirth. http://rense.com/general53/bbng.htmShow nested quote +The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.
In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, RAISE SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE UNDERLYING THEORY. Show nested quote +Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt," in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding. i'll just google stuff for you, i'm that nice: http://discovermagazine.com/2008/apr/25-3-theories-that-might-blow-up-the-big-bang#.Ud98JJbvnRk
dude, you really need to stop quoting stuff "you just googled" when you have no idea what it is about, every time you quote something it is not even helping your case.
Also, if you have a clear theory to the main question (about the brain remember ? ), please tell us. Because nitpicking about everyone's post just for the sake of arguing and sounding "smart" doesn't really help anything, it is just derailing the thread into something off-topic every time.
|
See, I shouldn't have responded. I don't even know how to answer him without saying "yea that's what I said."
I keep thinking it might be a translation issue, but I'm afraid to ask for fear he'll say even weirder random things and be all like "ha HA!!"
|
On July 12 2013 02:49 DertoQq wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 02:31 xM(Z wrote:@ DoubleReed i think i should use bolds to make it more obvious A new theory of the universe suggests that space and time may not have begun in a big bang, but may have always existed in an endless cycle of expansion and rebirth. http://rense.com/general53/bbng.htmThe big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.
In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, RAISE SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE UNDERLYING THEORY. Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt," in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding. i'll just google stuff for you, i'm that nice: http://discovermagazine.com/2008/apr/25-3-theories-that-might-blow-up-the-big-bang#.Ud98JJbvnRkTime may not have a beginning—and it might not exist at all. dude, you really need to stop quoting stuff "you just googled" when you have no idea what it is about, every time you quote something it is not even helping your case. Also, if you have a clear theory to the main question (about the brain remember ? ), please tell us. Because nitpicking about everyone's post just for the sake of arguing and sounding "smart" doesn't really help anything, it is just derailing the thread into something off-topic every time.
it's not derailing anything.
if there is no beggining and no end then time doesn't exist.
think of the concept of 'mind' without any time limits. an infinite, timeless mind.
(quotes were only meant to show an alternative to big bang and yea i know what quotes were about)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
