It's been all done, many many times...Yet you still insist on preaching, when I can hear the same nonsense any Sunday...
Three Claims of Uniformitarian Naturalism
- Thread starter SetiAlpha6
- Start date
Thanks for this.
But there's no hard line on science from Yazata, just an appreciation of its limitations - which it does have. And as for not holding the same standards to the existence of deities, Yazata is, I believe, an agnostic atheist, like myself. Atheist because Yazata does not believe that God exists (but can't rule it out as impossible, so also does not believe that God does not exist), and agnostic because the question of whether or not God exists is seemingly unknowable. And if one can't know, why believe it either true or false?
As for ID, I think you'd need to read more of Yazata's comments on that before judging there to be no holding of the same standards.
Furthermore, Yazata is quite correct that, whichever definition of "miracle" you take, atheism will carry on regardless. To explain in my own words:
1) if a miracle is a divine intervention that goes against the natural laws of the universe then science (and atheism) will simply reject it, for being an impossibility. In science, nothing can go against the laws of the universe. Therefore there is no possibility of a miracle. Any claim that something is a miracle and has contravened the natural laws of the universe is more reasonably due to our lack of full understanding of those laws than actually due to some divine intervention, and thus that is the explanation that science, and presumably many atheists, will adopt if such a "miracle" is presented... and thus those atheists will thus remain atheist.
There is no hard line on science here.
2) if a miracle is defined more along the lines of something that happens within the laws of nature, but guided by the hand of God, then to the scientist and/or atheist this "miracle" is indistinguishable from the natural order. Thus the involvement of a deity to the phenomenon becomes invisible. The atheist, when confronted with a "miracle" so defined, thus sees no involvement of a God, and continues to be an atheist.
Again, no hard line on science here, just a reasoned explanation as to why neither definition will mean an end to atheism when a miracle is presented.
(Note, I have used science/atheism almost interchangeably here, not because that is what I think the case to be, but because there seemed to be an equivocation within your post, which referenced science but was in reply to Yazata's post about atheism.)
In the end I think you have simply misinterpreted what Yazata was trying to convey, and also possibly seeing words such as "agnostic" and suffering from a knee-jerk (and fallacious) pejorative response of "fence-sitter!" Needless to say, my own interpretation of what Yazata posted is somewhat different.
Sod's Law that you turn out to be correct!
None. But for atheists, and even for science, you have to be able to demonstrate that veracity. You need to be able to show that it really is a "miracle" rather than (depending upon definition) either a contravention of the laws of nature or an act guided by a deity. If you can do that, bearing in mind that they will lack the a priori belief that a deity exists, then yes, all it will take is one such miracle that can have its veracity demonstrated.
Any idea how you would even start to demonstrate its veracity to such prople? So far noone has ever been able to do that with any of the claims of "miracle". None. Hence atheism is still a reasonable position to hold.
Of course! Something I have mentioned many many times in debates, but by the same token, there's not too many, theists. agnostics, and/or atheists, or anyone of us that would willingly reject all science and all it has given us...Can you even imagine it?
Personally, I'm not that fond of labels, and while I agree that it is unknowable, I also believe as with all supernatural and paranormal claims, they are simply unscientific. I do try and approach things scientifically and logically to reach any conclusion, even the question now at hand.
Perhaps after post after post of crossing swords with Jan, Vociferous, and Seti, I may have gone off half cocked and unjustly misinterpreted and misjudged Yazata. If I have I apologise, and hope he reads this post before reacting to my previous post re his remarks.
Accepted, mea culpa.
I did need to look up Sod's Law....first I have heard of it.Sod's Law that you turn out to be correct!
Nice post by the way, and thanks.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
Good post, Sarkus. I'm just going to comment and expand on one little part of it.
I doubt that it was what you meant, but interpreted one way that seems to concede metaphysical naturalism, which I agree with Seti is unjustifiable by its nature. We don't really know that reality is coextensive with the scope of natural science and I don't know of any way that anyone could know it. It's kind of an a-priori metaphysical assumption, not unlike belief in the existence of God. (I suspect that was part of Seti's purpose in starting this thread.)
I'm more in agreement if we stick to methodological naturalism, which is what I suspect you meant. Interpreted this way, anything supernatural, anything outside the realm of space-time-matter and causal interaction, anything outside the scope of our natural senses (and their instrumental extensions), wouldn't fall within the scope of science. Science has no way of determining whether such things can or can't exist, because it lacks any way of knowing about them. So as a heuristic precept, science sticks to trying to explain what can be known by appeal to other things that can be known.
This is one reason why I argue against the often-repeated Sciforums thesis that philosophy is bullshit and science can and should take its place.
Certainly there are many outstanding problem cases such as mathematical structures, principles of logical inference, the nature of time and its asymmetry into past and future, ideas and concepts, possibility and necessity, and many more. Many of these appear as assumptions that play a fundamental role in science, despite their unresolved metaphysical and epistemological status.
I suspect that pointing that out was part of Seti's motivation for starting this thread. One can reasonably argue that science can only proceed by reaching outside the scope of science for many of its fundamental concepts and methods.
"There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination." --- Daniel Dennett, Darwin's Dangerous Idea, 1995
(These are open questions in my opinion and I'm not sure what my final opinion will be, if I ever reach one.)
Here's a useful little summary outline from Wikipedia of what the philosophy of science is about --
(Sarkus already knows this, but it might do some Sciforums participants some good)
https://web.stanford.edu/class/symsys130/Philosophy of science.pdf
I doubt that it was what you meant, but interpreted one way that seems to concede metaphysical naturalism, which I agree with Seti is unjustifiable by its nature. We don't really know that reality is coextensive with the scope of natural science and I don't know of any way that anyone could know it. It's kind of an a-priori metaphysical assumption, not unlike belief in the existence of God. (I suspect that was part of Seti's purpose in starting this thread.)
I'm more in agreement if we stick to methodological naturalism, which is what I suspect you meant. Interpreted this way, anything supernatural, anything outside the realm of space-time-matter and causal interaction, anything outside the scope of our natural senses (and their instrumental extensions), wouldn't fall within the scope of science. Science has no way of determining whether such things can or can't exist, because it lacks any way of knowing about them. So as a heuristic precept, science sticks to trying to explain what can be known by appeal to other things that can be known.
This is one reason why I argue against the often-repeated Sciforums thesis that philosophy is bullshit and science can and should take its place.
Certainly there are many outstanding problem cases such as mathematical structures, principles of logical inference, the nature of time and its asymmetry into past and future, ideas and concepts, possibility and necessity, and many more. Many of these appear as assumptions that play a fundamental role in science, despite their unresolved metaphysical and epistemological status.
I suspect that pointing that out was part of Seti's motivation for starting this thread. One can reasonably argue that science can only proceed by reaching outside the scope of science for many of its fundamental concepts and methods.
"There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination." --- Daniel Dennett, Darwin's Dangerous Idea, 1995
(These are open questions in my opinion and I'm not sure what my final opinion will be, if I ever reach one.)
Here's a useful little summary outline from Wikipedia of what the philosophy of science is about --
(Sarkus already knows this, but it might do some Sciforums participants some good)
https://web.stanford.edu/class/symsys130/Philosophy of science.pdf
Last edited:
No, I have never said that philosophy is bullshit, rather that it is and always has been the basis of science, but over time, practical science has grown in stature and technology to be able to give reasonable answers to questions that once was the sole domain of philosophy. As I have said before, I'm with Lawrence on this one.
Why shouldn't that hold? Surely science can establish an observation, when that observation has never been contradicted.
When observational evidence contradicts that, then science will compensate, as it always does.
If tomorrow a booming voice from the clouds demanded that the Pacific Ocean parted, that was heard all over the planet, then science would indeed have to recognise the supernatural...but we have no reason to believe that such a thing will or can happen.
Thank you Yazata, although at this stage I'm not sure if it has changed my opinion greatly, other then perhaps being to hard on your previous post and possibly misinterpreting it.
Hmmm, the mind boggles as to what was deleted!
Yes, interesting....here's another article.....
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-consolation-of-philos/
extracts:
"As a scientist, the fascination normally associated with the classically phrased question “why is there something rather than nothing?”, is really contained in a specific operational question. That question can be phrased as follows: How can a universe full of galaxies and stars, and planets and people, including philosophers, arise naturally from an initial condition in which none of these objects—no particles, no space, and perhaps no time—may have existed? Put more succinctly perhaps: Why is there ‘stuff’, instead of empty space? Why is there space at all? There may be other ontological questions one can imagine but I think these are the ‘miracles’ of creation that are so non-intuitive and remarkable, and they are also the ‘miracles’ that physics has provided new insights about, and spurred by amazing discoveries, has changed the playing field of our knowledge. That we can even have plausible answers to these questions is worth celebrating and sharing more broadly.
In this regard, there is a class of philosophers, some theologically inspired, who object to the very fact that scientists might presume to address any version of this fundamental ontological issue. Recently one review of my book by such a philosopher, which I think motivated the questions in the Atlantic interview, argued not only that one particular version of the nothing described by modern physics was not relevant. Even more surprisingly, this author claimed with apparent authority (surprising because the author apparently has some background in physics) something that is simply wrong: that the laws of physics can never dynamically determine which particles and fields exist and whether space itself exists, or more generally what the nature of existence might be. But that is precisely what is possible in the context of modern quantum field theory in curved spacetime, where a phenomenon called ‘spontaneous symmetry breaking’ can determine dynamically which forces manifest themselves on large scales and which particles exist as stable states, and whether space itself can grow exponentially or not. Within the context of quantum gravity the same is presumably true for which sorts of universes can appear and persist. Within the context of string theory, a similar phenomenon might ultimately determine (indeed if the theory is ever to become predictive, it must determine) why universes might spontaneously arise with 4 large spacetime dimensions and not 5 or 6. One cannot tell from the review if the author actually read the book (since no mention of the relevant cosmology is made) or simply misunderstood it.
"(To be fair, I regret sometimes lumping all philosophers in with theologians because theology, aside from those parts that involve true historical or linguistic scholarship, is not credible field of modern scholarship.) "
If “something” is a physical quantity, to be determined by experiment, then so is ‘nothing’.
the article concludes.....
"So, to those philosophers I may have unjustly offended by seemingly blanket statements about the field, I apologize. I value your intelligent conversation and the insights of anyone who thinks carefully about our universe and who is willing to guide their thinking based on the evidence of reality. To those who wish to impose their definition of reality abstractly, independent of emerging empirical knowledge and the changing questions that go with it, and call that either philosophy or theology, I would say this: Please go on talking to each other, and let the rest of us get on with the goal of learning more about nature."
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
It is nice to see that in print..I am tempted to print it out and hang it on the wall.
Although I think the exclusion qualification was totally unnecessary...the wall hanging could read...theology is not a credible field of modern scholarship.
Why not make it up as they go along...Why not have a religion based on what we know ...something that sets out a preferred morality and some pep talk speeches...was that Devine inspiration or just me by myself trying to be rational....
How wonderful it could be not brainwashing children and teaching the virtues of accepting personal responsibility.
Think of the time we could save not having to grizzle about religion in general.
Sigh.
Seti must have me on ignore given he has not addressed any of my posts..maybe I was too harse or honest..both seem to go together when discussing religion.
No theist has ever responded to my claims re human gods based on astrology being the forerunner to the Romans creating the christianity cult and you could thing that would be something of interest for them.
Sigh.
Where is Jan ... it would be nice to have him apply his direct approach to answering questions about the history of religion..yes some Jan answers to get to the bottom of it all.
Alex
Pretty much the UK version of Murphy's Law.
I did actually write what I meant.
I do think a priori assumptions of science include that everything is nature, and that nature can be known.It's a subtle thing, but this is viewed from the perspective of science, not the people who utilise science. People themselves can accept limitations of science, and thus move from metaphysical to methodological naturalism, but science itself sees no limitations in what it can achieve with regard understanding nature. To it, everything is nature and thus knowable.
So I see science itself as assuming metaphysical naturalism - to science only nature exists. That is its universe. If we, as people, have identified limitations of science, science is oblivious to it, and the universe we operate in is thus larger than that of science. Hence people might adopt methodological naturalism.
As said, it's a subtle distinction, but it's the way I see it.
It's not that science can't know, it's more than such matters are meaningless to science. It doesn't even understand those questions because they are outside the universe in which science operates. It is we, as people, that do understand those questions, as we operate in this wider universe.
As said, it's a subtle perspective, but one from the perspective of science itself rather than the people who wield science.
I still love you Alex.
I just don’t always answer posts or questions when it appears that the person asking doesn’t really want the answers anyway.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Let me make myself clear.
From all I have read there is a very good case for the proposition that the Romans invented Christianity based to some degree upon the various human gods around the Mediteranian up till then who were based on astrology...and by astrology I mean that these human gods had attributes of the Sun the most interesting of which being that each of these human gods had 12 follows which is seen as the Sun passing thru the twelve constellations of the zodiac and each human god died, usually by crusifiction but were resurrected three days after death...which is seen as a parrallel to the Sun appearing to stop or die mid winter and after three days start to move North... that is being resurrected...now there are various other links between the human gods and astrology but it would seem a reasonable link and certainly Christianity has Jesus with the same rather similar attributes as with these various human gods and their / his link to the Sun..astrology.
My question that I certainly ask expecting an answer is...well let me ask a few so you can see the things that has me wondering about your position...do you know about the various human gods who have the same attributes as Jesus...if you do how do you find that Christainity is valid...and are you aware of the notion that the Romans invented Christianity given that there is certainly enough material available to learn about their roll in Christianity...and from all of that apparent history does that not make you concerned that you have been sold a pup.
I am genuinely interested to have you answer to let me know if you know and reject it or if you have never heard about such matters.
Alex
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
I did actually write what I meant.
I'm sure you did. The problem that I had was that what you wrote at that one rather crucial point was ambiguous from the point of view of the reader.
I don't agree with that. Science isn't an individual mind and it doesn't possess psychological states.
I'm sure that many scientists do believe that. On the other hand, many other scientists are more thoughtful and circumspect. My point is that there's clearly a range of opinion among scientists on epistemological and metaphysical matters.
You know, the sort of intellectual hubris that you describe may be more prevalent in some sciences than others. I've had a lot of association with biologists, particularly cell biologists. I don't get the impression that most of them believe that they possess the ultimate secrets of the universe. Socially, after a few drinks, many of them spontaneously say things very like the T.H. Huxley quote below. Many other scientists seem to me to think similarly, even experimental physicists.
The one place where I see scientists purporting to be metaphysicians, purporting to be revealers of the ultimate nature of reality, is in theoretical physics. Not all theoretical physicists, Einstein certainly didn't. However on occasion, on one extreme, some of them obviously do. Lawrence Krauss does.
Scientists are people.
Fair enough.
Again the same ambiguity. 'Meaningless to science' could just mean 'outside the scope of science', or 'a question that science doesn't address', as opposed to 'outside the scope of reality entirely' or 'impossible'.
Many scientists adhere to some sort of religious belief. And countless more turn out to be agnostics in the T.H. Huxley style when you scratch the surface. (Huxley coined the word "agnostic".) I'd include Albert Einstein in that group.
In Huxley's words,
"When I reached intellectual maturity, and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; a Christian or a freethinker, I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until at last I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure that they had attained a certain "gnosis"-- had more or less successfully solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble."
Last edited:
Wrong: Lawrence Krauss did not purport to know anything more then other scientists about ultimate reality. He was as he would readily tell you speculating on how the universe/space/time came to be, with a need for the redefining of nothing. Much of that speculation is based on experimental data from particle accelerators and the like at least back to t+10-43 seconds.
That speculation and redefining of nothing at least has some meaning, rather then inventing any magical deity.
At this point I'll link to this short video and the greatest educator of our time, imo at least....
When we talk about redefining of nothing, what is being speculated is that perhaps the quantum foam, is as close to nothing as is possible and is effectively nothing...has existed for eternity.
https://www.livescience.com/60053-is-space-full-of-quantum-foam.html
extract:
"The 'bubbles' in the quantum foam are quadrillions of times smaller than atomic nuclei and last for infinitesimal fractions of a second—or in 'quantum-speak', the size of a Planck Length for a Planck Time," Eric Perlman, a Professor of Physics and Space Science at Florida Institute of Technology, says.
Something so utterly small has obviously not been directly observed. So why can we be very sure this quantum foam exists? One of the greatest pieces of evidence for it was predicted back in 1947 by Dutch physicists Hendrik Casimir and Dirk Polder. Fermilab senior experimental physicist Don Lincoln explained the so-called "Casimir Effect" for PBS:
If the quantum foam was real, they reasoned, then the particles should exist everywhere in space. Further, since particles also have a wave nature, there should be waves everywhere. So what they imagined was to have two parallel metal plates, placed near one another. The quantum foam would exist both between the plates and outside of them. But because the plates were placed near one another, only short waves could exist between the plates, while short and long wavelength waves could exist outside them. Because of this imbalance, the excess of waves outside the plates should overpower the smaller number of waves between them, pushing the two plates together. Thirty years after it was first predicted, this effect was observed qualitatively. It was measured accurately in 1997."
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
I know the Big Bang Theory is our best current model but it is my sincere belief it can not be correct.
It turns on believing our observation and determination that the universe is expanding and that because it is expanding we can extrapolate back to a very small point...that sounds reasonable but in truth it can not be observed..for me it seems more reasonable that the CBR could be no more than all that remains of energy given out by galaxies beyond..I know it fits the spectrum of a perfect black body etc but I see no reason why our interpretation could be wrong. For me it makes more sense that the universe is eternal and Fred was more or less correct...
The big bang proceeded happily until it was realised something like inflation was needed to make the extrapolation work and let's face it inflation can not be tested ... and as wild as my belief may be it's merit lies in totally removing the need of a point of creation..I expect humans find what they seek and I expect all humans want an answer that fits there limited human experience..the Big Bang Theory certainly delivers on that score but as good as the theory is the irony is a giant leap of faith is required to take us to a point of creation and the fact that speculation runs high and speculation about a quantum foam says to me, like inflation, it is an add on to make the Big Bang acceptable and thereby give us a reason to say we have the ultimate answer..that is the duty of cosmology.
Expansion is arrived at via only one method of reasoning (as far as I am aware) and I believe it can only be wrong and for me the only way I would accept that the universe is expanding is to have an alternative method supporting our current method...is there a second method used to confirm the idea that the universe is expanding?
So there you have it ..a man out of step with everyone and they are never right..are they?
But I am different to the other nuts in that I do not reject what we have and respect that we can make great use of any model that delivers on predictions.
The model that has the Earth at the center of the solar system is still a good scientific model in so far as all it's predictions are reliable..it will tell you where Saturn will be next Tuesday..so it works and as such is a valid scientific model..but it just does not describe reality as we now see it.
The Casimir effect I would offer in evidence to support the proposition that gravity is in effect a universal pressure in that the plates are not attracted, there being no such force, but pushed together...so it's free thinker for me.
Alex
Last edited:
The thing is that if it was a result of the energy given off by galaxies, then it wouldn't be as uniform...I mean that's its startling feature, the constant 2.7K throughout all of universe/space/time.[with very very slight variations at the parts per million level] https://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_fluct.html
The point of creation, which disturbs you as it did Fred is understandable, but in reality when one realizes that the BB was the evolution of spacetime [as we know them] and also only applies to the observable universe, you should not be as disturbed as Fred was
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.htmlI certainly do not see you as nutty as the other nuts we have infesting this forum, just slightly askew as I am many times...
Now that stopped me in my tracks and had me thinking! But then one would have to ask why other things that say are placed together on a table, do not get pushed together. The plates would I presume in the Casimir be on a table, and like any two objects, the frictional force overcomes the gravity at that tiny scale...just my amateurish thoughts on it.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Hmmmm what is the variation again..100 degrees? 10 degrees? 1 degree? I must check what it is and convert it into a percentage somehow...Paddo if I could get a mirror surface on an astronomy mirror that uniform I expect I would be rather happy..now I don't know but on my recollection it is pretty uniform..but it would be neat to relate it to the surface of the Hubble Space Telescope..you know which is the more uniform..that would put it into perspective..sadly I am not smart enough to do that. Now isn't this fun..it doesn't matter if I am right or not as we get to discuss something more tangible than myth.
The thing is that if it was a result of the energy given off by galaxies, then it wouldn't be as uniform...
Thanks for the link.The point of creation, which disturbs you as it did Fred is understandable, but in reality when one realizes that the BB was the evolution of spacetime [as we know them] and also only applies to the observable universe, you should not be as disturbed as Fred was
A man with a name like Fred can be trusted..now you can't argue with that...George is a bloody kings name and a priest to boot.
And yes I know we deal with the evolution of the universe.. inflation is was a patch that still needs replacement..extrapolating is dangerous and that is very easy to demonstrate..extrapolate the growth rate of a human child and tell me how tall it will be at forty years old...sure sounds silly but the point is if you don't know the whole story you can get a ridiculous answer..and really don't you think extrapolating the universe to the small size even before we reach a singularity ( a recognition of the limit of extrapolation right there) is asking to accept something that intuitively seems nonsense...I mean just try to imagine reducing the Earth to the size of a pea..then try it with a gallaxy..the local group..etc etc...we have CBR as the only observable feature past it who knows..but I bet at some point much earlier than singularity the extrapolation trappers off..just like in the example of a human growth rate...not saying more than it is cosmology and even though we think we know and can prove we know the fact is we only have a model and that model may not reflect reality in much the same way as our model having the center of the Solar system being the Earth showed reality.
I am fortunate to understand that I don't know the answers and that hopefully if one were educated in cosmology one would see it perhaps differently...my point was you get nuts who read a book on big bang or relativity and think in a matter of moments they have a better idea and then proceed to say everything is wrong and they have the answers...still I believe even a layman can think about things if recognition is kept on board.I certainly do not see you as nutty as the other nuts we have infesting this forum, just slightly askew as I am many times...
Thinking is fun.
I usually try to think opposite, like playing chess with yourself, a method to add to any proposition.
I read an article to the effect the universe is actually contracting rather than expanding and how our observation could be just as easily used to support contraction as they could expansion...and the headline would have you not even reading further...but interesting to demonstrate how things may look from a seemingly silly premise.
If gravity works somewhat as a universal pressure it would require particles flying about all over..likeThe plates would I presume in the Casimir be on a table, and like any two objects, the frictional force overcomes the gravity at that tiny scale...just my amateurish thoughts on it.
Le Sages ridiculed unobserved particles..he had a name but I forget..but if the plate surfaces are very close the "particles"have much less opportunity of traveling between the plates giving way to mainly pressure on the surfaces not in contact thereby having a greater opportunity of being pushed together...you will either see it or not..but I can see it that way...it's like dark matter..I can visualise a universal pressure in effect driving galaxies from the outside rather than under attraction being dragged around from the center...I mean you can replicate such with a tub of water..stir from the center stir from the edge..Anyways one only gets called a nut for thinking about such stuff...and I don't see that anything will conflict with GR..I see GR as geometry, well it is, it can only always be right but what can go wrong is that humans apply it..I bet if I knew the math I could support my approach using GR..Sortta like being able to support a contracting universe with the same data...but it just makes more sense to see gravity as external..and although I can't prove it with math the rotational curves seem consistent to an external force...to me..Anyways you would not need invisable matter.
And dark energy would seem mandatory if gravity worked as a universal pressure.
But folk think this sort of thinking threatens GR and I say it does not simply because GR is after all geometry and geometry can be used to build a good house or a crappy one..it is not the geometry that dictates a particular result but more the human applying it..in my humble views.
Anyways must go. We need to have a beer one day.
Alex