| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/06/2011 11:34:03 AM · #1101 |
Well, I can appreciate your guys' faith in Science. All three of you basically answered, "I know we can't prove this now and we don't even know how we ever could, but one day we might and that's good enough for me."
On a lighter note, just so I understand the usage of the term, if my wife is theoretically pregnant, should I be picking out names? |
|
|
|
02/06/2011 11:40:22 AM · #1102 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, I can appreciate your guys' faith in Science. All three of you basically answered, "I know we can't prove this now and we don't even know how we ever could, but one day we might and that's good enough for me." |
Nope. Straw man. I'll speak for myself, so you don't have to:
I know there is science behind theories such as the multiverse. The science is rooted in new disciplines of physics that are grounded in sound mathematical formulae. The work is being done by highly educated mathematicians and scientists in whom I am willing to put my trust, not being a highly educated mathematician or physicist. At the same time, I recognize that belief in gods is grounded in nothing, or more accurately, superstition and ignorance, and the notions supporting such beliefs come from the dark infancy of humankind. Therefore, I reject it. I understand that accepting reason and logic over superstition is not a world view in the original Hiterlian sense of the world ("Weltanschauung"), but rather, a choice to go forward with the proven record of science in order to reject the irrational and deadly superstitions of religion. |
|
|
|
02/06/2011 12:09:17 PM · #1103 |
Well, that's certainly an opinion you are able to have. One caveat, and we've had this discussion before, but it bears pointing out again. Mathematics is not generally considered part of modern Science but a branch of Philosophy. One will never come up with what is called "empiric evidence" through mathematics. Because we have a mathematical formula that can describe something, doesn't mean it exists. In the history of cosmology we have many formulas that describe our universe in ways that empiric evidence did not support. If we all understand this, then we're good.
science
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
Your statement "I know there is science behind theories such as the multiverse." is completely false with the second definition in mind. There is no observation. There is no experimentation.
Message edited by author 2011-02-06 12:09:36. |
|
|
|
02/06/2011 12:50:47 PM · #1104 |
| There is science behind it. Physics is a scientific discipline. I don't know the details. I'll report when I've read Brian Greene's book. Comparatively, religion is still bullshit, and belief in gods is untenable, stood next to acceptance of even the most arcane physics. |
|
|
|
02/06/2011 02:32:34 PM · #1105 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Because we have a mathematical formula that can describe something, doesn't mean it exists. In the history of cosmology we have many formulas that describe our universe in ways that empiric evidence did not support. If we all understand this, then we're good.
science
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
Your statement "I know there is science behind theories such as the multiverse." is completely false with the second definition in mind. There is no observation. There is no experimentation. |
It also bares repeating that mathematics is pretty damn successful in describing the world around us and making projections and forcasts of things that we later can and do prove empirically. It works well with science because it helps direct us on where to look for evidence.
It also bares repeating that it's a systematic approach that is at the mercy of proof theory and science to back up its claims. Contrast that with belief where there is no systematic approach and it doesn't have to answer to anything except for the needs of the individual. It's nothing more than comfort food. Meanwhile, math leads us to previously unimaginable discoveries like black holes and many other discoveries on a regular basis.
You pointing out that math is different than science seems to be just an attempt to confusticate the issue. Surely I hope you're not trying to argue that religion as a philosophy is on equal grounds with math because it most certainly is not.
Message edited by author 2011-02-06 14:41:13.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2011 02:56:05 PM · #1106 |
Yanko,
As a member of the species, I respectfully submit that you should hammer your "bares" into "bears" in the preceding post; I hate to think that you're repeating yourself in the nude :-)
R.
Message edited by author 2011-02-06 14:56:27. |
|
|
|
02/06/2011 03:28:19 PM · #1107 |
Originally posted by yanko:
... an attempt to confusticate the issue. |
Please do not let Sarah Palin learn of this phrase ... :-( |
|
|
|
02/06/2011 03:42:49 PM · #1108 |
Originally posted by Louis:
There is science behind it. Physics is a scientific discipline. I don't know the details. I'll report when I've read Brian Greene's book. Comparatively, religion is still bullshit, and belief in gods is untenable, stood next to acceptance of even the most arcane physics. |
I may check that book out as well. I enjoyed his other work. Sorry they do these lame things like keep the Kindle version from Canada for some reason...
At this point I can only smile and bear (not bare) your obvious bias. I think you'll find Greene to be a bit more humble than you expect.
Message edited by author 2011-02-06 15:45:19. |
|
|
|
02/06/2011 05:56:13 PM · #1109 |
| Meh. I'm only interested in the science. |
|
|
|
02/06/2011 08:05:41 PM · #1110 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Yanko,
As a member of the species, I respectfully submit that you should hammer your "bares" into "bears" in the preceding post; I hate to think that you're repeating yourself in the nude :-)
R. |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by yanko:
... an attempt to confusticate the issue. |
Please do not let Sarah Palin learn of this phrase ... :-( |
Yous guys actin' like them ain't right words to use, cuz in my "world view" them are.
|
|
|
|
02/07/2011 12:19:13 AM · #1111 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Meh. I'm only interested in the science. |
:D |
|
|
|
02/07/2011 02:33:04 PM · #1112 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Advocates argue that, like it or not, the multiverse may well be the only viable nonÂreligious explanation for what is often called the âfine-tuning problemââthe baffling observation that the laws of the universe seem custom-tailored to favor the emergence of life. |
I would be interested to know who these specific "advocates" are that are arguing that its either a multiverse or religion, because I do not think that such a (false) dichotomy is anywhere near the consensus view for those in physics, where, as far as I can tell, the impression is that the fine-tuning-as-proof-of-god argument is considered ad hoc and tautological. There have been a lot of religious advocates who have hopped on the fine-tuning argument as some supposed proof of the need for a conscious agent behind the "design" of the universe, but that's different than scientists who might be promoting the multiverse hypothesis.
Further, I don't think you can honestly say that the laws of the universe are "custom-tailored to favor the emergence of life." The prevailing conditions of "the universe" would appear to be almost overwhelmingly hostile to the emergence of life (but in a large enough set, even vanishingly small probabilities are likely to be realized).
Also, the universe may not be so finely tuned as advocates for the argument like to assume.
- Critiques of Fine Tuning
- Scientific American: Looking for Life in the Multiverse
Message edited by author 2011-02-07 18:11:31.
|
|
|
|
02/07/2011 08:06:55 PM · #1113 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Advocates argue that, like it or not, the multiverse may well be the only viable nonÂreligious explanation for what is often called the âfine-tuning problemââthe baffling observation that the laws of the universe seem custom-tailored to favor the emergence of life. |
I would be interested to know who these specific "advocates" are that are arguing that its either a multiverse or religion, because I do not think that such a (false) dichotomy is anywhere near the consensus view for those in physics, where, as far as I can tell, the impression is that the fine-tuning-as-proof-of-god argument as ad hoc and tautological. There have been a lot of religious advocates who have hopped on the fine-tuning argument as some supposed proof of the need for a conscious agent behind the "design" of the universe, but that's different than scientists who might be promoting the multiverse hypothesis. |
As well as this, I don't think that the multiverse is principally intended to solve the "fine tuning problem" (should it exist). It is mainly required nowadays to solve the fact that particles exhibit quantum behaviour where they interact with their potential selves even though their potential selves don't co-exist in any classical physics model. A multiverse may explain that - and it solves enough other observed phenomena that it has become a mainstream way of conceiving the principles involved.
Plus, the multiverse is also far from something that people "believe" in - it provides a useful and potentially correct explanation, but it is far from the only possible explanation.
|
|
|
|
02/07/2011 08:19:59 PM · #1114 |
A few things. First, I'm enjoying Greene's book.
Second, he explains the "multiverse" can actually describe the results of different ideas and not be the same thing. So a certain type of multiverse can help explain the fine-tuning problem, while other flavors help explain quantum problems.
Third, I am always hesitant to use "proof" when talking about God arguments. Don't put that at my feet because I'm careful to avoid it. Whether or not you see "religion" or the "multiverse" as the only two possible options to answer the fine-tuned problem, they are the leading ideas. I don't hear talk about too many others. It's possible that at some time in the future other explanations may arise, but they aren't there right now. The bottom line is the fine-tuning problem is a real issue. It isn't mumbo-jumbo from religious freaks trying to confuse the issue. We don't have answers. This isn't to say we never will, but I think it is critically important to those who seem to disparage religious ideas because they are untenable in the world of science to know that the most popular answer right now is just as untenable if the same criteria are applied to it.
I'll check out those links SP.
EDIT: I'm familiar with the wiki critique paragraph and I'll tell you the first paragraph tells us that physicists are in disagreement with any of these assertions. For every person who says there are actually wide parameters of viability, there are others who say they are wrong. I'm assuming these physicists aren't just speaking out from an agenda, but are doing their job as peers. The second paragraph, if I took time, could be shown to be weak counterarguments. For example, being "carbon chauvenists" sounds cool, but most parameters deal with end results like the entire universe degrading into black holes or never developing matter period. One can safely speculate that life of any type, no matter how exotic, is going to be relatively complex and must have a universe that supports complexity. A universe of homogenous quarks would not qualify.
You cannot read the second article without a subscription.
Message edited by author 2011-02-07 20:31:00. |
|
|
|
02/08/2011 09:19:35 AM · #1115 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
For every person who says there are actually wide parameters of viability, there are others who say they are wrong. |
Yes, this is what science looks like in the hypothesis formation stage. Eventually, those hypotheses that cannot provide evidentiary support, fall by the wayside.
One interesting note on the fine-tuning issue, "universal laws" may not be quite as universal as we have thought.
Not So Universal After All?
Message edited by author 2011-02-08 10:16:34.
|
|
|
|
02/08/2011 10:32:19 AM · #1116 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The bottom line is the fine-tuning problem is a real issue. It isn't mumbo-jumbo from religious freaks trying to confuse the issue. We don't have answers. This isn't to say we never will, but I think it is critically important to those who seem to disparage religious ideas because they are untenable in the world of science to know that the most popular answer right now is just as untenable if the same criteria are applied to it. |
This is similar ground to where I jumped ship on the "what caused the big bang 'problem'" discussion we had a while back. What happened "before" the big bang is an interesting question for scientists, but not a problem (it does not undercut what we do know or invalidate the process by which that knowledge has been acquired and is evaluated). It is only a "problem" for people who want to find a place for God in the gaps of modern scientific knowledge. As much as you want to deny it, Doc, casting such questions as "problems" for science amounts to nothing more than a god-of-the-gaps argument.
Similarly, why the laws of the universe exist as they do is an interesting question for science, but there simply is no fine-tuning "problem." Those who cast it as a problem are just looking for another gap into which they can squeeze their concept of god.
Even the possibility that certain questions may never be answerable--e.g., "what happened 'before' the big bang," "are there an infinite number of alternate universes," etc.--does not undercut the fact that the ONLY reliable method for evaluating truth claims is science (as always, broadly defined). Just because science can't provide a definitive answer, does not mean that other methods are somehow suddenly more credible. Any method must stand on its own, and all non-scientific methods have proven horribly unreliable.
Lastly, I remain baffled as to why religious believers seem to think that, even if you were to accept their framing of these gaps as "problems," the gaps justify their own, personal conception of a god. Even by inference you cannot logically leap from "science cannot rule out the possibility of a watchmaker-style god/entity" (or similar) to "Jesus was the Son of God" (or whatever, particular dogmatic flavor you prefer).
|
|
|
|
02/08/2011 10:37:01 AM · #1117 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
One interesting note on the fine-tuning issue, "universal laws" may not be quite as universal as we have thought. |
I can't even understand why "fine tuning" gets used as an argument for anything, it's so bass-ackwards in its reasoning. A dark, moist location leads to the formation of mold and mildew. I've always thought Douglas Adams nailed it:
Originally posted by Douglas Adams:
Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for. |
|
|
|
|
02/08/2011 10:49:58 AM · #1118 |
Originally posted by david_c:
I can't even understand why "fine tuning" gets used as an argument for anything... |
Honestly. |
|
|
|
02/08/2011 11:07:31 AM · #1119 |
The point David and Louis miss is that the way you look at it differs greatly whether there is only one location or many. If we have zillions of locations we wouldn't be surprised that some are dark and moist and grow mold. If we have only one, what are the chances? It could have been dark and dry, light and moist, dark and underwater, light and bathed with radiation, etc. If you threw a stick down somewhere in the solar system and a priori expected to find mold, would you be surprised if you did?
SP, you probably are just interpreting the word "problem" differently than I'm using it. Science has wanted to find a "theory of everything" for a long time. This issue stands in the way until it is answered. I'm not trying to imply that Science as a whole is somehow broken until the issue is dealt with. Does that help?
Message edited by author 2011-02-08 11:08:07. |
|
|
|
02/08/2011 11:10:05 AM · #1120 |
| See previous stuff about potential for life amongst billions of stars, etc. |
|
|
|
02/08/2011 11:22:30 AM · #1121 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
SP, you probably are just interpreting the word "problem" differently than I'm using it. Science has wanted to find a "theory of everything" for a long time. This issue stands in the way until it is answered. I'm not trying to imply that Science as a whole is somehow broken until the issue is dealt with. Does that help? |
If you remain consistent with that usage, then we can agree. But I have to call you out as being a bit disingenuous here. While you may not be arguing that "science as a whole is somehow broken," you have definitely implied, and as I recall directly stated, that the possibility that science may never be able to answer the question of what came "before" the big bag is failure of the scientific worldview that somehow favors a God hypothesis. (I say "somehow," because as I've already stated, I just fundamentally don't get the validity of that argument.)
|
|
|
|
02/08/2011 11:33:41 AM · #1122 |
Originally posted by Louis:
See previous stuff about potential for life amongst billions of stars, etc. |
Try something more in the neighborhood of 300 sextillion stars.
That's 300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, for those playing at home.
There are more than 400 billion stars in our galaxy alone.
Estimated Number of Stars Just Tripled
|
|
|
|
02/08/2011 11:35:01 AM · #1123 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
SP, you probably are just interpreting the word "problem" differently than I'm using it. Science has wanted to find a "theory of everything" for a long time. This issue stands in the way until it is answered. I'm not trying to imply that Science as a whole is somehow broken until the issue is dealt with. Does that help? |
If you remain consistent with that usage, then we can agree. But I have to call you out as being a bit disingenuous here. While you may not be arguing that "science as a whole is somehow broken," you have definitely implied, and as I recall directly stated, that the possibility that science may never be able to answer the question of what came "before" the big bag is failure of the scientific worldview that somehow favors a God hypothesis. (I say "somehow," because as I've already stated, I just fundamentally don't get the validity of that argument.) |
Well, honestly I don't consider that to mean science is "broken". It's not part of Science's job to answer what came before the big bang. That is out of its realm. Usually when I'm arguing the "what came before the big bang" issue it is to point out there can be interesting and important questions that science (using definition #2 above concerning experiment and observation) cannot get at.
Message edited by author 2011-02-08 11:38:27. |
|
|
|
02/08/2011 11:37:38 AM · #1124 |
Originally posted by Louis:
See previous stuff about potential for life amongst billions of stars, etc. |
You need to read that book because you are looking foolish. There is only one observable universe. Every star present follows the same laws of physics, right? We find ourselves in a universe that allows stars to form. That fact right there is actually amazing as far as we can tell... |
|
|
|
02/08/2011 11:39:14 AM · #1125 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It's not part of Science's job to answer what came before the big bang. |
WTF did you just say? |
|
