Science and Theology, the sequel

08/23/2011 08:19:35 PM · #2176

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I didn't ask you to define "uncaused". I asked you to define "natural".

Natural = that which actually exists in reality. Have fun.

Hehe. That's the worst definition I've heard in my life! You'd be severly brow beat by your philosophy professor. :)

Let's just shake hands and call it a day, shall we? My kids are at the grandparents and I have a date with Jenn tonight and I'd hate to ruin it with any of this. (And just when Louis showed up!)

08/23/2011 08:31:26 PM · #2177

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

That's the worst definition I've heard in my life!

You're welcome to demonstrate any example of the natural universe excluded (or anything supernatural included) by this definition. Your approval is not a condition of validity.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Let's just shake hands and call it a day, shall we?

No problem there. These ping pong matches don't help my productivity either.

08/24/2011 12:14:06 PM · #2178

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
That's the worst definition I've heard in my life!

You're welcome to demonstrate any example of the natural universe excluded (or anything supernatural included) by this definition. Your approval is not a condition of validity.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Let's just shake hands and call it a day, shall we?

No problem there. These ping pong matches don't help my productivity either.

BTW, I wasn't saying your definition was "bad" because it was illogical or irrational. I said that because it appears to be completely synonymous with the word "exists". Why use the word "natural" then? Such a definition would also lead to some usages I'm guessing you or others would object to.

Example 1: We speculate the Higgs Boson is natural.
I'm guessing there isn't too much to object to here. We have no evidence (yet) of the Higgs Boson, but we may at some time. If it exists, it is natural and we can speculate as such.

Example 2: We speculate God is natural.
Here's where I think you'd object. The sentence is constructed exactly like the first example. It's fair enough to speculate whether God exists and since "exist" and "natural" are synonymous, the sentence is definitionally valid. However, I'm guessing many would want to make a differentiation between a Higgs Boson and God.

08/24/2011 12:27:01 PM · #2179

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Example 2: We speculate God is natural.

IF God exists, then I would agree that such a being qualifies as natural. Likewise for Zeus, fairies, unicorns and dragons, and it's just as fair to speculate that those exist. Otherwise they are mythical/imaginary... a status that you already accept for all but one irrational exception (see Special Pleading fallacy).

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

08/24/2011 12:45:53 PM · #2180

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Example 2: We speculate God is natural.

IF God exists, then I would agree that such a being qualifies as natural. Likewise for Zeus, fairies, unicorns and dragons, and it's just as fair to speculate that those exist. Otherwise they are mythical/imaginary... a status that you already accept for all but one irrational exception (see Special Pleading fallacy).

But you don't see any difference in someone who says, "I speculate fairies are natural." and "I speculate the Higgs Boson is natural."? Your current definition makes no differentiation between the two sentences. I'm guessing you would favor the second because it fits into a known framework of rules and laws (but the fairy doesn't). If this is true, then it should be reflected in your definition for it to be a "good" one. See my point?

Message edited by author 2011-08-24 12:46:16.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

08/24/2011 02:22:37 PM · #2181

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The second would be favored because it is subject to experimental verification by physical means -- "God" (or fairies) by (the standard) definition is not.

BTW: You say God "sprang into existence" before creating the universe ... so ... what existed before God?

Message edited by author 2011-08-24 14:23:58.

08/24/2011 02:38:03 PM · #2182

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

But you don't see any difference in someone who says, "I speculate fairies are natural." and "I speculate the Higgs Boson is natural."?

No I don't, for the same reason I don't see any difference between someone who believes Bigfoot exists and the Higgs Boson exists. The latter may be far more credible given the rational foundation for such belief, but speculation alone doesn't make it true. Most people probably regard Bigfoot as a myth, however if Sasquatch did wander into a Starbucks one day, we would certainly have to regard the guy as natural and the same applies to anything else. "Spooky action at a distance" would be natural function of physics even if we can't readily explain it, and if there were any credible evidence of ESP, then that would be a natural phenomenon, too. As soon as you postulate any reality or tangible effect in the natural world, you've necessarily placed yourself in it, so any qualifier beyond "exists" is superfluous. This shouldn't be difficult:

"I speculate fairies are natural."
Good for you, crackpot.

"I speculate the Higgs Boson is natural."
Good for you... prove it.

"The Higgs Boson actually exists, so it must be natural"
Agreed.

"Fairies actually exist, so they must be natural."
IF that's true, then I agree. If not true, then you're back to crackpot.

08/24/2011 02:41:12 PM · #2183

Then your definition needs to reflect those nuances Shannon. That's all I'm saying. As you stated it, it does not.

Maybe this one will illuminate better:

"I speculate magic is natural."

Most people would say the two terms are mutually exclusive, but your definition would not. The sentence would merely mean "I speculate magic exists."

Message edited by author 2011-08-24 14:45:53.

08/24/2011 02:43:28 PM · #2184

Originally posted by GeneralE:

BTW: You say God "sprang into existence" before creating the universe ... so ... what existed before God?

I searched for that term and couldn't find my post that said that. Feel free to direct me to it. "What existed before God?" is the same as asking "What point comes before the end point of a geometric ray?". The answer is the same. Nothing. They are both the first.

08/24/2011 02:51:07 PM · #2185

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

"I speculate magic is natural."

Most people would say the two terms are mutually exclusive, but your definition would not.

Natural = that which actually exists in reality, and what you care to speculate is irrelevant. "I speculate rhinos are insects."

08/24/2011 02:52:16 PM · #2186

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

"What existed before God?" is the same as asking "What point comes before the end point of a geometric ray?". The answer is the same. Nothing. They are both the first.

Therefore rays are eternal, without prior cause.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

08/24/2011 02:53:54 PM · #2187

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"I speculate magic is natural."

Most people would say the two terms are mutually exclusive, but your definition would not.

Natural = that which actually exists in reality, and what you care to speculate is irrelevant. "I speculate rhinos are insects."

That's a purely definitional misnomer. I hope you can see the difference. Plus the sentence doesn't even have the word natural in it which is what we are talking about.

Message edited by author 2011-08-24 14:56:11.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

08/24/2011 02:59:34 PM · #2188

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
BTW: You say God "sprang into existence" before creating the universe ... so ... what existed before God?

I searched for that term and couldn't find my post that said that. Feel free to direct me to it.

Sorry, I interpreted "sprang from nothing" and "sprang into existence" as being the same things for practical purposes -- obviously I should have known better ...

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The Prime Mover either sprang from nothing or was infinite.

So, what was this "nothing" which existed "before" God?

08/24/2011 03:16:28 PM · #2189

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Plus the sentence doesn't even have the word natural in it which is what we are talking about.

If that's your hangup, then I speculate flying purple rhinos are natural. So what? It's just speculation. If they exist, I'm right, and if they don't I'm wrong. *shrug* If magic were found to actually exist in reality, then that would be natural, too (although the definition of magic precludes that possibility).

Message edited by author 2011-08-24 15:17:47.

08/24/2011 04:11:16 PM · #2190

Originally posted by scalvert:

(although the definition of magic precludes that possibility).

Aha! This is the crux of my point. If the definition of "natural" is merely "something that exists", then the definition of magic does not preclude it (Webster: 1.The power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces). Note Webster uses the term "supernatural" which is nonsensical under your definition.

It isn't that you may or may not be right, it's the power of the definition and your definition has very little power because it is a) so broad, and b) purely synonymous with an already existing word "exists".

08/24/2011 04:15:30 PM · #2191

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
BTW: You say God "sprang into existence" before creating the universe ... so ... what existed before God?

I searched for that term and couldn't find my post that said that. Feel free to direct me to it.

Sorry, I interpreted "sprang from nothing" and "sprang into existence" as being the same things for practical purposes -- obviously I should have known better ...
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The Prime Mover either sprang from nothing or was infinite.

So, what was this "nothing" which existed "before" God?

I wasn't disagreeing with you, I just couldn't find the post to refer to. I see it now. It was a poor choice of words in an attempt to mesh with what Matthew was saying. Return to geometry. Either the line of our existence is a geometric ray (starts at one point and continues forever in another) or a geometric line (continues forever in both directions). I was trying to point this out, but did so poorly. If there is a Prime Mover, then our existence is a geometric line and the Prime Mover is the first point. If there is no Prime Mover, our existence is part of a line that stretches forever in both directions (because there is no first point). Make sense?

08/24/2011 04:27:39 PM · #2192

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

If the definition of "natural" is merely "something that exists", then the definition of magic does not preclude it

Reality/nature and magic/supernatural are mutually exclusive. If something magical or supernatural is found to exist for real, it ceases to be magic or supernatural. Thus, the definition still fits perfectly. Your definition of magic has very little power because it is a) so broad, and b) purely synonymous with an already existing word "supernatural."

08/24/2011 05:20:23 PM · #2193

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If the definition of "natural" is merely "something that exists", then the definition of magic does not preclude it

Reality/nature and magic/supernatural are mutually exclusive. If something magical or supernatural is found to exist for real, it ceases to be magic or supernatural. Thus, the definition still fits perfectly. Your definition of magic has very little power because it is a) so broad, and b) purely synonymous with an already existing word "supernatural."

Really? Are you really this obtuse, or do you just try to be difficult? (sorry, I try hard not to get exasperated, but I know you are smarter than this).

"Magical" or "supernatural" generally mean they work outside the laws of nature. A ball that floats against gravity...a rabbit that materializes out of a hat. That is the way the term is used. If such a thing existed and worked contrary to the laws of nature, it would be "magic" or "supernatural" (as opposed to them turning out to work per a law of nature either undiscovered or unrecognized). That's the way the terms are used, not in your fashion. I agree that "magic" and "supernatural" could be synonymous. They tend to be used that way in common parlance. The words "natural" and "exists" do not get used synonymously in common parlance. You are doing that on your own.

08/24/2011 05:43:39 PM · #2194

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Either the line of our existence is a geometric ray (starts at one point and continues forever in another) or a geometric line (continues forever in both directions).

Those are the only two options in infinite space, but space apparently isn't infinite.... a paradox where BOTH scenarios are actually true: the line exists for all of time (as close to infinite as it gets), yet time itself is not infinite. If time does not exist, then there cannot be a "before" for a creator to operate upon since the act of creation would be a sequential event in time. It's actually an interesting puzzle: regardless of how long time exists, we can say that time has existed for all time, and there can never be a prior state because before and after requires the existence of time!

It's just one of those quirks of physics. We can describe the half life of a radioactive isotope precisely, but never the exact moment a particle decays. If you have a chunk of uranium, you can calculate with a fair degree of precision when half of the particles will have decayed, but that only works in aggregate. The precision breaks down at small numbers such that you cannot predict the decay of a single particle at all. You're trying to approach this from a philosophical view of "universe starts here," but it's not that simple. Weird things happen when you approach extremes of spacetime. You can accelerate away from me in a Bugatti Veyron and I will observe you going faster and faster, but if you were to try and race a ray of light in a Bugatti Starship, you'd actually slow down and come to a stop from my perspective. The speed addition that we normally experience turns out to be illusory according to relativity, so while you might expect traveling at half the speed of light would make you half as fast as the ray, it would still be traveling away from you at the speed of light. If you jettisoned a probe and then accelerated another 1/2 the speed of light relative to the probe, the ray would STILL be moving away from you at the speed of light! Fun stuff. Perhaps we can't never describe when the universe "began" for the same reason: the math just runs to infinity when you get near the end.

08/24/2011 05:52:44 PM · #2195

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

A ball that floats against gravity...a rabbit that materializes out of a hat. That is the way the term is used.

Yep. We call that magic, because such things don't actually happen in reality. If they did, then we could say that rabbits DO materialize out of hats and it would not be magic, but something that they naturally do. Let's see you come up with a single example of something that actually exists in reality that wouldn't qualify as natural (besides Donald Trump's hair).

08/24/2011 05:59:44 PM · #2196

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Either the line of our existence is a geometric ray (starts at one point and continues forever in another) or a geometric line (continues forever in both directions).

Those are the only two options in infinite space, but space apparently isn't infinite.... a paradox where BOTH scenarios are actually true: the line exists for all of time (as close to infinite as it gets), yet time itself is not infinite. If time does not exist, then there cannot be a "before" for a creator to operate upon since the act of creation would be a sequential event in time. It's actually an interesting puzzle: regardless of how long time exists, we can say that time has existed for all time, and there can never be a prior state because before and after requires the existence of time!

It's just one of those quirks of physics. We can describe the half life of a radioactive isotope precisely, but never the exact moment a particle decays. If you have a chunk of uranium, you can calculate with a fair degree of precision when half of the particles will have decayed, but that only works in aggregate. The precision breaks down at small numbers such that you cannot predict the decay of a single particle at all. You're trying to approach this from a philosophical view of "universe starts here," but it's not that simple. Weird things happen when you approach extremes of spacetime. You can accelerate away from me in a Bugatti Veyron and I will observe you going faster and faster, but if you were to try and race a ray of light in a Bugatti Starship, you'd actually slow down and come to a stop from my perspective. The speed addition that we normally experience turns out to be illusory according to relativity, so while you might expect traveling at half the speed of light would make you half as fast as the ray, it would still be traveling away from you at the speed of light. If you jettisoned a probe and then accelerated another 1/2 the speed of light relative to the probe, the ray would STILL be moving away from you at the speed of light! Fun stuff. Perhaps we can't never describe when the universe "began" for the same reason: the math just runs to infinity when you get near the end.

You aren't telling me anything I don't know, although I'll correct you that we do NOT know space isn't infinite (see Brian Greene's "The Hidden Reality"). A very brief quote of support, "Although observations leave the finite-versus-infinite issue undecided, I've found that when pressed, physicists and cosmologists tend to favor the proposition that the universe is infinite."

What you describe, however, could be just as easily a problem with our mathematic descriptions rather than a reflection of reality. Also, it seems like you are stretching the analogy of the geometric lines a little too far. I mean them as abstract representations rather than any real representation of reality.

Message edited by author 2011-08-24 18:10:44.

08/24/2011 06:12:42 PM · #2197

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'll correct you that we do NOT know space isn't infinite

Physicists favor the idea of a "boundless" universe (see prior post on trying to reach something moving away from you at the speed of light), however if spacetime is truly infinite (without a starting point), then you've lost the gap you're trying to hammer a Prime Mover into.

08/24/2011 06:16:06 PM · #2198

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
A ball that floats against gravity...a rabbit that materializes out of a hat. That is the way the term is used.

Yep. We call that magic, because such things don't actually happen in reality.

Objection, your honor. Speculative.

08/24/2011 06:16:48 PM · #2199

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'll correct you that we do NOT know space isn't infinite

Physicists favor the idea of a "boundless" universe (see prior post on trying to reach something moving away from you at the speed of light), however if spacetime is truly infinite (without a starting point), then you've lost the gap you're trying to hammer a Prime Mover into.

Actually, that's incorrect. Which is longer, a line that stretches infinitely in one direction or in both? ;)

Message edited by author 2011-08-24 18:17:03.