| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/13/2011 06:35:44 AM · #201 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by Nullix:
First Question:
Does the universe consist of only the material world that we can detect? |
I still don't think this has been addressed. Or did I miss it? |
Only if you assume that knowledge is perfect and complete. You seem to be expecting people to claim an absolute knowledge. The usage of "detection" is an iffy prospect, since we can point out that for the proverbial caveman, such a world (one that consisted of everything they could detect) was simply the small neighborhood of the world they knew about. Today, our concept of the world which can be detected is vastly improved, but I don't think anybody is claiming that the world of the cavemen was any different... I think your usage of "detect" is also suspect because there are objects which are not readily detected but necessitated through other accepted and proven theories.
Another issue that was related to perfect knowledge was Doc's questioning earlier about certain moral behaviors not being expedient for survival. Beyond the fact (that was noted earlier) that they don't need to be, it's exceptionally presumptuous for you to take the position that your understanding of "fitness of survival" is correct or even partially correct, especially when considering the woefully inept history of such assertions.
I'll assume you (Doc) were asking in earnest about various individual's positions, so I'll state that I'm party to SP's social construct stance as well. To get at your question of slavery, what makes the most sense for me is that slavery is largely the product of power differential (conflict theory's logical end), and the more of a differential there is, the more of a likelihood that there will be slavery. However, the presence of a huge power differential does not necessitate slavery, either. If it (slavery) is not in the interest of the general population, but is for the most powerful, there may be a struggle for direction, and I think this has been the story of history. The powerful exploit the less powerful until there becomes a critical mass of less, or at least somewhat or moderately, powerful, which overthrow those in the most powerful segment. It should be noted that power takes on an extremely large spectrum of types. And while I would agree that religion can increase social cohesion locally and in fact moderate the local impact of tribal behavior, it is insular by nature and leads to increased tribal behavior when viewed in a greater context (unless, of course, 100% adherence is accomplished, which is a situation that likely only exists in theory). |
|
|
|
02/13/2011 09:36:01 AM · #202 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Everybody keeps saying "atheism isn't a view", but yet atheists certainly have views. Maybe they aren't all alike, but religious people don't all have the same views either and we tend to get lumped together... |
You do a certain amount of lumping on your own......Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus...and all these groups at least try to share ideas, tenets, opinions, and a host of other things that are somewhat standard and consistent.
Atheists aren't a group such as this.....no meetings, services, heirarchy, list of rules. So any attempt at some grouping together simply doesn't hold water. The only thing held commonly is that atheists don't believe there's a god. Outside of that, there is nothing else. That's pretty straight up, so trying to establish commonalities, or categorize stereotypical behaviors of "The Atheist System" is pretty much, well....silly.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2011 10:54:32 AM · #203 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by Nullix:
First Question:
Does the universe consist of only the material world that we can detect? |
I still don't think this has been addressed. Or did I miss it? |
Only if you assume that knowledge is perfect and complete. You seem to be expecting people to claim an absolute knowledge. The usage of "detection" is an iffy prospect, since we can point out that for the proverbial caveman, such a world (one that consisted of everything they could detect) was simply the small neighborhood of the world they knew about. Today, our concept of the world which can be detected is vastly improved, but I don't think anybody is claiming that the world of the cavemen was any different... I think your usage of "detect" is also suspect because there are objects which are not readily detected but necessitated through other accepted and proven theories. |
Sorry you were missed, Doc always hogs the spotlight. ;)
I will just add to the above that your question really can be framed as:
"Is there any evidence that some sort of non-material/non-natural force/material/entity(ies) exists within, or has an effect upon, the material world that we can detect?"
Framed that way, the answer to that question is a definitive no. All available evidence points to a universe that operates under natural laws and consists of only natural components. This does not, strictly speaking, rule out the possibility of non-natural forces, but as we become more and more aware of the natural process of the universe, the probability of such non-natural forces/material becomes ever-increasingly small.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2011 11:22:14 AM · #204 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
I will just add to the above that your question really can be framed as:
"Is there any evidence that some sort of non-material/non-natural force/material/entity(ies) exists within, or has an effect upon, the material world that we can detect?"
Framed that way, the answer to that question is a definitive no. All available evidence points to a universe that operates under natural laws and consists of only natural components. This does not, strictly speaking, rule out the possibility of non-natural forces, but as we become more and more aware of the natural process of the universe, the probability of such non-natural forces/material becomes ever-increasingly small. |
To SP's first point, the question of whether anything supernatural exists is a self-evident NO since it's very existence would make it part of the natural world. I'm sure lightning, eclipses and magnetism were all considered supernatural at one time, but as our knowledge increases these things are added to the list of natural phenomena and the pool of supernatural unknowns becomes inexorably smaller.
Moreover, anything that physically interacts with this universe is empirically detectable by that interaction even if the effects are extremely weak (neutrinos) or cannot be directly observed (black holes). Anything that doesn't physically interact may not be detectable, but then it's also completely irrelevant because there's no interaction.
Message edited by author 2011-02-13 11:22:36. |
|
|
|
02/13/2011 11:38:39 AM · #205 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
(...) as our knowledge increases these things are added to the list of natural phenomena and the pool of supernatural unknowns becomes inexorably smaller. |
On the other hand, as Einstein expressed it (I think) - as the volume of our knowledge increases, so the area of its contact with that which we do not know increases exponentially. That does rather beg the question of 'supernatural' and 'unknown' being synonymous, but hey... |
|
|
|
02/13/2011 11:45:14 AM · #206 |
Originally posted by raish:
Originally posted by scalvert:
(...) as our knowledge increases these things are added to the list of natural phenomena and the pool of supernatural unknowns becomes inexorably smaller. |
On the other hand, as Einstein expressed it (I think) - as the volume of our knowledge increases, so the area of its contact with that which we do not know increases exponentially. That does rather beg the question of 'supernatural' and 'unknown' being synonymous, but hey... |
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed." Albert Einstein
One of my favourite quotes that. There is a lot of beauty and worth in the unknown i feel.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2011 11:56:07 AM · #207 |
Originally posted by raish:
On the other hand, as Einstein expressed it (I think) - as the volume of our knowledge increases, so the area of its contact with that which we do not know increases exponentially. That does rather beg the question of 'supernatural' and 'unknown' being synonymous, but hey... |
Maybe it was this? ‘As our circle of knowledge expands, so does the circumference of darkness surrounding it.’- Albert Einstein
Perhaps more appropriate for these threads: ‘Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.’ — Charles Darwin |
|
|
|
02/13/2011 12:58:41 PM · #208 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Framed that way, the answer to that question is a definitive no. All available evidence points to a universe that operates under natural laws and consists of only natural components. This does not, strictly speaking, rule out the possibility of non-natural forces, but as we become more and more aware of the natural process of the universe, the probability of such non-natural forces/material becomes ever-increasingly small. |
I know we've talked about it before, but would you consider our views of free will to fall under your rubric of "all evidence"? and since a few of us are reading Brian Greene, would string theory point in the same direction? Does another universe that operates under completely different laws get counted as "natural" or "other natural" or "supernatural"? |
|
|
|
02/13/2011 01:55:41 PM · #209 |
Definition of DELUSION
1 : the act of deluding : the state of being deluded
2 a : something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated
b : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs
|
|
|
|
02/13/2011 03:34:23 PM · #210 |
| Keep sellin' those Winnebagos Mick! |
|
|
|
02/13/2011 07:46:38 PM · #211 |
Here's a sorta fun question, and one I don't think we've ever discussed (wow!). Working off Nullix's question and the idea of the "natural" world.
What if we think of the concept of "god" (in a more generic sense) as a hyper-intelligent being inhabiting another universe?
Work with me here. Some of these odd conclusions come from thinking about the logical consequences of the way we view our natural world. For example, to summarize Greene's chapter one, IF our universe is spatially infinite (which is possible and we have no evidence for or against), then we can draw the seemingly bizarre conclusion that not only is there life elsewhere in the universe, but there are infinite copies of YOU elsewhere. This conclusion is drawn from the idea that there are a finite combination of atoms but an infinite space to carry them out. Therefore, since the "natural" version of us is merely the exact combination of the molecules that make up your body, there are logically other areas of space where this makeup of molecules is copied. That's another you. In fact, there are logically other areas where our whole solar system is copied, except maybe in that one you are a ninja, or a painter, or (gasp) a religious zealot. IF we start with the axiom that our universe is spatially infinite, then this is the bizarre conclusion.
So...if something like string theory is correct and there are infinite other "universes" with other rules and physical properties, then there is bound to be a universe inhabited by a being so hyper-intelligent compared to us as to appear omniscient. Such a being could have created our own universe (something we think could theoretically happen even with our own level of technology at the LHC). All of this would then fall within the bounds of being "natural" as long as that adjective describes other universes.
Crazy stuff! But I don't think outside the realm of logical conclusion anymore than the ideas Greene describes in his book. There is, of course, no proof at all for this, but there is, naturally, no proof that copies of me exist in other parts of our own universe. It's just a logical conclusion.
Message edited by author 2011-02-13 19:49:27. |
|
|
|
02/13/2011 07:49:03 PM · #212 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Cool new thread for the atheist homies on the site. |
Yeah... right. |
|
|
|
02/13/2011 08:09:06 PM · #213 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So...if something like string theory is correct and there are infinite other "universes" with other rules and physical properties, then there is bound to be a universe inhabited by a being so hyper-intelligent compared to us as to appear omniscient. Such a being could have created our own universe (something we think could theoretically happen even with our own level of technology at the LHC). All of this would then fall within the bounds of being "natural" as long as that adjective describes other universes. |
I love multi-verse theories, I find them very interesting. Sometimes I'm walking along the road and think 'imagine, in another universe an aeroplane just fell on me'
I have my doubts about the ability for multi-verses to create each other or otherwise interfere with each other. I think whatever of the physical properties of our universe, there must be an overarching set of rules which governs the full set of multiverses. The main rule being that they exist in isolation from each other and cannot observe or interfere with each other.
Otherwise we'd be seeing all sorts of strange effects; If there were an infinite number of intelligent purple squid who had figured out how to meddle in other universes, then we'd be seeing the effects everywhere. In fact, since we're talking infinite then everything would be interfering with everything else, and we'd end up in a state of quantum string soup.
And if an infinite number of multiverses already exist, then what would a hyper-powerful being be doing creating another one? - Which would in fact be a duplicate.
Also, if we live in a deterministic system, I can't resolve the idea that there is a multi-verse out there which differs by one atom, but in which 5 minutes ago I experienced a fluke fluctuation in earth's gravitational field and am now stuck to the ceiling.
But then again, we can't mix quantum physics and deterministic systems. So why not?
ETA: I'm thinking more of a mash-up of string-theory, determinism, classic laws of physics, and mathematics. Think of us living in a 'probability bubble' - A Gaussian Distribution curve applied to multi-verse theory which determines the 'outcomes' of events.
The line we're travelling along is the peak of that curve; what we are experiencing is the 'most probable' outcome of events. At each end of the curve are the outliers, the 'plane just fell on my head' type events. Once in a lifetime, but not totally impossible within the realms of laws of mathematics/physics.
This then eliminates the possibility of infinite universes, and sets some bounds to the number of multi-verses. But each multi-verse still operates within the laws of physics as we currently understand it.
Message edited by author 2011-02-13 20:22:20. |
|
|
|
02/13/2011 08:27:46 PM · #214 |
Originally posted by JH:
If there were an infinite number of intelligent purple squid who had figured out how to meddle in other universes, then we'd be seeing the effects everywhere. |
That was a TNG episode. |
|
|
|
02/13/2011 08:45:25 PM · #215 |
I hear ya JH. I sorta have trouble swallowing the idea of "infinite" anything in the natural universe. How could this be? It seems like a logical paradox to actually imagine any property as being "infinite". If it's just as likely that our universe is spatially finite, then my gut just gravitates in that direction. It's interesting that Greene mentioned that he gravitated the other way (more likely to believe space was infinite). I wish he went into that more and revealed "why" he felt that way.
I do think you have a point about infinite universes interacting with infinite others. Makes it hard to think it's the truth. But maybe this is "his" universe (since he made it). :) Dunno. If you were a hyper-intelligent being and you could make your own universe...would you?
All I remember from that TNG episode was lots of Rikers on the screen talking and yelling...
Message edited by author 2011-02-13 20:49:13. |
|
|
|
02/13/2011 08:49:12 PM · #216 |
| Precise measurements of the Cosmic Microwave Background with the WMAP probe apparently do not fit models of an infinite universe very well, but do match up with certain finite models. |
|
|
|
02/13/2011 08:49:56 PM · #217 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Precise measurements of the Cosmic Microwave Background with the WMAP probe apparently do not fit models of an infinite universe very well, but do match up with certain finite models. |
Really? You'd have figured Greene would have mentioned that. His book isn't that old. Is this brand new stuff? |
|
|
|
02/13/2011 09:03:49 PM · #218 |
Here's a snippet of Greene's feeling:
"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."
I found some quotes about the "soccerball shape" based on WMAP data, but it was from 2003 which, I think, would be data that Greene would be fully aware of. Are you referring to something else?
Message edited by author 2011-02-13 21:06:19. |
|
|
|
02/13/2011 09:25:53 PM · #219 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Here's a sorta fun question, and one I don't think we've ever discussed (wow!). Working off Nullix's question and the idea of the "natural" world.
What if we think of the concept of "god" (in a more generic sense) as a hyper-intelligent being inhabiting another universe?
Work with me here. Some of these odd conclusions come from thinking about the logical consequences of the way we view our natural world. For example, to summarize Greene's chapter one, IF our universe is spatially infinite (which is possible and we have no evidence for or against), then we can draw the seemingly bizarre conclusion that not only is there life elsewhere in the universe, but there are infinite copies of YOU elsewhere. This conclusion is drawn from the idea that there are a finite combination of atoms but an infinite space to carry them out. Therefore, since the "natural" version of us is merely the exact combination of the molecules that make up your body, there are logically other areas of space where this makeup of molecules is copied. That's another you. In fact, there are logically other areas where our whole solar system is copied, except maybe in that one you are a ninja, or a painter, or (gasp) a religious zealot. IF we start with the axiom that our universe is spatially infinite, then this is the bizarre conclusion.
So...if something like string theory is correct and there are infinite other "universes" with other rules and physical properties, then there is bound to be a universe inhabited by a being so hyper-intelligent compared to us as to appear omniscient. Such a being could have created our own universe (something we think could theoretically happen even with our own level of technology at the LHC). All of this would then fall within the bounds of being "natural" as long as that adjective describes other universes.
Crazy stuff! But I don't think outside the realm of logical conclusion anymore than the ideas Greene describes in his book. There is, of course, no proof at all for this, but there is, naturally, no proof that copies of me exist in other parts of our own universe. It's just a logical conclusion. |
Ah yes, the pot smoker's 'What ifâ€Â¦' theory of existence. I remember kicking that one around a few times back in high school. I guess it isn’t any sillier than the Cosmic Jewish Zombie idea.
Unless and until someone finds incontrovertible proof, when it comes to god(s), or any other type of supernatural phenomena, agnosticism is the only course for an intelligent being.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2011 09:33:49 PM · #220 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I sorta have trouble swallowing the idea of "infinite" anything in the natural universe. How could this be? It seems like a logical paradox to actually imagine any property as being "infinite". |
And yet you have no problem believing in an omniscient, omnipotent, supernatural being called God?
|
|
|
|
02/13/2011 09:37:09 PM · #221 |
Originally posted by Mick:
[quote=DrAchoo]I sorta have trouble swallowing the idea of "infinite" anything in the natural universe. How could this be? It seems like a logical paradox to actually imagine any property as being "infinite". |
Mothers-in-law have endless opinions, solutions and words of advise (which are called by other mothers-in-law... "Words of wisdom.
... see it is possible.
Ray |
|
|
|
02/13/2011 09:54:41 PM · #222 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"Although observations leave the finite-versus-infinite issue undecided..." it was from 2003 which, I think, would be data that Greene would be fully aware of. |
He probably was aware, hence "undecided." More study is required to settle the matter. |
|
|
|
02/13/2011 10:32:33 PM · #223 |
Originally posted by Mick:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I sorta have trouble swallowing the idea of "infinite" anything in the natural universe. How could this be? It seems like a logical paradox to actually imagine any property as being "infinite". |
And yet you have no problem believing in an omniscient, omnipotent, supernatural being called God? |
|
|
|
|
02/14/2011 01:37:44 PM · #224 |
I'm late to the game but I'll answer a question from the start of the thread, if the Dr still wants an answer.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Empathy and compassion are obvious benefits for a social animal
caring for the infirm may be an extension of that trait
it also reduces survival in some cases.
You, as a human, possess the intelligence to understand all three statements above. You are presented with a scenario where you can choose to care for the infirm, but you understand it will reduce survival in this case. What do you do and why?
There is no faulty logic here. I'm presenting a scenario and asking for your answer? Nothing is illogical. |
Natural selection/evolution is not a conscious choice. Millions of years of evolution have landed me with an empathetic and compassionate mind, as being best suited for reproductive survival. Also an intelligent mind (incidentally, intelligence and empathy are probably linked evolutionary traits).
So, my emotional response is to look after the infirm. My intelligence weighs the perceived social cost taking into account many circumstances against the desire to comply with my emotional response.
Some practical examples: Above helicopter height on Mt. Everest, I would leave an injured climber to die. I'd help or pay for ailing relatives to a reasonable degree (taking into account my own family's circumstances). I voted against cuts in the national health service for home assistance (though the majority voted for it in the current times of austerity).
I think that other people "ought" to think the same way as me. But they don't - their circumstances are different, their balance of intelligence to emotion is different. That doesn't make them fundamentally wrong or me fundamentally right.
|
|
|
|
02/14/2011 01:47:46 PM · #225 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...So...if something like string theory is correct and there are infinite other "universes" with other rules and physical properties, then there is bound to be a universe inhabited by a being so hyper-intelligent compared to us as to appear omniscient. Such a being could have created our own universe (something we think could theoretically happen even with our own level of technology at the LHC). All of this would then fall within the bounds of being "natural" as long as that adjective describes other universes.
Crazy stuff! But I don't think outside the realm of logical conclusion anymore than the ideas Greene describes in his book. There is, of course, no proof at all for this, but there is, naturally, no proof that copies of me exist in other parts of our own universe. It's just a logical conclusion. |
I think that JH said it too, but you are ignoring the fact that our universe and our existence isn't random chance - what has happened in our universe is natural and in one sense probable - not supernatural (i.e. outside nature) and supremely improbable.
Chaos theory explains why highly improbable things don't occur, even given an infinite number of iterations (the monkeys would never type Shakespeare).
You are also mixing up string theory science (which generally uses the multiverse to explain quantum particle interactions) with the theory that we reside in the one finely tuned universe of many differently tuned universes. The string theory based multiverse allows for useful scientific analysis, whereas the finely tuned theory is purely philosophical.
|
|
