aka CAT Posted October 18, 2016 #51 Share Posted October 18, 2016 6 hours ago, psyche101 said: I personally feel the Big Bang is still a much more viable theory myself, thing is God is not considered in any academic pursuit as an answer to any question regarding the existence of the Universe and everything in it. That is because he does not factor, there is just no reason to think any sort of omnipotent being had anything to do with creation as a whole, and all that followed it through evolution. I really do not see how that is the case, if you look up at my post #44 you can see the viable models we are working with to seek a solution. They are not redundant due to the newer theory. Cosmological models do not work like that. They compete, and can do so for as long as it takes to fully understand them. There is no such Grand Unified theory, and we know there are problems with GR and QM because they do not resolve. What these models are is the path paving the way to that answer, It might be released next week, it might be another thousand years, but that is the strength of science. It does not give up, and taking 60 years to find the Higgs that standard models insisted existed proved these methods work. That they offer predictions is very convincing. Belief in God just cannot do that. Indeed it will when that area i research is well refined enough to do so. Abiogenesis will be answered first, no two ways about it, it just does not help to make up a God when it becomes really hard. That is when we need to roll our sleeves up. To claim the effect is the cause necessitates an originator. <= Period. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlitterRose Posted October 18, 2016 #52 Share Posted October 18, 2016 (edited) On 10/13/2016 at 6:38 PM, and then said: It seems like a silly thing to argue about but argue, they do. We all get about 70 years to consider the answers, and what we believe. The problem with the science worshippers is they refuse any explanation that doesn't leave man firmly in the driver's seat. If they are correct then the odds aren't good for this species. Who's arguing? They're just trying to figure stuff out. And no one is refusing any explanation. They're just about what can be proved by evidence. No one worships science, either. They just realize it's a way of exploring things. Edited October 18, 2016 by ChaosRose 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsec Posted October 18, 2016 #53 Share Posted October 18, 2016 20 hours ago, psyche101 said: Sean Carroll is dead set brilliant. I cannot say enough good things about him, he has a great sense of humour just to top it off, his blog is here - Preposterous Universe - if you would like to become better acquainted with his work. I find his lectures on Youtube and Google Play fascinating as well. How I understand that quote, and I have to admit to the advantage of having watched Sean Carroll go deeper into this in a lecture on Youtube, the quote is saying is there is nothing to follow, and that is where the latter half of the quote really comes into play in this regard. Unsuccessful theories are never disproven, as we can always concoct elaborate schemes to save the phenomena; they just fade away as better theories gain acceptance. Attempting to explain the natural world by appealing to God is, by scientific standards, not a very successful theory. In there he is saying the God theory has nothing behind it, and there is no good reason to consider it. He furthers that by saying it is easy to make a fit for evidence in hindsight, the models that offer prediction are the ones he states are the ones that have merit. That is what he means by the God theory is not very successful. That is what I got from the lecture where he mentions that aspect anyway. Science has looked for things that religion indicates exist, like a soul or afterlife, in it's general approach to all things, in this case the forces of nature. Again, nothing exists to indicate the supernatural is a viable claim. Just like we cannot peer into the subatomic, but look for interactions that reveal such minute forces, and the effects they have on other things. Whilst there is still much to learn, there does not seem to be any indication at all that the claims of religion are founded in fact, nor do they provide any evidence to consider. It's just a story. A natural Universe does for what we would expect from our observations and data though, particularly so with regards to those predictions. Agreed, science reveals the causal factor, it will only illustrate that regardless of what anyone thinks. To consider the origins of the Universe we look into deeper aspects of physics, such as the aforementioned models, and that which this theory has just joined the ranks of. Those models do have a place in standard models though, which is where religion cannot compete with science any longer, hence, why we never see God invoked in a Physics or Cosmology lecture that is seriously probing the evidence we do have that indicates how this all came to be. Quite a few interesting ones too. But they all tend to indicate a natural origin. A natural Universe is just the best fit for the data and observations we do have, which must be on the right track as they can offer predictions. Exactly! "Why" is actualy a silly question when we think about it. We do not ask "Why does a mountain exist" that actually makes no sense, but "what are the causal factors that bring a mountain into existence" then that is a sensible question that we can pursue. Which is pretty much where science sees the question of God, just nothing to pursue. Science does not say there cannot be a God, it will always welcome such information should it decide to reveal itself, which would be heralded as it would mean a complete re-write of science. which actually would make scientists happier than many think it would. First, thank you for your interesting and lengthy post. I agree with you and to me that's why there's a difference between physics and metaphysics (read it in Aristotelic/classic terms). As we agreed, science is interested in "how" and actually to me it's the only thing it can successfully investigate, because it doesn't have (or it itself is not) the right tools for the "why". For science the universe is a natural manifestation, because that's the only thing it can study. That's why to me it's wrong trying to explain the metaphysical with tools for the physical and viceversa trying to explain the physical with metaphysical tools. The ancients weren't (all) stupid, naive or superstitious, that's why since the Ancient Greece physics and metaphysics had the same importance. They were two faces of the same coin. Just to be clear, I'm not talking about religion here. But there's a reason why since the VI century the brightest minds studied the trivium and quadrivium as liberal arts. Unfortunately religion, and Christianity in particular, messed things up trying to explain what it couldn't and imposing it as Dogma. This of course led during the centuries first to a push, then a fight back from free thinkers, that culminated in today's paroxysmic extremisation, where if a person tries to seriously talk about something that goes beyond what's manifested, is considered a gullible. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted October 19, 2016 #54 Share Posted October 19, 2016 14 hours ago, aka CAT said: To claim the effect is the cause necessitates an originator. <= Period. Pretty much why I feel the Big Bang theory still stands as best option even with this new model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MWoo7 Posted October 19, 2016 #55 Share Posted October 19, 2016 Curious , does an exploding Quark oh >= 13.6 billion years ago preclude or necessitate the intelligentsia via some bright light entity or grandfather figure sitting in a grand old chair in the sky? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted October 19, 2016 #56 Share Posted October 19, 2016 (edited) 9 hours ago, Parsec said: First, thank you for your interesting and lengthy post. You are most welcome glad you found it interesting Quote I agree with you and to me that's why there's a difference between physics and metaphysics (read it in Aristotelic/classic terms). As we agreed, science is interested in "how" and actually to me it's the only thing it can successfully investigate, because it doesn't have (or it itself is not) the right tools for the "why". For science the universe is a natural manifestation, because that's the only thing it can study. That's why to me it's wrong trying to explain the metaphysical with tools for the physical and viceversa trying to explain the physical with metaphysical tools. I am just not sure the "why" is more than human curiosity that is not really capturing the entire picture. I think the material world can measure what would be considered metaphysical, if the metaphysical can interact with the material Universe. We can measure the four forces of nature, and tiny atomic perturbations, so if the metaphysical really does interact with the material Universe, and according to many claims in a spectacular fashion, I have to wonder why it canot be quantified? Or at the very least, verified? Quote The ancients weren't (all) stupid, naive or superstitious, that's why since the Ancient Greece physics and metaphysics had the same importance. They were two faces of the same coin. The one thing I feel the ancient did not have is a real understanding of how things work, they were the pioneers paving the ways, and setting the benchmarks. I do feel modern understandings should be able to see any subject in the same light, and improve upon that knowledge. Quote Just to be clear, I'm not talking about religion here. I picked that up in this post, thanks for the clarification. Quote But there's a reason why since the VI century the brightest minds studied the trivium and quadrivium as liberal arts. Would that not indicate though that things like aesthetics were of great importance and in that revered position, and therefore attributed to such theories? Quote Unfortunately religion, and Christianity in particular, messed things up trying to explain what it couldn't and imposing it as Dogma. I could not agree more. Quote This of course led during the centuries first to a push, then a fight back from free thinkers, that culminated in today's paroxysmic extremisation, where if a person tries to seriously talk about something that goes beyond what's manifested, is considered a gullible. But with the great minds we have amongst us today, why would they not be able to resolve these claims if they do have merit? There are so many more of us, with so many diverse views, and populations for stone age through to the most modern tech. It seems to me if it is viable, it must continue to rise above? Edited October 19, 2016 by psyche101 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted October 19, 2016 #57 Share Posted October 19, 2016 32 minutes ago, MWoo7 said: Curious , does an exploding Quark oh >= 13.6 billion years ago preclude or necessitate the intelligentsia via some bright light entity or grandfather figure sitting in a grand old chair in the sky? I canot see how it would necessitate such in any way? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MWoo7 Posted October 19, 2016 #58 Share Posted October 19, 2016 So precludes, very good was wondering what this might entail/bring THANKS PSYCHE ! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsec Posted October 19, 2016 #59 Share Posted October 19, 2016 13 hours ago, psyche101 said: You are most welcome glad you found it interesting I am just not sure the "why" is more than human curiosity that is not really capturing the entire picture. I think the material world can measure what would be considered metaphysical, if the metaphysical can interact with the material Universe. We can measure the four forces of nature, and tiny atomic perturbations, so if the metaphysical really does interact with the material Universe, and according to many claims in a spectacular fashion, I have to wonder why it canot be quantified? Or at the very least, verified? The one thing I feel the ancient did not have is a real understanding of how things work, they were the pioneers paving the ways, and setting the benchmarks. I do feel modern understandings should be able to see any subject in the same light, and improve upon that knowledge. I picked that up in this post, thanks for the clarification. Would that not indicate though that things like aesthetics were of great importance and in that revered position, and therefore attributed to such theories? I could not agree more. But with the great minds we have amongst us today, why would they not be able to resolve these claims if they do have merit? There are so many more of us, with so many diverse views, and populations for stone age through to the most modern tech. It seems to me if it is viable, it must continue to rise above? Boy, this is too complex and long for a chat in a forum. Although sitting in a pub and talking about it would be more suitable, here we are, so I'll try my best to be clear and concise. The main point is that, theoretically, you can't approach the metaphysical with tools made for the physical. It would be like dancing about architecture, it doesn't quite make sense. So to me the very misunderstanding starts with the wrong assumption that you can measure the metaphysical with science. It would be like recording a song with a ruler. The only tool, so far, that we have to investigate it, is our mind. And that's why philosophy exists. You can't apply the same rules to the two systems, it's by definition wrong. And as I already said, this works both ways. It would be like trying to apply to a 3 dimentional space, rules made for a 2 dimentional one. Or, to use yet another metaphor, how many pixels is the pizza you are going to eat? We are all dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants, agreed. Although, regarding the ancients, you'd be surprised how inaccurate your statement is. If you'd read Plato or Democritus for instance, maybe you'd change your mind. But let's not derail and let's stop talking about people lived 2500 years ago. About the great minds of our time, what do you mean? Why scientists haven't "found the soul" yet? Although of course I don't have the answer, If that's indeed the question, it's probably because, as I wrote, they use the wrong tool or ask the wrong question. Or are not interested in that answer. I reckon I managed to be both unclear and long, but maybe you'll be able to get something out of it nonetheless. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHaYap Posted October 19, 2016 #60 Share Posted October 19, 2016 3 hours ago, Parsec said: Although sitting in a pub and talking about it would be more suitable, here we are, so I'll try my best to be clear and concise. Just for that I'm a owe you a couple of beers ... ~ 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted October 20, 2016 #61 Share Posted October 20, 2016 12 hours ago, Parsec said: Boy, this is too complex and long for a chat in a forum. Although sitting in a pub and talking about it would be more suitable, here we are, so I'll try my best to be clear and concise. Well, I sure agree with that, it would be much better discussing this over a couple of cold ones Sorry to be long and complex, I appreciate your view, so many people seem to walk off into silly land discussing aspects of metaphysical claims, it is rather nice to have a good conversation with someone who does not go off the deep end in that regard - I am sure you know what I mean? 12 hours ago, Parsec said: The main point is that, theoretically, you can't approach the metaphysical with tools made for the physical. It would be like dancing about architecture, it doesn't quite make sense. So to me the very misunderstanding starts with the wrong assumption that you can measure the metaphysical with science. It would be like recording a song with a ruler. The only tool, so far, that we have to investigate it, is our mind. And that's why philosophy exists. You can't apply the same rules to the two systems, it's by definition wrong. And as I already said, this works both ways. It would be like trying to apply to a 3 dimentional space, rules made for a 2 dimentional one. Or, to use yet another metaphor, how many pixels is the pizza you are going to eat? However, like I say, the metaphysical must "manifest" in some fashion in our very 3 dimensional space for us to recognise it at all, so (from my perspective) should it exist - why could that manifestation/interaction with this point in space time be measured? If we can register it as being in this conventional time\space why can't the manifestation (perhaps for want of a better word) also be measured "during that period" if it's existence in this level of space time? Would such a manifestation not require that such would have to hold the same properties as all else in the material universe for such to be detected and recognised in the firwst instance? 12 hours ago, Parsec said: We are all dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants, agreed. Although, regarding the ancients, you'd be surprised how inaccurate your statement is. If you'd read Plato or Democritus for instance, maybe you'd change your mind. But let's not derail and let's stop talking about people lived 2500 years ago. I probably worded myself badly there. I do not think the ancient were fools in any conceivable way, I just feel the knowledge we have now as opposed to what we had then is just overwhelming. I think if Plato or Aristotle could hop into a time machine and spend a could hours at Harvard or Caltech, I think they would be proud of the movement they initiated, but it would be a very foreign place for them. They did not have the benefit of those who stood on their shoulders like Newton, Darwin or Einstein. 12 hours ago, Parsec said: About the great minds of our time, what do you mean? Newton, Darwin, Einstein, and today Hawking, Thorne, Vilenkin, the people making the milestones. 12 hours ago, Parsec said: Why scientists haven't "found the soul" yet? Although of course I don't have the answer, If that's indeed the question, it's probably because, as I wrote, they use the wrong tool or ask the wrong question. Or are not interested in that answer. I think they are interested, there has been people probing into these claims, but physics also shows why they cannot be, so at least as far as "this material universe" is concerned, they can now dismiss such claims in similar ways to how we might dismiss the Western version of God. Methodology shows us what we are made of, and what happens to those "bits" right down to an atomic level. From there, it seems if further claims are made, it cannot be resolved by science, as science has already been there and looked at it, I just cannot see why the Metaphysical should have more veracity than say the KJ version of the Bible? They both seem to rely entirely on hearsay? 12 hours ago, Parsec said: I reckon I managed to be both unclear and long, but maybe you'll be able to get something out of it nonetheless. Thank you for the reply. It is always interesting to hear others views. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted October 20, 2016 #62 Share Posted October 20, 2016 9 hours ago, third_eye said: Just for that I'm a owe you a couple of beers ... ~ Grab him one for me while you at it please mate 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rlyeh Posted October 20, 2016 #63 Share Posted October 20, 2016 On 15/10/2016 at 1:54 PM, aka CAT said: Excellent reply, SMK. It is for the complexity of the universe, among other things, that I believe in intelligent design. Random accidents cannot account for such intricacy, diversity and, above all, the sublime order of our universe... Sounds more like you refuse to accept "random accidents" accounting for such order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsec Posted October 21, 2016 #64 Share Posted October 21, 2016 20 hours ago, third_eye said: Just for that I'm a owe you a couple of beers ... ~ 11 hours ago, psyche101 said: Grab him one for me while you at it please mate You two want me drunk, just say it! Thank you both, I'd gladly share them with you! 11 hours ago, psyche101 said: Well, I sure agree with that, it would be much better discussing this over a couple of cold ones Sorry to be long and complex, I appreciate your view, so many people seem to walk off into silly land discussing aspects of metaphysical claims, it is rather nice to have a good conversation with someone who does not go off the deep end in that regard - I am sure you know what I mean? However, like I say, the metaphysical must "manifest" in some fashion in our very 3 dimensional space for us to recognise it at all, so (from my perspective) should it exist - why could that manifestation/interaction with this point in space time be measured? If we can register it as being in this conventional time\space why can't the manifestation (perhaps for want of a better word) also be measured "during that period" if it's existence in this level of space time? Would such a manifestation not require that such would have to hold the same properties as all else in the material universe for such to be detected and recognised in the firwst instance? I probably worded myself badly there. I do not think the ancient were fools in any conceivable way, I just feel the knowledge we have now as opposed to what we had then is just overwhelming. I think if Plato or Aristotle could hop into a time machine and spend a could hours at Harvard or Caltech, I think they would be proud of the movement they initiated, but it would be a very foreign place for them. They did not have the benefit of those who stood on their shoulders like Newton, Darwin or Einstein. Newton, Darwin, Einstein, and today Hawking, Thorne, Vilenkin, the people making the milestones. I think they are interested, there has been people probing into these claims, but physics also shows why they cannot be, so at least as far as "this material universe" is concerned, they can now dismiss such claims in similar ways to how we might dismiss the Western version of God. Methodology shows us what we are made of, and what happens to those "bits" right down to an atomic level. From there, it seems if further claims are made, it cannot be resolved by science, as science has already been there and looked at it, I just cannot see why the Metaphysical should have more veracity than say the KJ version of the Bible? They both seem to rely entirely on hearsay? Thank you for the reply. It is always interesting to hear others views. Yeah, unfortunately I know what you mean regarding silly metaphysical land and claims. What's funny is that philosophy (and metaphysics in particular) has been developed because the mythologial and explanation on how the universe came to be and works wasn't enough anymore; Thales (the first known philosopher) rejected the divine explanation, looking for the real origin, a single cause ("Arche") that could explain all the phenomena. Bear in mind that's more than 15 years since I've studied this subject, so I will probably be incorrect and imprecise. For the sake of the argument I'm sticking to classical (pre-Socratic and some post) philosophy, otherwise the topic would become unmanageable. The main point is that physical and metaphysical are two aspects of the Cosmos. Although you can investigate whether there's a teleological explanation, they are both considered "natural". The answers to your questions really depend on who you ask (or would have asked, considering the time). If you take Parmenides, the difference between physical and metaphysical is that the first relates to "being" (the "manifested", "what it is"), while the latter to the "not-being" ("not-manifested" "what it is not"). They are two aspects of the the Cosmos and are self-excluding. The presence of one means the abscense of the other (well, that's kind of obvious). So you can understand why you can't study one using the tools of the other. The only way to do it is through philosphy. If you take Plato instead, the two levels can interact and in fact the physical world is just a mere illusion, a projection of the real world, that is the World of Ideas. We could use for instance the allegory of the cave: with our physical tools we can't (and will never be able to) actually see the difference between the shadows and the real thing, because they are the only thing we can see, the only thing that "there is". Only through philosphy you are able to catch a glimmer, if you are lucky enough, of the real world. So different approaches, same results. I don't know if I managed to answer you, but maybe I gave you some food for thought. Regarding Plato and other classical thinkers visiting our present day, I wouldn't be so sure they'd be entirely happy or proud. They'd definitely be till the first half of the XX century, but today we are a bit too focused on what they'd define techne, rather than on episteme, to please them. In regards to your last paragraph, again, "their" answer is that it's simply not conceivable investigating what's outside the physical world with physical instruments, it's illogic. Science will always give "0" as an answer, because that's what it can see. About having more veracity than the Bible, the difference is that the latter is based on belief and dogma, while philosophy is based on reasoning and logic, not dissimilar from science (indeed sciece takes it's epistemiological tools from philosophy). Sure, at some point we have to draw a line: we either believe in something more than the physical world or not. Apparently so far we don't have tangible proof of something more, yet, some of us are sure there is. They believe. At the same time, there are people that are sure there is no god, no meta, nothing, since we have't found any proof yet. They believe there's nothing. They are both respectable positions, let's be clear, but to me the only really scientific position would be an agnostic one, where you reckon that given the data in your hand, you can't know yet if there's something or not. That's quite different than being sure or give as proven fact that there's nothing. Well, we went a bit off topic, but I hope it was an interesting ride! 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MissJatti Posted October 22, 2016 #65 Share Posted October 22, 2016 before the big bang was a little ball of rocks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now