Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 14021 - 14040 of total 22344 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Jingy

climber
Somewhere out there
May 19, 2013 - 09:41pm PT
Far too funny to miss sharing with friends






This is strictly to offset the overly righteous beginnings of this page of thread


BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
May 19, 2013 - 10:47pm PT
Be honest, people. What is outside us is utterly objective and real. It is our senses and our limited intelligence that limit us. The job of science and critical thinking is to reach objective truth.

As for qualia, it is shared among others. People enjoy dogs, for example. Very few people have a pet possum. Same with roses and pretty flowers. A really wonderful picture on Flikr may get hundreds of likes.

Going by the definition of "qualia," it is no coincidence that other individuals experience qualia in very close terms with others, totally independent from them.

Our goal is the objective. The subjective isn't worth a coon's ass. It is there in all of us to a degree, but we have figured out many ways to avoid it.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
May 19, 2013 - 11:29pm PT
Because I am either doing a poor job of explaining this, or people are simply not getting it, let me try and answer this "objective" "out there" question by looking at John G's question:

Mathematics then must arise entirely from our minds and cannot be there in the "quantum flux."


If you mean that numbers exist "out there, seperate from our brains, then we need to demonstate where those numbers are - NOT as numerical symbols that relate or posit relations to so-called objective forms, but as concepts that are stand-alone. And of course we will never find the number 5 "out there," though our minds can find and can devise an almost if not infinite grouping of 5s drawn from "out there" and from our imagination.

But what is this, really? Someone mentioned that some mathematicians looked at objective reality as unfolding or being arrayed on objective mathematical terrain which itself is real above and beyond the things and forms to which the first math was devised - "dealing with measurements, properties and relationships of quantities." Of course later math, if you listen to folks like Hellman, define it as the investigation of "structural possibilities," as opposed to absolute, Platonic objects. After treating the natural numbers and analysis, he extends the approach to set theory, where he demonstrates how to dispense with a fixed universe of sets. But however you strike it, all of this math is not a stand alone thing that exists seperate from mind, even though such "structural possibilities" can be demonstrated in Nature.

put differently, Shakespeare said that the whole world is a stage. So we can look at the world in terms of said stage and see each of us playing roles and all the drama and so forth, and in this sense we can understand humanity in new ways. In a very real way, the world IS a stage. But we would never say said stage exists as a stand alone and totally independent "thing" or opera house minus all the actors who prove Shakespeare's point. Likewise while we can site Nature demonstrating various quantitative and structural possibilities, the fact that we can talk about them as a kind of absolute thing, separate from Platonic objects, is the surest ground we have for knowing they are mental constructs because they have to physical correlate. And if they can be worked with independent of Nature, where is this "working" transpiring other than in our minds. Nowhere else, quite obviously.

-


Therefore the number "1" is entirely a product of mind and has no relation to a "single object" since such objects do not exist, but which our minds "define" simultaneously with "1" . . .


The number "1" originally was a direct correlate between one finger and one sea shell, say. So we can use our discursive mind and pluck out of the soup "out" there "one" out of 10,000 things and call it "one." Or 1. But one and 1 symbolic representations of things that our minds pull out of the soup. How could it be different?

JL
go-B

climber
Hebrews 1:3
May 20, 2013 - 12:09am PT
photo not found
Missing photo ID#303675
...all to Him I owe!
Malemute

Ice climber
the ghost
May 20, 2013 - 12:11am PT
Somewhere upthread there is skepticism concerning virtual particles.

”Remarkably, we physicists have learned (after all the hard work by Feynman and others) to calculate to an arbitrarily high precision, the impact on the spectrum of hydrogen of all the possible virtural particles that may exist intermittently in its vicinity. And when we do, we come up the the best, most accurate prediction in all of science.* All other scientific predictions pail in comparison.” --- Lawrence M. Krauss “A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing”, Free Press, 2012. pp 67-69

(italics mine)


"We now know the age of the universe to four significant figures. It is 13.72 billion years old." Ibid, page 87
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
May 20, 2013 - 12:12am PT
Because I am either doing a poor job of explaining this, or people are simply not getting it, let me try and answer this "objective" "out there" question by looking at John G's question:

You are doing a fairly good job of explaining your viewpoint, largely invalid as it is-- much like a good lawyer with a guilty client.
I cannot speak for others , but I get it, and I am not convinced . With all due respect. But I nonetheless enjoy the argument . Unlike others I do not get exasperated by disagreement --mainly because I usually respect my opponent. And I enjoy polemics. It sharpens the mind...and the pen...or in this case the keyboard.
If I desert the field of battle it is because I perceive an imbalance in forces, I.e., there appears to be several debaters ganging up on one dude. I won't be a part of that. However I don't particularly mind being the one ganged up on. It is strangely heroic. And bracing, like a good slap of Old Spice. Lol.
I usually prefer arguing one on one.
jogill

climber
Colorado
May 20, 2013 - 12:27am PT
The number "1" originally was a direct correlate between one finger and one sea shell, say. So we can use our discursive mind and pluck out of the soup "out" there "one" out of 10,000 things and call it "one." Or 1. But one and 1 symbolic representations of things that our minds pull out of the soup. How could it be different?

Let's see, our mind pulls two (oops, we're not even at one yet) "objects" out of the QSF, and forms a correlation between them that we then label "1", so it's not the "single" object, but the correlation between "objects" that is seen as "1". But wait, you just referred to that as "one finger" before defining "1". So those 10,000 "objects" paired in 49,995,000 "correlations" define "1"? So if there were only one "object", say the seashell, it could not give rise to "1"? Maybe if we form the correlation with itself.

Mathematically, you are looking at singleton sets - each having one member, and those sets share a cardinality of "1".

This is a real stretch, JL. You have little knowledge of what you are talking about, but I do appreciate your spirit! From now on I will only make remarks that pertain to actual mathematics and not the bizarre existential tapestry you attempt to weave. This stuff isn't even up to the level of Philosophy of Mathematics, but it does show an inventive imagination that may be useful in composing fiction. Your writing skills are not in question.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
May 20, 2013 - 12:34am PT
^^^ and1
Jingy

climber
Somewhere out there
May 20, 2013 - 12:35am PT
Therefore the number "1" is entirely a product of mind and has no relation to a "single object" since such objects do not exist, but which our minds "define" simultaneously with "1" . . .


 Written well enough for a simpleton like me to understand.

What if this were the starting point, a default position so to speak, would there necessarily be a need for a god?
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
May 20, 2013 - 12:48am PT
http://theamericanscholar.org/a-new-theory-of-the-universe/#.UZmgqit4bO8

(You'll have to do some reading.)

I'm honestly surprised that such an august group of scientific-leaning proponents are apparently unaware of the volumes (volumes!!) of research studies that indicate the construction of the universe and ourselves.

All I can guess is that readers and posters here are armchair science proponents, perhaps never actually having done any of it themselves professionally.

I mean, this stuff is out there--and in volumes! By the hundreds. I'd say it's just about a well-known FACT (and I don't say that lightly).

All I can think of is that you are just ignoring all this literature because you want to. If that is the case, you have no business arguing for science, for you are taking positions against it.
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
May 20, 2013 - 12:53am PT
All I can guess is that readers and posters here are armchair science proponents, perhaps never actually having done any of it themselves professionally.

You can make your argument, if it is valid, without resorting to the mildly ad hominem.

Throw your punches without first convincing yourself and your opponent that he is in trouble, or at a manufactured disadvantage.


MH2

climber
May 20, 2013 - 01:16am PT
Let's wait and see, MikeL.

Critics have questioned whether the theory is falsifiable. Lanza has claimed that future experiments, such as scaled-up quantum superposition, will either support or contradict the theory.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
May 20, 2013 - 01:25am PT
. And if they can be worked with independent of Nature, where is this "working" transpiring other than in our minds. Nowhere else, quite obviously.

Wheres the proof in this pudding?

Sure the number 1 is a construct collaborated within our minds. We could have called the single finger sticking up "four" or "six" instead of "one", and it wouldnt have mattered if we all agreed upon it.

The Universe is wrought with mathematics. The Earth rotates once in 24 hrs. And traverses the Sun once a year. Our construct of numbers is just a representation of the Universe's preciseness. Sheez, God told us about the oneness of a day, and a week back in Genesis.
5000 yrs ago, when we thought the world was flat. Before we even knew the Earth went around the Sun..
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
May 20, 2013 - 01:34am PT
Ward - close, but not exactly so.

Subjectivism in the broad stroke simply says that experience is the only unquestionable fact of human experience. This dates back to Descarts and even before. A more radical approach like Solipsism suggests that nature and existence of stuff and objects on the macro level depends entirely on one's subjective awareness of it. This is really Berkeley's qualified empiricism.

Perhaps a more transparent notion come from so-called metaphysical subjectivism, saying that human reality is simply what we perceive to be real, and that the macro forms, the things and stuff of consciousness (qualia) do not exist, independent of human perception, exactly as we perceive them.

Put differently, a rose certainly exists on a quantum level, but the macro carnation, say, is a construct of our discursive minds and our sense organs. Another life form with a brain that organizes macro things in a different fashion, and experiences them though different sense organs, would challenge the saying that a rose is a rose by an other name.

This last view is more in line with so-called metaphysical objectivism and philosophical realism, which suggests there is an underlying "objective" reality which on he macro scale, is perceived in different ways, meaning it's form is perception-dependent.

These are all attempts to answer to the untenable belief that there is a fixed objective macro world of things out there that exist totally independent of perception. That is, this objective world of macro forms exists selfsame across the board, and if we could curate it in a museum, say, all life forms for all time, real or imagined, would, when touring said museum, experience the exact same collection of macro things, though slightly differently according to their brains and sense aperati. But the objective macro things themselves would remain the very same, and any "difference" would be owing to the different perceptional biases of a given consciousness, NOT to the abiding things or forms themselves, which retain a constant form.

This dream of a world of selfsame objective macro level things out there, existing independent of everything else, including consciousness, is, as the Sufis point out, an attempt to swap the independent and maxi real God of antique religion with a new God of abiding objective things. It also underscores a totally imaginary radical objectivism that is the opposite of one or anther forms of subjectivism - a clear impossibility for Human since we can never rid ourself of experience, which requires a subject every time.

It's all hooked up with us humans, who are right here, trying to imagine (a subjective experience) a world of macro things "out there" in which we were not present and imaging our absence.

JL


John is right, as usual. Maybe too long winded, and existential and all, but he's right!!

Meh!
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
May 20, 2013 - 01:39am PT
^^^^ All of that contradicts the Holy Spirit though..
healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
May 20, 2013 - 02:23am PT
Yep, and if you wish hard enough, that tiger that's about to eat you is really just a mouse and in either case no doubt ceases to exist once you do. Being eaten alive has got to be way up there on the subjective experience meter.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
May 20, 2013 - 02:28am PT
Yep, He-He Healyje!
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
May 20, 2013 - 10:01am PT
This has broken down to navel gazing BS.

The universe is real. We are surrounded with objective truth. We seek that truth, and have been doing a pretty good job with it.

I've had it up to here over this. It isn't that hard.
rectorsquid

climber
Lake Tahoe
May 20, 2013 - 11:03am PT
The Earth rotates once in 24 hrs. And traverses the Sun once a year. Our construct of numbers is just a representation of the Universe's preciseness.

The universe may be precise, in that it always follows it's own rules exactly, but people are not; The earth rotates once in 23 hours 56 minutes 04.09053 seconds. It travels around the sun in 365.24218967 days.

Our construction of numbers is a measuring system in our brains that keeps us functioning in a competitive world. It is important to know that two saber-tooth tigers are more dangerous than one. Big brains give us the ability to do math and the ability to make up the most outlandish crap ever imagined. Oops, that we redundant.

If ten trees fall in the forest, are there really ten of them if no one is around to count them?

Dave
cintune

climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
May 20, 2013 - 11:32am PT
Oddly enough, other people are also interested in this topic.

http://www.newscientist.com/special/consciousness
Messages 14021 - 14040 of total 22344 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews