A Question of Order
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-11-2012, 11:18 AM
RE: A Question of Order
...and the consensus is...
Troll!

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
13-11-2012, 11:19 AM
RE: A Question of Order
(13-11-2012 01:26 AM)Egor Wrote:  Granted, it may not be true, but it's really not a rational position to assume it is not. You can be an agnostic; you can be a theist, but you really can't rationally be an atheist.
Yes, old pal, yes you can. You know why that is? Because atheism has nothing to do with the origins of the universe.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-11-2012, 11:20 AM
RE: A Question of Order
I thought the consensus was that there is order but it does not require an orderer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-11-2012, 11:32 AM (This post was last modified: 13-11-2012 12:01 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: A Question of Order
(13-11-2012 01:26 AM)Egor Wrote:  I will admit that question stops atheism in its tracks, but I also admit that saying "God did it.", while it may be true, is not a sufficient answer. But here's the thing: In all our experience, and underpinning our psychology is the concept of cause and effect. We cannot accept that something would come from nothing for no reason. Thus we find it more rational to postulate the existence of some kind of conscious entity at work in the creation of the universe.

Granted, it may not be true, but it's really not a rational position to assume it is not. You can be an agnostic; you can be a theist, but you really can't rationally be an atheist.

I see the other shoe has dropped, just as I had expected.
It hardly stops anything in it's tracks. One should not project one's own ideas, assumptions and fears onto others.
Some are able to say "we don't have all the answers yet", and be comfortable with that.
Positing THE answer is "god", which has been proven false so many times in the past, is precisely THE worst answer, and only one of many alternatives.
We know from Chaos Theory, that "order" arises spontaneously, in this universe.
We also know from Relativity, Uncertainty, and the Math of Dirac, (spinors), that what our brains perceive or consider "logical" or "common sense" by *intuition*, is unreliable. Therefore the only rational position, is to take the one which requires evidence. The perceived (common sense) perception of cause/effect falls apart upon closer inspection for many reasons.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
13-11-2012, 11:42 AM
RE: A Question of Order
(13-11-2012 11:09 AM)Egor Wrote:  So, did we ever come to a consensus here? Let me ask again: If there is no order in the universe, why doesn't the sun rise in the south? If there is order, who's the orderer?


False dichotomy. C'mon, you're smarter than that.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
13-11-2012, 11:56 AM
RE: A Question of Order
(12-11-2012 04:57 AM)Egor Wrote:  A collegue at work posed this question: If there is no order in the universe, why doesn't the sun sometimes rise in the South. Huh
If you think you understand the quantum, you don't understand the quantum. To clarify, is the quantum included in the above statement?

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-11-2012, 12:16 PM
RE: A Question of Order
People think of tossing a die as random, but it isn't, because every time you toss it the circumstances have changed. You aren't holding it the same, the die has changed on the atomic level from impacting the table, the earth has rotated, the air in the room has moved - maybe there is more carbon dioxide because someone breathed out... If you went back in time and tossed it in the same manner under the same circumstances, the same result would occur every time. The same is true with elementary particles. If, knowing everything relevant to an event, one could predict the outcome with certainty, that is order. Even at the quantum level it could very well be true - we simply do not know all the variables because perhaps observing it causes a different outcome, as it changes the circumstances.

Chaos would be a universe where, under the same circumstances, a different result could occur every time. The universe seems to be the very opposite of that. That is how we are able to create laws of physics - the universe is orderly, so we can describe the order. If it was not orderly, we would not exist to describe it.

So, why doesn't the sun rise from the west? Because it can't.

Now, as to who the orderer is; no one. There is no need for someone to create the laws of the universe before the universe can function - that is backwards. Order is an abstract concept to describe something with patterns, and laws are made to describe those patterns. Physics does not follow laws - laws describe physics.

If something can be destroyed by the truth, it might be worth destroying.

[Image: ZcC2kGl.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like Elesjei's post
13-11-2012, 01:05 PM
RE: A Question of Order
(13-11-2012 12:16 PM)Elesjei Wrote:  People think of tossing a die as random, but it isn't, because every time you toss it the circumstances have changed. You aren't holding it the same, the die has changed on the atomic level from impacting the table, the earth has rotated, the air in the room has moved - maybe there is more carbon dioxide because someone breathed out... If you went back in time and tossed it in the same manner under the same circumstances, the same result would occur every time. The same is true with elementary particles. If, knowing everything relevant to an event, one could predict the outcome with certainty, that is order. Even at the quantum level it could very well be true - we simply do not know all the variables because perhaps observing it causes a different outcome, as it changes the circumstances.

Chaos would be a universe where, under the same circumstances, a different result could occur every time. The universe seems to be the very opposite of that. That is how we are able to create laws of physics - the universe is orderly, so we can describe the order. If it was not orderly, we would not exist to describe it.

So, why doesn't the sun rise from the west? Because it can't.

Now, as to who the orderer is; no one. There is no need for someone to create the laws of the universe before the universe can function - that is backwards. Order is an abstract concept to describe something with patterns, and laws are made to describe those patterns. Physics does not follow laws - laws describe physics.
Great post. Thanks. One thing though .. we don't "create" the laws of Physics, we "discover" patterns to which we apply labels. Those pattern labels are the laws of Physics.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Bucky Ball's post
13-11-2012, 03:57 PM
RE: A Question of Order
(13-11-2012 12:16 PM)Elesjei Wrote:  People think of tossing a die as random, but it isn't, because every time you toss it the circumstances have changed. You aren't holding it the same, the die has changed on the atomic level from impacting the table, the earth has rotated, the air in the room has moved - maybe there is more carbon dioxide because someone breathed out... If you went back in time and tossed it in the same manner under the same circumstances, the same result would occur every time. The same is true with elementary particles. If, knowing everything relevant to an event, one could predict the outcome with certainty, that is order. Even at the quantum level it could very well be true - we simply do not know all the variables because perhaps observing it causes a different outcome, as it changes the circumstances.

Chaos would be a universe where, under the same circumstances, a different result could occur every time. The universe seems to be the very opposite of that. That is how we are able to create laws of physics - the universe is orderly, so we can describe the order. If it was not orderly, we would not exist to describe it.

So, why doesn't the sun rise from the west? Because it can't.

Now, as to who the orderer is; no one. There is no need for someone to create the laws of the universe before the universe can function - that is backwards. Order is an abstract concept to describe something with patterns, and laws are made to describe those patterns. Physics does not follow laws - laws describe physics.
One might also point out that the sun doesn't actually "rise" in the strictest sense of the word. It's all a matter of perception. If there were a cataclysmic event that would reverse the rotation of the earth along the same axis, the sun would appear to "rise" in the west...to anything left alive on the surface to perceive it....which wouldn't be much.

He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! -Brian's mum
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-11-2012, 04:10 PM
RE: A Question of Order
(13-11-2012 11:09 AM)Egor Wrote:  So, did we ever come to a consensus here? Let me ask again: If there is no order in the universe, why doesn't the sun rise in the south? If there is order, who's the orderer?
I'll agree with what others said. Some order exists. But to go from there to believing some being placed things in that order (rather than it occurring naturally), is a vast leap with no logic or evidence provided to back it up. The question "if there is order, who is the orderer" is loaded with the assumption that any order must imply an orderer. This is an assumption which neither I nor a great many people here will grant absent support, and to the extent that someone uses it as an argument to prove some sort of a prime mover, that person is essentially engaged in circular reasoning.

"If I ignore the alternatives, the only option is God; I ignore them; therefore God." -- The Syllogism of Fail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: