Insurmountable gap?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-04-2014, 08:18 AM
RE: Insurmountable gap?
(22-04-2014 05:01 AM)lots2learn Wrote:  cjlr writes: Presupposing anything beyond those limits is meaningless…."The existence of an external cause" relies on contingent definitions of "existence", "external", and "cause", which - just as much - cannot be said to be meaningful or applicable in the context given (ie you can't know things about the unknowable). To even suggest the possibility is a little dishonest. If the premise is not even coherent or meaningful then agnosticism is inapplicable. It's not literally "I don't know, therefore I do"; that I grant. What you've done here is, "I don't know, therefore maybe I do". That's not much better.

Response: You’re suggesting because we cannot know what causes uniformity there is nothing but our spacetime and nothing but nature. You’re the one actually making the judgment about the unknowable. You’re saying “I don’t know, therefore I do”. Here it is with logic: “F exists; we can't ever know what causes it; therefore, there is no cause.” – this is unsound.

Well that's a pathetic pile of fallacious responses. Let's break it down!

You have not demonstrated F, which you'll note I have not accepted as anything but for the sake of argument.

I did not assert "no cause"; that's a dishonest misrepresentation of my (very simple) objection. If something is unknowable - this is your exact assertion - then it is simply completely and utterly immaterial what qualities that thing has or even whether it exists or not, since it is unknowable.

So the straw man's out.

You are the one asserting a possibility. In order to avoid justifying that assertion you have simultaneously made it utterly meaningless. So there's that. We can posit literally anything so long as it is uknowable - but there is absolutely no way to actually know anything about it - by definition - and even less reason to care.

(22-04-2014 05:01 AM)lots2learn Wrote:  You’re saying my premise is not coherent, but on the contrary, you understand it perfectly well.

I understand what you mean. That doesn't mean it makes sense. Because it still doesn't.

(22-04-2014 05:01 AM)lots2learn Wrote:  Let’s look at it another way: a scientific mind, whenever it sees a phenomenon, it searches for a cause. Someone mentioned Dark matter & energy earlier and this is a perfect example. Going with the latter of the two, we observe a phenomenon – the increasing rate of expansion of the universe – and we question what causes it. Our attitude isn’t that it ‘simply exists and to question why is incoherent’.

BZZT! Straw man.

Your claim rests on an a priori assertion that some things are beyond investigation.

(22-04-2014 05:01 AM)lots2learn Wrote:  The only difference between the questions “what causes our universe to expand at an increasing rate” and “what causes the universe to exhibit uniformity” is that the latter can’t be subjected to the scientific method while the former *may* be (we’re certainly trying).

That's an amazingly relevant difference. Notwithstanding that the nature of the latter question is something you have, once again, simply declared, for no apparent reason other than that it allows your suppositions to be removed from questioning.

...

So - even taking your unfounded and inadequately explored premises (to wit - "uniformity" is a coherent physical phenomenon; contingent definitions of "cause" may be applied to the phenomenon; the phenomenon is permanently and unalterably beyond scientific investigation) we see that the flat out made-up "explanation" you put forward is both A) entirely and incoherently meaningless, and B) completely and utterly irrelevant - both by definition.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
22-04-2014, 12:58 PM
RE: Insurmountable gap?
(22-04-2014 05:01 AM)lots2learn Wrote:  Taqiyya writes: ANYTHING could equally be asserted as a "cause": Thor, Vishnu, Baal, Wotan…

Response: The point about “ok if god, then which god”, is unrelated.
What, because some dipshit on the interwebz says so? Bullshit.

You aren't getting away with trying to sidestep this.


Quote: If it’s a thing that exists within our spacetime, then it’s subject to uniformity and hence would not be a candidate to explain the uniformity.

Because you say so? Special Plead much?

Quote: Positing a fictional character (god, mortal or otherwise) is beside the point.

Not at all. It's dead on-point. I just posit a different fictional character from your own.


Quote: If someone were to say Vishnu is the cause of uniformity, I’d first ask to define what is Vishnu.

We already asked for a definition of YOUR "cause" and got obfuscationist word salad.


Quote:If it’s a thing outside of spacetime that accounts for observed uniformity of it, then I’d say yes, this matches the definition of what we’re looking for but now prove it exists.

And I can make up anything to fit into those criteria, just like you did. And I can special-plead that it can't be proven, just like you do.


Quote: However, we know Vishnu, as the idea of the Hindu God, has a lot more contained within it than merely “cause of universal laws”. And so we would question what the evidences are for the rest of the idea that is Vishnu (that he is a sentient being, he has a body with 4 arms, that he has a wife, etc).

*evidence is <---- way to out yourself as an ignorant Craig-wannabe fucktard. No one but a brainwashed pig-ignorant xtard-fundie apologist uses the word "evidences" as a plural noun. I know it's fashionable among you morons, but all you are doing is telling the world how fucking stupid you are.


And I didn't say just Vishnu. There are a million things one can assert. I can make up any old bullshit just like you did. The point, which you are squirming as hard as you can and failing to avoid, is that you are making this shit up. FAIL.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-04-2014, 01:38 PM (This post was last modified: 22-04-2014 01:56 PM by Taqiyya Mockingbird.)
RE: Insurmountable gap?
(22-04-2014 05:01 AM)lots2learn Wrote:  Avalon writes: Science views the 'laws' of nature as a collection of facts about how things work. That is, the 'law' is a result not a pre-ordained rule. Theism views the laws of nature as a pre-existing set of rules.

Response: Science is agnostic pertaining this topic. It assumes consistency in nature, that experiments can be objectively repeated. It doesn’t trouble itself with why the consistency is there. I’d be interested in reading if you could find a study where scientists try to address this topic using the scientific method. Typically, you will find it addressed in texts pertaining to the philosophy of science.

Science is a method of investigation, not an entity. It doesn't assume anything that hasn't been already demonstrated. It has uncovered consistencies in the course of scientists' investigation. Again you FAIL in your attempt to sidestep being called on your disingenuous equivocations.


Quote: The new atheist mantra is different – science has closed all doors and nature is all that there is. The scientific mind is open to possibilities, willing to question any phenomenon while the New Atheist viewpoint to me seems dogmatic in comparison.

Strawman much, asshole? But well played own-goal in attempting to denigrate non-belief in your superstitions by comparing it to your own superstitious dogma. Way to let us know that you know it's a Bad Thing.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-04-2014, 01:46 PM
RE: Insurmountable gap?
(20-04-2014 04:56 AM)lots2learn Wrote:  Cause and effect does exist at the quantum level – the point of the Copenhagen interpretation is precisely that. It gave a cause-effect outlook to quantum mechanics so that physicists could move on and continue practicing physics.
This is not true.
Einstein struggled with the probabilistic nature of quantum physics because in his view nature does not roll dice or as he poetically termed it "God does not roll dice".
Neils Bohr came up with the concept of quantum entanglement in order to support the premise of uncertainty. Bohr had no supporting evidence and Einstein found himself in a position of attempting to prove a negative. Neither at the time could prove their view. In my opinion Bohr had the burden of proof.

But Schrodinger showed that in terms of understanding absolutely small particles you must accept the probability nature of them. Experiments prove that the probability nature is correct but that the super position of the probability waves is impacted necessarily by observation because it is impossible to construct an observable experiment which does not significantly impact the particle being observed. The observation does not need to be a consciousness. So yes, quantum nature can be impacted by causes, but NO, quantum nature is not determined and is not caused but instead is probabilistic.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
22-04-2014, 01:51 PM
RE: Insurmountable gap?
(22-04-2014 05:01 AM)lots2learn Wrote:  Response: Science is agnostic pertaining this topic. It assumes consistency in nature, that experiments can be objectively repeated. It doesn’t trouble itself with why the consistency is there. I’d be interested in reading if you could find a study where scientists try to address this topic using the scientific method. Typically, you will find it addressed in texts pertaining to the philosophy of science.


Response: The basis for assuming the possibility of a larger spacetime outside the universe is that the universe cannot be explained by nature alone (science assumes uniformity, an observed phenomenon, but can’t explain it). Hence, we have to leave open doors and remain agnostic. The new atheist mantra is different – science has closed all doors and nature is all that there is. The scientific mind is open to possibilities, willing to question any phenomenon while the New Atheist viewpoint to me seems dogmatic in comparison.

I disagree that science assumes consistency or uniformity. During Newton's time scientists assumed that space and time were the same everywhere, for everyone. Einstein disproved that with relativity which showed space and time were relative.
Science looks at what facts it has without any assumptions. Look up the Pioneer Anomaly (http://www.space.com/16648-pioneer-anoma...ved.html). One possible explanation science considered was that the laws of physics may not be the same everywhere (that is, not consistent).


I've seen many theories about the nature of space and time which explain the universe without assuming some larger timeline.
Your own assumption of a larger space-time encompassing our own would make our universe a closed system. Here's why:
1. empty space contains energy
2. space, at extreme distances, expands faster than the speed of light (http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/questio...umber=575)

So if some of our space is expanding faster than light THRU another larger space (let's say "hyperspace") then by the theory of relativity, it is going back in time. That means it's 'experiencing' a shrinking universe and heading for a singularity. That would make the singularity both the beginning and the end of the universe.
Space expands from the singularity until it exceeds the speed of light, at which time it expands backwards in time (effectively a contraction). until it reaches the tipping point and expands again at sub-light speed.

Put another way, if space is expanding faster than light, one would have to travel faster than light to reach the 'edge'. But traveling faster than light takes you backward in time where the universe shrinks smaller and smaller until reaching singularity. So trying to find the edge of the universe is not much different than trying to find the edge of the earth. Both take you in a circle. The beginning and the end are the same.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like avalon's post
22-04-2014, 02:38 PM
RE: Insurmountable gap?
(20-04-2014 04:56 AM)lots2learn Wrote:  Hi all. Thanks again for all the numerous responses. Here’s what I think:

Kim: “uniformity of nature” is an obsolete concept

Response: How so? I suspect we might be talking about different concepts. To be sure, please see my above response to Mathilda. The scientific method we use today assumes uniformity as a basic premise.

I did not state that the "uniformity of nature" is an obsolete concept.
I stated the following exactly:
Quote:I know they used it quite a bit in the 16th century but, there has been much discovered since then. It might be a good idea to try and keep up.

But... accuracy isn't what you are after....
You say Hume, someone else says Popper then, someone else mentions Tichý, Hilpinen, Niiniluoto, Miller.... and on and on. It becomes a philosophical circle jerk.

crashing bore

You might want to learn how to use the quick quote / reply buttons ... just an idea. Drinking Beverage

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like kim's post
22-04-2014, 03:00 PM (This post was last modified: 22-04-2014 03:14 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Insurmountable gap?
(22-04-2014 05:01 AM)lots2learn Wrote:  If it’s a thing that exists within our spacetime, then it’s subject to uniformity and hence would not be a candidate to explain the uniformity.

Bingo. Checkmate. Thank you.
That's a very interesting thing for a theist to say. In fact EVERYTHING about deities ever proposed is "subject" to Reality as we think of it, (as Euthyphro suggested a few thousand years ago). "Existence" ITSELF makes the deity "subject" to Reality, concurrently, and apriori, (existence vs non-existence). I love it when people refute themselves with their own words. It proves the deity can't be the creator of Reality, but exists within (necessarily *subject to*) a larger structure. Laughat

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Bucky Ball's post
23-04-2014, 05:23 AM
RE: Insurmountable gap?
(22-04-2014 08:18 AM)cjlr Wrote:  You have not demonstrated F,

A photon travels at the same speed in a vacuum given any photon. Let’s say F is this uniformity in the nature of photons. Do you agree F has been demonstrated?

(22-04-2014 08:18 AM)cjlr Wrote:  If something is unknowable - this is your exact assertion - then it is simply completely and utterly immaterial what qualities that thing has or even whether it exists or not, since it is unknowable.

Existence is that which can be perceived, either directly or indirectly. Indirect is via perceiving the behavior exhibited by things perceived directly. Dark energy exists – not because we can perceive it directly, but because of the perceived behavior exhibited by the universe. “F energy” (the cause of F) *may* exist – because we perceive the behavior exhibited by photons. Currently we understand a photon to be an elementary particle hence “F energy” is beyond our perception although we perceive its effect. Assume some day we have the means and ability to detect “F energy”, and we can perceive some property(ies) of it. We can then posit G as the uniformity in the nature of F particles, and question if “G energy” exists. Given my earlier point that humans know initially by sensing properties of things, we can never arrive at an ultimate particle/source – there will always be a thing known by its properties and a question of what causes the uniformity of those properties. Because there’s no endpoint we can achieve, we have to remain agnostic about a thing existing beyond our perceptual reach that explains the nature of what is within.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-04-2014, 07:41 AM
RE: Insurmountable gap?
(23-04-2014 05:23 AM)lots2learn Wrote:  Because there’s no endpoint we can achieve, we have to remain agnostic about a thing existing beyond our perceptual reach that explains the nature of what is within.

INCORRECT. Assertions without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
23-04-2014, 09:09 AM
RE: Insurmountable gap?
(23-04-2014 05:23 AM)lots2learn Wrote:  Because there’s no endpoint we can achieve, we have to remain agnostic about a thing existing beyond our perceptual reach that explains the nature of what is within.

Why the hell do you THINK I'm agnostic about the teapot orbiting the sun, and the 1957 Chevy orbiting Pluto ? We can't know what is beyond our perceptual capacity, now can we. Weeping

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: