Insurmountable gap?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-04-2014, 09:42 AM
RE: Insurmountable gap?
(23-04-2014 05:23 AM)lots2learn Wrote:  
(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?

I agree that photons exist. I agree that if you go around asking "why?" to everything you eventually get to "I don't know" as an answer. So what?

Anything else you'd like to propose must be coherently defined and substantiated.

(23-04-2014 05:23 AM)lots2learn Wrote:  
(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.

That's not yet meaningful.

This is just leading into the same old narrowminded obsession with contingent causality, isn't it?

(23-04-2014 05:23 AM)lots2learn Wrote:  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.

You don't get it, do you?

You are still presupposing "uniformity" as a discrete externally imposed phenomenon.

You are still presupposing, then, "an ultimate particle/source" to account for it.

You are still presupposing, then, that whatever that is, it is fundamentally unknowable.

You are still presupposing, then, that your feels about it (your own naive context-limited understanding) are somehow meaningful despite it being literally unknowable by definition.

Why should anyone care?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
23-04-2014, 06:16 PM
RE: Insurmountable gap?
All we are talking about here with uniformity is the principle that we can describe things in terms of their properties, and find other things that we classify the same way and have the same properties. We can describe a photon's properties and we predict that when we find an equivalent photon elsewhere (one with the same wavelength and polarisation, etc) it will exhibit the same behaviours. We can make predictions based on the properties of the ones we have and we find those predictions hold on the ones we do not hold in our hands. More generally we can make predictions about how radioactive decay and the like will occur based on what we can hold in our hands today and we find those predictions hold well into the past and at vastly distant scales.

Uniformity is not so much a force or a property of the universe, but is descriptive of how we explore the universe. We explore the universe by analysing what we have, and predicting that equivalent things elsewhere in space and time will behave the same way. When our predictions hold we consider that knowledge gained. When our predictions do not hold we try to formulate new predictions that explain the difference. We test those predictions locally and against new data sets elsewhere in space and time.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
23-04-2014, 07:48 PM
RE: Insurmountable gap?
(23-04-2014 05:23 AM)lots2learn Wrote:  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.

Let us assume for a moment that this is true. How does that imply anything meaningful or useful about the existence or non-existence of a deity or what the nature of said deity is? Outside the universe, reality and logic as we comprehend it with time, space, matter, energy, causation, and so on may not even exist. The very concept of something creating the universe before it began is utter nonsensical jibberish.

Agnostic only takes you to "we don't know" and perhaps also to "and neither do you." As soon as you try to add, "So perhaps it is..." you just begin tossing out random conjecture. That is why when someone starts speculating about the possibility that it could be a deity the other posters start throwing out all kinds of random nonsense that is equally unjustified conjecture... sure it could be deity, or killer spirit clowns, or the universe is the equivalent of an ant farm for a god's child, or we are a simulation and exist only virtually in a computer. The point isn't that these are stupid answers, but rather that all are equally as likely and justified possibilities as the existence of any specific deity, but no one would or should take any of them seriously, including the deity conjecture.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like djhall's post
23-04-2014, 10:34 PM
RE: Insurmountable gap?
(23-04-2014 09:42 AM)cjlr Wrote:  I agree that if you go around asking "why?" to everything you eventually get to "I don't know" as an answer. So what?

Do you agree that the “I don’t know” (or unknowable) is permanent? Albeit it can move along with scientific discovery, there is always a necessary unknowable at the horizon?

(23-04-2014 09:42 AM)cjlr Wrote:  You are still presupposing "uniformity" as a discrete externally imposed phenomenon.

Tell me the first of which point you disagree: 1: F exists, 2: “F energy” is what causes F, 3: F energy, if it exists, is permanently beyond our perception, 4: Imperceptible means without property / dimension, which means not within spacetime

(23-04-2014 09:42 AM)cjlr Wrote:  You are still presupposing, then, "an ultimate particle/source" to account for it.

My exact words were that we could never arrive at an ultimate particle. What I’m presupposing is that there may be some unknown thing (not ultimate). This is a valid supposition because 1: there is no natural cause for the observable phenomenon F, and 2: the only possibilities we can posit for F is that there is no cause or that there is. Suggest a third – I’m all ears.

(23-04-2014 09:42 AM)cjlr Wrote:  You are still presupposing, then, that whatever that is, it is fundamentally unknowable.

Unknowable beyond the fact that it may exist, yes. This is a valid supposition because we can’t perceive it, hence it’s unknowable.

(23-04-2014 09:09 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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.

You’re not agnostic about Dark energy the same way you are agnostic about the teapot right? It’s valid to posit the possibility of dark energy because we perceive the effect of the increasing rate of universal expansion. Similarly, it’s valid to posit the possibility of “F energy” because we perceive the effect of uniformity in the speed of photons in a vacuum.

(23-04-2014 06:16 PM)Hafnof Wrote:  All we are talking about here with uniformity is the principle that we can describe things in terms of their properties, and find other things that we classify the same way and have the same properties.

Properties are what we sense while uniformity is the fact that the things we sense continue to exhibit the same properties. Two different things.

(23-04-2014 06:16 PM)Hafnof Wrote:  Uniformity is not so much a force or a property of the universe, but is descriptive of how we explore the universe.

How we explore the universe: by observation, by hypothesizing and then testing by observation

Uniformity: the consistent behavior exhibited by the universe.

How we explore the universe != uniformity of the universe, although the former depends on the latter.


(23-04-2014 07:48 PM)djhall Wrote:  Let us assume for a moment that this is true. How does that imply anything meaningful or useful about the existence or non-existence of a deity or what the nature of said deity is?

Deity implies more ideas than what I’m suggesting, as do any of the other imaginary options that were being thrown around. If you agree that what I posit is true, then you agree that we cannot rule out “something” beyond spacetime. That’s the extent to what I’m looking to establish here. “Something” to explain the observable phenomenon - nothing of its nature is knowable, beyond that it exists. This is a different position than naturalism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-04-2014, 10:50 PM
RE: Insurmountable gap?
(23-04-2014 10:34 PM)lots2learn Wrote:  
(23-04-2014 09:42 AM)cjlr Wrote:  I agree that if you go around asking "why?" to everything you eventually get to "I don't know" as an answer. So what?

Do you agree that the “I don’t know” (or unknowable) is permanent? Albeit it can move along with scientific discovery, there is always a necessary unknowable at the horizon?

Sure. Every answer prompts a follow-up question.

So what?

That's first-lecture-of-epistemology-101 level insight. Are you going somewhere with this?

(23-04-2014 10:34 PM)lots2learn Wrote:  
(23-04-2014 09:42 AM)cjlr Wrote:  You are still presupposing "uniformity" as a discrete externally imposed phenomenon.

Tell me the first of which point you disagree: 1: F exists, 2: “F energy” is what causes F, 3: F energy, if it exists, is permanently beyond our perception, 4: Imperceptible means without property / dimension, which means not within spacetime

All of the above.

All are insufficiently defined. 3 and 4 are also inherently meaningless, and incoherent to boot, for several reasons, which I have already explained to you. "Energy" refers to a perceptible physical phenomenon. So that's out. To even apply the word "energy" (meaningless though it is!) is to claim to know something about the simultaneously unknowable. That's fundamentally incoherent - so there's that.

(23-04-2014 10:34 PM)lots2learn Wrote:  
(23-04-2014 09:42 AM)cjlr Wrote:  You are still presupposing, then, "an ultimate particle/source" to account for it.

My exact words were that we could never arrive at an ultimate particle. What I’m presupposing is that there may be some unknown thing (not ultimate). This is a valid supposition because 1: there is no natural cause for the observable phenomenon F, and 2: the only possibilities we can posit for F is that there is no cause or that there is. Suggest a third – I’m all ears.

I don't think you understand what "valid" means. 1, here, is nothing but pure, undiluted, weapons-grade baseless assertion.

"Cause" is a context-limited term. Causality is a contextual phenomenon. So 2, here, is yet more meaningless special pleading.

"It can't be disproven" does not a valid statement make.

"I don't know, therefore I do" is fundamentally ass-backwards.

If something is literally and definitively unknowable - your suggestion, not mine - then you don't, and can't, know anything about it. Where even the previous sentence is massively presuppositional in that it refers to an "it", which, so far as things we don't know are concerned, isn't something we know.

(23-04-2014 10:34 PM)lots2learn Wrote:  
(23-04-2014 09:42 AM)cjlr Wrote:  You are still presupposing, then, that whatever that is, it is fundamentally unknowable.

Unknowable beyond the fact that it may exist, yes. This is a valid supposition because we can’t perceive it, hence it’s unknowable.

"Valid". You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Let us review. You say there exists some unexplained phenomenon. So far, so good. You claim this phenomenon is inexplicable and unknowable. That is a baseless assertion, but, all right. You claim that you know something about this phenomenon. That is an incoherent baseless assertion. Hmm.

The valid parts boil down to this:
There are some things we don't know, and might never know.

Okay. Sure. That's a true enough statement.

...

So what?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
24-04-2014, 01:20 AM
RE: Insurmountable gap?
(23-04-2014 10:34 PM)lots2learn Wrote:  
(23-04-2014 07:48 PM)djhall Wrote:  Let us assume for a moment that this is true. How does that imply anything meaningful or useful about the existence or non-existence of a deity or what the nature of said deity is?

Deity implies more ideas than what I’m suggesting, as do any of the other imaginary options that were being thrown around. If you agree that what I posit is true, then you agree that we cannot rule out “something” beyond spacetime. That’s the extent to what I’m looking to establish here. “Something” to explain the observable phenomenon - nothing of its nature is knowable, beyond that it exists. This is a different position than naturalism.
I certainly agree that we cannot currently rule out "something" beyond spacetime, and I'd agree it is possible we may never be able to. However, that doesn't seem relevant to anything unless there is another step in the thought process. There are lots of things we don't know, so what is the significance of not knowing this?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: