Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-03-2013, 03:14 AM (This post was last modified: 15-03-2013 03:38 AM by fstratzero.)
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(15-03-2013 03:06 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(15-03-2013 03:00 AM)fstratzero Wrote:  Quantum field theory

Such arguments are usually based on dimensional analysis and effective field theory. If the universe is described by an effective local quantum field theory down to the Planck scale, then we would expect a cosmological constant of the order of M_{\rm pl}^4. As noted above, the measured cosmological constant is smaller than this by a factor of 10−120. This discrepancy has been called "the worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics!".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant

Same page. Basically it means they need to work on their maths, and figure out what is going on.

Well if I am going to believe the laws of physics are all wrong, I might as well believe in God.
At this point I could say you are committing an all or nothing fallacy, and dismiss you as a troll, but I really think that knowledge of nature does indeed destroy the god's we used to explain it.

Also just because there is one mistake in quantum field theory doesn't mean it's all false.

They are mostly correct, and need work.

It's like having a computer program, and trying to write another program to resemble the first. With out the source code for the first program your program will have to be open for changes if the other program does something different.

This is how science works by trying to match our thoughts, and knowledge to reality. We leave our ideas open, and accept mistakes, correct those mistakes and try to resemble reality as much as we can. The better we get at creating accurate models of the world the better our ability to change it gets.

Granted we have knowledge of the natural world we are always making mistakes correcting them and moving on.

Lawrence Krauss’ Response to fine tuning


I tried to explain to him that the Cosmological Constant, which is perhaps the most confusing finely tuned parameter we know of in the Universe, is fine tuned in a mathematical sense, compared to the naïve value we might expect on the basis of our current understanding of physical theory. While it is also true that if it were much larger, galaxies would not form, and therefore life forms that survive on solar power would not be likely to form with any significant abundance in the universe, I also explained that if the Cosmological Constant were in fact zero, which is what most theorists had predicted in advance, the conditions for life would be, if anything, more favorable, for the development and persistence of life in the cosmos. Finally, even if some parameters in our currently incomplete model of the universe do appear fine tuned for human life to be possible, (a) we have no idea if other values would allow other non-human-like intelligent life forms to evolve, since we have no understanding of the locus of all possible intelligent life forms. And, beyond this, just as bees are fine tuned to see the colors of flowers which they can pollinate as they go about their business does not indicate design, but rather natural selection, we currently have no idea if the conditions of our universe represent a kind of cosmic natural selection. If there are many universes, for example, as may be the case, and as are predicted in a variety of models, none of which were developed to address God issues, we would certainly expect to find ourselves only in those in which we can live. All of these are subtle and interesting issues worthy of discussion by knowledgeable and honest intellects.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/lawrence-...z2Nb8FTNGN

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2013, 03:31 AM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(15-03-2013 03:14 AM)fstratzero Wrote:  
(15-03-2013 03:06 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Well if I am going to believe the laws of physics are all wrong, I might as well believe in God.
At this point I could say you are committing an all or nothing fallacy, and dismiss you as a troll, but I really think that knowledge of nature does indeed destroy the god's we used to explain it.

Also just because there is one mistake in quantum field theory doesn't mean it's all false. That would be like getting into one accident in a life time, and have your insurance raised really high because you are the car crasher.


They are mostly correct, and need work.

It's like having a computer program, and trying to write another program to resemble the first. With out the source code for the first program your program will have to be open for changes if the other program does something different.

This is how science works by trying to match our thoughts, and knowledge to reality. We leave our ideas open, and accept mistakes, correct those mistakes and try to resemble reality as much as we can. The better we get at creating accurate models of the world the better our ability to change it gets.

Granted we have knowledge of the natural world we are always making mistakes correcting them and moving on.

Lawrence Krauss’ Response to fine tuning


I tried to explain to him that the Cosmological Constant, which is perhaps the most confusing finely tuned parameter we know of in the Universe, is fine tuned in a mathematical sense, compared to the naïve value we might expect on the basis of our current understanding of physical theory. While it is also true that if it were much larger, galaxies would not form, and therefore life forms that survive on solar power would not be likely to form with any significant abundance in the universe, I also explained that if the Cosmological Constant were in fact zero, which is what most theorists had predicted in advance, the conditions for life would be, if anything, more favorable, for the development and persistence of life in the cosmos. Finally, even if some parameters in our currently incomplete model of the universe do appear fine tuned for human life to be possible, (a) we have no idea if other values would allow other non-human-like intelligent life forms to evolve, since we have no understanding of the locus of all possible intelligent life forms. And, beyond this, just as bees are fine tuned to see the colors of flowers which they can pollinate as they go about their business does not indicate design, but rather natural selection, we currently have no idea if the conditions of our universe represent a kind of cosmic natural selection. If there are many universes, for example, as may be the case, and as are predicted in a variety of models, none of which were developed to address God issues, we would certainly expect to find ourselves only in those in which we can live. All of these are subtle and interesting issues worthy of discussion by knowledgeable and honest intellects.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/lawrence-...z2Nb8FTNGN

Do you notice how quickly Krause jumps on the multiuniverse band wagon? Also he gives the hand wavy explanation that life might be able to form without the need of solar energy. I call this hand wavy because I don't see it being any different then the claim that God wrote his name on the side of the moon but his work was subsequently destroyed by asteroid impacts. The claim in isn't falsifiable in the least.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2013, 03:55 AM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(15-03-2013 02:04 AM)fstratzero Wrote:  
(15-03-2013 01:14 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I agree it can have many values. The question is why does it happen to have a value that allows for life?

Brian Greene suggest that the fine tuning of the cosmological constant is evidence for a multi verse, but the same argument can be made for the existence of God.

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=bf7BXwVeyWw
All those alternate values describe the world we have now, using different mathematics.

Now it's silly to think that because we exist the universe exists for us or on some special way that allows us to exist. We are the result of the universe, the universe is not the result of us.


I love the part where he uses multiple universes to show that all the constants are different in other universes, IE the multiverse theory.

“The history of physics has had that a lot,” says Krauss. “Certain quantities have seemed inexplicable and fine-tuned, and once we understand them, they don’t seem to so fine-tuned. We have to have some historical perspective.”



thats a standard escape of atheists. A unfortunate and bad one, which is hardly justifiable.

lets take only the finetuning of our galaxy planet sun moon earth system. There are so many parameters and distances that must be right, so that life can evolve, that alone
shows how silly the argument brought up by atheists actually is.

http://www.reasons.org/design/solar-syst...h-apr-2004

Probability Estimate for Attaining the Necessary Characteristics for a Life Support Body

less than 1 chance in 10^282(million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion) exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles.

SIZE AND GRAVITY: There is a range for the size of a planet and it gravity which supports life and it is small. A planet the size of Jupiter would have gravity that would crush any life form, and any high order carbon molecules, out of existence.
WATER: Without a sufficient amount of water, life could not exist.
ATMOSPHERE: Not only must a planet have an atmosphere, it must have a certain percentage of certain gasses to permit life. On earth the air we breath is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, and 1% argon and carbon dioxide. Without the 78% nitrogen to “blanket’ the combustion of oxygen, our world would ‘burn up’ from oxidation. Nitrogen inhibits combustion and permits life to flourish. No other planet comes close to this makeup of atmosphere.
OXYGEN: The range of oxygen level in the atmosphere that permits life can be fairly broad, but oxygen is definitely necessary for life.
RARE EARTHS MINERALS: Many chemical processes necessary for life are dependent on elements we call ‘rare earth’ minerals. These only exist as ‘trace’ amounts, but without which life could not continue.
THE SUN: Our sun is an average star in both composition and size. The larger a star is the faster it burns out. It would take longer for life to develop than those larger stars would exist. Smaller stars last longer but do not develop properly to give off the heat and radiation necessary to sustain life on any planets that form. The smaller the star the less likely it will form a planetary system at all.
DISTANCE FROM THE SUN: To have a planet with a surface temperature within the bounds for life, it must be within the ‘biosphere’ of a star, a temperate zone of a given distance from the source of radiation and heat. That would depend on the size of the star. For an average star the size of our sun, that distance would be about 60 to 150 million miles.
RADIOACTIVITY: Without radioactivity, the earth would have cooled to a cold rock 3 billion years ago. Radioactivity is responsible for the volcanism, and heat generated in the interior of the earth. Volcanism is responsible for many of the rare elements we need as well as the oxygen in the air. Most rocky planets have some radioactivity.
DISTANCE AND PLACEMENT FROM THE GALACTIC CENTER: We receive very little of the x-rays and gamma rays given off from the galactic center, that would affect all life and its development on earth. We live on the outer rim of the Milky Way, in a less dense portion of the galaxy, away from the noise, dust, and dangers of the interior.
THE OZONE LAYER: Animal life on land survives because of the ozone layer which shields the ultraviolet rays from reaching the earth’s surface. The ozone layer would never have formed without oxygen reaching a given level of density in the atmosphere. A planet with less oxygen would not have an ozone layer.
VOLCANIC ACTIVITY: Volcanic activity is responsible for bringing heaver elements and gasses to the surface, as well as oxygen. Without this activity, the planet would never have sustained life in the first place.
EARTH’S MAGNETIC FIELD: We are bombarded daily with deadly rays from the sun, but are protected by the earth’s magnetic field.
SEASONS: Because of the earths tilt, we have seasons, and no part of the earth is extremely hot or cold. The seasons have balancing effect of the temperature on the surface and cause the winds and sea currents which we and all life depend on for a temperate climate.
THE MOON: We have the tides that are very important for some species, but the very early collision of a smaller Mars sized planet and the earth is what caused the moon. It also tilted the earth on its axis and caused seasons. The earth and moon should more accurately be called a ‘two-planet’ system, as the size of earth’s moon is greatly larger in proportion to the earth, than any other planet. The moon early in its existence also shielded the earth from bombardment by meteor showers that were devastating. The craters on the moon are the evidence of that factor. No other planet has undergone such a unique event in its history.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2013, 04:16 AM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(15-03-2013 03:55 AM)Godexists Wrote:  thats a standard escape of atheists. A unfortunate and bad one, which is hardly justifiable.

lets take only the finetuning of our galaxy planet sun moon earth system. There are so many parameters and distances that must be right, so that life can evolve, that alone
shows how silly the argument brought up by atheists actually is.

http://www.reasons.org/design/solar-syst...h-apr-2004

Probability Estimate for Attaining the Necessary Characteristics for a Life Support Body

less than 1 chance in 10^282(million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion) exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles.

SIZE AND GRAVITY: There is a range for the size of a planet and it gravity which supports life and it is small. A planet the size of Jupiter would have gravity that would crush any life form, and any high order carbon molecules, out of existence.
WATER: Without a sufficient amount of water, life could not exist.
ATMOSPHERE: Not only must a planet have an atmosphere, it must have a certain percentage of certain gasses to permit life. On earth the air we breath is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, and 1% argon and carbon dioxide. Without the 78% nitrogen to “blanket’ the combustion of oxygen, our world would ‘burn up’ from oxidation. Nitrogen inhibits combustion and permits life to flourish. No other planet comes close to this makeup of atmosphere.
OXYGEN: The range of oxygen level in the atmosphere that permits life can be fairly broad, but oxygen is definitely necessary for life.
RARE EARTHS MINERALS: Many chemical processes necessary for life are dependent on elements we call ‘rare earth’ minerals. These only exist as ‘trace’ amounts, but without which life could not continue.
THE SUN: Our sun is an average star in both composition and size. The larger a star is the faster it burns out. It would take longer for life to develop than those larger stars would exist. Smaller stars last longer but do not develop properly to give off the heat and radiation necessary to sustain life on any planets that form. The smaller the star the less likely it will form a planetary system at all.
DISTANCE FROM THE SUN: To have a planet with a surface temperature within the bounds for life, it must be within the ‘biosphere’ of a star, a temperate zone of a given distance from the source of radiation and heat. That would depend on the size of the star. For an average star the size of our sun, that distance would be about 60 to 150 million miles.
RADIOACTIVITY: Without radioactivity, the earth would have cooled to a cold rock 3 billion years ago. Radioactivity is responsible for the volcanism, and heat generated in the interior of the earth. Volcanism is responsible for many of the rare elements we need as well as the oxygen in the air. Most rocky planets have some radioactivity.
DISTANCE AND PLACEMENT FROM THE GALACTIC CENTER: We receive very little of the x-rays and gamma rays given off from the galactic center, that would affect all life and its development on earth. We live on the outer rim of the Milky Way, in a less dense portion of the galaxy, away from the noise, dust, and dangers of the interior.
THE OZONE LAYER: Animal life on land survives because of the ozone layer which shields the ultraviolet rays from reaching the earth’s surface. The ozone layer would never have formed without oxygen reaching a given level of density in the atmosphere. A planet with less oxygen would not have an ozone layer.
VOLCANIC ACTIVITY: Volcanic activity is responsible for bringing heaver elements and gasses to the surface, as well as oxygen. Without this activity, the planet would never have sustained life in the first place.
EARTH’S MAGNETIC FIELD: We are bombarded daily with deadly rays from the sun, but are protected by the earth’s magnetic field.
SEASONS: Because of the earths tilt, we have seasons, and no part of the earth is extremely hot or cold. The seasons have balancing effect of the temperature on the surface and cause the winds and sea currents which we and all life depend on for a temperate climate.
THE MOON: We have the tides that are very important for some species, but the very early collision of a smaller Mars sized planet and the earth is what caused the moon. It also tilted the earth on its axis and caused seasons. The earth and moon should more accurately be called a ‘two-planet’ system, as the size of earth’s moon is greatly larger in proportion to the earth, than any other planet. The moon early in its existence also shielded the earth from bombardment by meteor showers that were devastating. The craters on the moon are the evidence of that factor. No other planet has undergone such a unique event in its history.


Without absolute knowledge of the universe, such probability calculations are terribly inaccurate. They are also only ever posited by creationists and those with biblical agendas, so they're not built to be mathematically sound, they're made to sound impressive to laymen (i.e. sheep like you). They have nothing but a long list of numbers, and NOTHING explaining how they came about determining all of those base numbers that they used for their calculation. Basically, they made them all up to fit their ideological needs, it's an a priori conclusion. They didn't determine the numbers, then draw a conclusion from them. They had a conclusion, and made up numbers to fit their predetermined answer. That isn't even bad science, it's flat our fraud and propaganda.

Try harder troll... Drinking Beverage

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
15-03-2013, 07:20 AM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
I'm not going to get into the fine tuning debate. I think it's a digression from the OP and it seems pretty obvious to me that there is life because there can be life, but that's me.

For all the people shitting on Wood and neg repping him for being a troll (when he's actually patiently responding in reasonable ways to people who are pretty much quite shamefully frothing at the mouth) be wary of the science in this issue.

If you watch Brian Greene's documentary The Elegant Universe, the point is made, by physicists, that there isn't actually any proof for either string theory of the multiverse theory. The math seems to point to it, but none of it can be tested. One physicist in particular points out that string theory should be considered philosophy, not science. This is not a notion that Greene hides from. He admits to it openly.

So do NOT suggest that there is evidence for string theory or for multiverse theory because there is NONE. You do a disservice to yourselves and, more importantly, to science if you suggest otherwise.

Hey, Wood.

If you want to believe that God exists because the universe is fine tuned for not just life, but for matter as well, which is the real reason that life is possible, then that's fine. But invoking science and math to do so seems pointless to me. All you really have to say is that God made the universe to support life. You don't need a proof because it's just a belief and there's no counter argument outside of, it could be explained as a natural phenomenon for a number of reasons, we just don't know which. None of this has to do with the question of demonstrating philosophical naturalism.

This particular argument isn't going to get anyone anywhere and I'm pretty sick of all of this witch hunt activity. The real trolls have revealed themselves here.


Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2013, 07:57 AM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
There may be about to be evidence for other universes. I'll let you look up why, where and how. And all you theists, you still have not told us what god you're talking about. Certainly you're not talking about the Hebrew god of the armies. I hope.

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
15-03-2013, 08:34 AM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
Hey, Bucky.

Thanks for being cryptic. Really helps advance the conversation. Call me when the verdict is in, until then, there's no evidence. Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2013, 09:55 AM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(15-03-2013 08:34 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Bucky.

Thanks for being cryptic. Really helps advance the conversation. Call me when the verdict is in, until then, there's no evidence. Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
So you don't like Bucky atm, as well as those who have neg repped a troll. What did you expect? No, seriously?

[Image: 3d366d5c-72a0-4228-b835-f404c2970188_zps...1381867723]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2013, 10:06 AM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
Hey, Cheap.

Uhhh, what? No but for real, what?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2013, 10:18 AM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(15-03-2013 08:34 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Bucky.

Thanks for being cryptic. Really helps advance the conversation. Call me when the verdict is in, until then, there's no evidence. Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

Snort. Did you make that up ? Very clever indeed.Weeping
Just like the gods. No evidence. Call me when the evidence is in. I won't hold my breath. (You have no clue what I was even talking about).

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: