Everything That is Wrong With Modern Science

[webolife]

You [Alton and Plasmatic] claim that the universe is non-chaotic, I'll take that to mean ordered, and you call that causal, ie for every effect there is a cause. Because of your beliefs, ie atheism, you see only the possiblity that the causes are material, yet you also think that everything we see currently in the universe is inevitable. Of all the billion billlion other possible outcomes of the universe, this is the one that occurred. This despite the observation that even the slightest tweaking of the fundamental constants [and I would say geometry] of the physical order would mean an end to this universe. So what, you say, here we are, and that didn't happen... whew! You also say that the intelligence with which you observe this orderly universe is also an inevitable result of undirected material causes. "All of this just happened." And rather than face the inevitable conclusion that your natural philosophy is of the extremest form of "luck", and to avoid the obvious implication of a highly tuned "designed" universe, you simply redefine "non-random" as "causal" and vice-versa, and conclude that your very thoughts, feelings, and choices are predetermined, inevitable. You reduce the entire flow of the universe, of history and prehistory, and the future to a simplistic formula: atoms->molecules. I see this as a denial of reality, rather than an acceptance of it. It is what is is... no "cause" necessary, and this is called "causality". To say everything came about in this manner, without any real mechanism or evidence, is to reify an empty and ineffectual concept. Reify and deify.

[StevenO]

There must be order to the universe, otherwise we would'nt see it. The universe must be conserved otherwise it would disappear. And there must be chaos to it too, otherwise it would degenerate into nothing because of the principle of least action.

[Plasmatic]

Web in my case you are attacking strawmen.There isnt a thing in your comments that pertains to anything ive said . In fact the majority of it is in opposition to what ive said.So Ill ask a single question.

To say everything came about in this manner, without any real mechanism or evidence, is to reify an empty and ineffectual concept. Reify and deify.

What is the concept you are referring to?Causality? It pertains only to existence not non existence, which is what the idea of an origin of the universe pertains to.The concept causality is derived from grasping the fact that a things actions are related to its nature. Things are what they are and must act accordingly. Without existents theres no actions and no causality.

[webolife]

Web in my case you are attacking strawmen.There isnt a thing in your comments that pertains to anything ive said . In fact the majority of it is in opposition to what ive said.So Ill ask a single question.

To say everything came about in this manner, without any real mechanism or evidence, is to reify an empty and ineffectual concept. Reify and deify.

What is the concept you are referring to?Causality? It pertains only to existence not non existence, which is what the idea of an origin of the universe pertains to.The concept causality is derived from grasping the fact that a things actions are related to its nature. Things are what they are and must act accordingly. Without existents theres no actions and no causality.

If I understand correctly, you and Alton do not see eye-to-eye on the nature of chaos and order? If this is correct, my apologies for addressing you both together. As for existence vs. non-existence, my view of the origin begins with something that already exists, something you do not believe in, that caused all the other things in the universe to "proceed", and that continues to exist in [but not to be contained by] the universe, hence supporting the basic tenet of causality. So apart from the concept of an origin, you seem to concede that you believe the orderliness of the universe proceeds entirely from the nature of the things in it... So you would also concede that you believe the processes governing those things [eg, angular momentum, electricity, gravity, etc.] are undirected, although you do not believe in "random"? Perhaps you disagree with Alton that this undirected flow of nature also describes human behavior, thought, feeling, etc.? You seem to be once again saying that "things are what they are", and that's that. This allows you in your own mind to avoid the why?, how?, and to what end?, questions that drive and have driven the whole history of science. Not that the "what?" questions aren't plenty interesting. [Post-]modern science has IMO lost its sense of even the "what?" of science, replacing it with the more imaginative "what if?" stuff of science fiction. I like science fiction as much as the next guy, but it is not the same as evidence-based logically driven bonafide science. What you dispute about my approach is that I include in my philosophy of science that fact that all scientific methodologies begin from a faith/belief base. The proposition that one can conduct "science" without the operation of this belief base is IMO just plain wrong.

[Brigit Bara]

Grey Cloud said, "I feel I have been scolded by Mary Poppins!"
lol, and I probably missed your sly humor about the Big Arc, too. But I was thinking it could be more of a Grand Rheostat?
best, Brigit

PS, I thought to ask you what your alternative to the Bang age/time line of the Universe is. I saw you mention it on another thread, but I don't know where it is.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Brigit,
You wrote:

I thought to ask you what your alternative to the Bang age/time line of the Universe is.

From Dao comes One.

[Brigit Bara]

Grey Cloud,

I was hoping for something a little more physical, and not in metrics if possible. But that's alright.

Brigit

[Grey Cloud]

Grey Cloud,

I was hoping for something a little more physical, and not in metrics if possible. But that's alright.

Brigit

All is Mind, there is no physical. One is not a numerical value.
Brahma breathes out; Brahma breathes in.

[Brigit Bara]

Alright, then you won't mind if I borrow your car. And eat your lunch.

[Brigit Bara]

I would never do that! I am a nice conservative. Possession is nine tenths of the law.

[Brigit Bara]

All is Mind, there is no physical. One is not a numerical value.

I told you I don't understand metrics.


PS, I will try to find the other thread where you were talking about the subject. ~Bb

[tangointhenight]

What if you are one of those unfortunate individuals who doesn't see the emperor's new clothes? The first thing a mainstreamer tells you to do is go out there and publish through a peer-reviewed journal. Well, that's easier said than done. Imagine submitting a manuscript arguing against the existence of God to a peer-reviewed inquisition board comprised of 3 Christians 2 Muslims and a Buddhist. What do you think are your chances of being published?

Publish it online, then.

[TalonThorn]

Wow - no wonder the EU model is at such odds with mainstream consensus cosmology. According to Uncle Al, et al, the EU theorists' approach is completely bass-ackwards!

"It is the theory that determines what can be observed." -- Albert Einstein, mathematician, 1926



I think that just about sums it up.

This is so true. If you are looking for black holes you'll find them. If you are looking for something else, as the EU does, you won't find black holes. It's rather ironic or self-fulfilling that what we describe ends up describing what we see, so it's important to take it slowly and carefully.

A line is a perfect approximation of a circle, at the point where the line intersects the circle. Beyond that point, the line tends to gather way too much error factor to be of much use. However, if you add enough dark matter, you'll be able to fill in the gap and make it work anyway.

[TalonThorn]

and (drumrolls) 2+2=4. Theres your absolute.

Hey, not so fast with the absolutes. According to the Inca, I think it was, 2+2 obviously equaled 5.

(A 2-knot rope + a 2-knot rope = a 5-knot rope)

2 + 2 = 5 actually does compute, for large values of "2"

("2" is an abstraction of reality that exists only in the mind, which denotes something in reality that is between 1 and 3; if there are two such values that happen to be closer to 3 than to 1, then the result could very well be 5. )

[TalonThorn]

GC the question of free will has everything to do with omnipotence [if one cosiders the assertion even worth reviewing!]. If you can choose then "god" cant stop you or force you so theres something "god" cant do. But were off topic here.

And you might want to define 'evil'.

Its not my words so you might ask cowboy to do that for you.

Ah, but "god" does not need to stop you or force you; you are assuming that being able to make a choice gives you power, but note that that power could come from "god."

Evil is by definition that which goes against the dictates of "god."

(Sorry. I couldn't resist responding)