Philosophy Now Forum

Of course the "theory" of Serendipper and Greta is pure magical thinking. They are basically saying that out of 10^300 (or more) possibilities, our universe was the one that necessarily had to happen, because this is the one that happened. That's the ultimate circular non-explanation.

And on the other side we have the hallucinating people who talk to God or are God, and know things that can't be known.

Well, it's a good thing that I was mostly just commenting on this forum for fun, or out of boredom, with no expectations. I wrote 463 comments and didn't encounter any interesting, valid philosophical counterargument to anything I wrote. I was factually incorrect about two minor things, and that's about it.

But writing all these comments made me slighty better understand my own views, so commenting here was still useful.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 11, 2018 3:45 amIf it's a culture, you can be born within it. If it's a belief system, you can no more be born with it than you can be born married. And the fact that you could change your beliefs is a clear case showing that's true.

Mr Can, if you could provide examples of people spontaneously believing that the only method of salvation is to agree with whatever tripe you have extracted from your cultural references, you could start to build a case. I don't know if you have heard of the rest of the world, but just over your horizon there are billions of human beings that your god didn't, doesn't or will not love as much as it loves you; content instead to torture them forever, because it didn't care enough to tell them what to do.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 11, 2018 3:45 amWhat Hubble et al. observed was that the red shift effect showed stars and distant galaxies moving away from the epicentre of the universe.

Not so. What Hubble (and in fact Vesto Slipher before him) showed was that distant galaxies are moving away from us. Rather than take this at face value and conclude that we are the centre of the universe, as religious nuts believe, most versions of the big bang hypothesise a field that was once very tiny and is now very big; it is expanding, rather than exploding. There are plenty of theories about what this 'field' is, where it came from and why it grew when it did; one of which is that there is a bloke called God, with a son called Jesus, and he did it. It's a bit fringe.
All the sciencey stuff about red shift, the Doppler effect, Belgian priests and cosmic eggs is here with pictures: https://willijbouwman.blogspot.co.uk

uwot wrote: ↑Wed Apr 11, 2018 8:17 am I don't know if you have heard of the rest of the world, but just over your horizon there are billions of human beings that your god didn't, doesn't or will not love as much as it loves you; content instead to torture them forever, because it didn't care enough to tell them what to do.

That's not what God is.

It is out of the mind that the illusion of the universe arises.

God is the mind and the mind is like water...transparent, clear, tasteless, colourless, odorless, thoughtless, untouchable, arising as all the opposites to those concepts, and on realisation of the opposites being one and the same thing ..the illusion of ''my'' mind disappears until only God is again.

God is like the river that gives water to those who are thirsty in the sense that if thirsty persons approach the river and drink its waters, their thirst is quenched; but the river does nothing either to invite them to itself or to fill them with its waters..

.

Greta wrote: ↑Wed Apr 11, 2018 7:03 am "Life just appears magically" is a misrepresentation of S's, views.

Okay, let's suppose I am. Then give me one example that has been reproduced scientifically (rather than, say, merely speculated) of non-life turning into life.

Like me, he sees the entire edifice as alive.

What scientific warrant do you have for supposing basic elements like hydrogen and helium to be "alive"? And then, how does a non-existent universe (prior to the Big Bang) already have "life" in it? That theory won't float the boat, I'm afraid.

This is where natural selection comes in

"Natural selection" only applies where life already exists. Hydrogen and helium cannot "select" for anything.

According to Darwin, the first precondition of natural selection is excessive reproduction (there are three others, all of them requiring life to already exist, but let's just roll with the first). The non-living does not reproduce at all. So we don't even get past Darwin's first post on that answer.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Apr 11, 2018 3:27 pm

uwot wrote: ↑Wed Apr 11, 2018 8:17 am I don't know if you have heard of the rest of the world, but just over your horizon there are billions of human beings that your god didn't, doesn't or will not love as much as it loves you; content instead to torture them forever, because it didn't care enough to tell them what to do.

That's not what God is.

It is what Mr Can's god is.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Apr 11, 2018 3:27 pmIt is out of the mind that the illusion of the universe arises.

It would be very helpful if you could provide some actual evidence for this claim. Why do you think some people don't believe it?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 11, 2018 5:38 pm

Greta wrote: ↑Wed Apr 11, 2018 7:03 am "Life just appears magically" is a misrepresentation of S's, views.

Okay, let's suppose I am. Then give me one example that has been reproduced scientifically (rather than, say, merely speculated) of non-life turning into life.

Have you applied this probing scientific intellect of yours towards the virgin birth and resurrection?

More importantly, I would like you to watch this video. It is long and complex but IMO one of the most important pieces of work in the area of abiogenesis, and if you can stay with it (it took me several attempts to get through it) the implications are quite mind blowing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElMqwgkXguw&t=3105s.

My point is that reality is ultimately all one interconnected system, but with different parts. We are part of the biological and human technological systems of the Earth. Technically the Earth is not alive, but consider what it consists of - you, me, all manner of ecosystems that grew from, and are dependent on, its geological and atmospheric systems.

The only way that the Earth is not alive is technically , ie. it's not (strictly) cellular, has no (biological) metabolism and does not reproduce (yet) etc. However, to claim that the Earth is not alive is to consider biology separate from the planet and that is akin to claiming that our bones are dead but our flesh is alive. It's one living system, with some parts more animate than others.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Like me, he sees the entire edifice as alive.

What scientific warrant do you have for supposing basic elements like hydrogen and helium to be "alive"? And then, how does a non-existent universe (prior to the Big Bang) already have "life" in it? That theory won't float the boat, I'm afraid.

What scientific warrant do you have for supposing that the virgin birth and resurrection were true?

I do not believe there was nothing before the big bang BTW. I would also say that you'll find plenty of hydrogen and helium atoms in living systems. The nucleus of each one of those atoms is basically the closest substance in the universe today to the stuff of the Big Bang - and it's within everything we see and are. Meanwhile, what is the "nothingness" that lies between the nucleus and the electron clouds? Maybe the stuff of before the BB? (I don't think you enjoy this kind of speculation so I add it for others who do).

IC, this video may help you to get your head around the fact that non-biological things also change, interact and evolve, albeit more (but not completely!) chaotically. TED talk by Martin Hanczyc about the line between life and non life: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dySwrhMQdX4. Much shorter and more entertaining than the other, but the experiments are eye-opening.

Immanuel Can wrote:

This is where natural selection comes in

"Natural selection" only applies where life already exists. Hydrogen and helium cannot "select" for anything.

According to Darwin, the first precondition of natural selection is excessive reproduction (there are three others, all of them requiring life to already exist, but let's just roll with the first). The non-living does not reproduce at all. So we don't even get past Darwin's first post on that answer.

This kind of exacting technical requirement never seems to talk to come up with you when discussing creationism, virgin births, resurrections and miracles. I wonder why?

Selection applies everywhere. Two hydrogen atoms are be replaced in reality by helium atoms constantly in the nucleated cores of stars. The helium atom is selected in reality. Consider the Theia hypotheses - that the Moon was formed when a Mars sized planet collided with the infant Earth. Theia failed to persist while the Earth did. So we see the Earth present today rather than Theia. All of reality is like this - "survival of the fittest" applies to biology and is part of a broader dynamic "survival of the persistent" - that which exists today is either relatively durable or newly emerged. The relatively less durable and persistent phenomena dissipated.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Apr 11, 2018 8:11 am Of course the "theory" of Serendipper and Greta is pure magical thinking. They are basically saying that out of 10^300 (or more) possibilities, our universe was the one that necessarily had to happen, because this is the one that happened. That's the ultimate circular non-explanation.

A naive misrepresentation.

The speculations are not so far from those of many scientists, whom are presumably no more magically inclined than we are. To attack brainstorming in such a topic is out of proportion, as though you are some Walter Mitty-esque character imagining yourself in professional scenarios while effectively playing in a sandpit.

All we did was mention some possibilities for how things might happen; we are not claiming to present The Answer to It All. We'll leave that to you.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 11, 2018 3:45 am

Serendipper wrote: ↑Wed Apr 11, 2018 2:50 am People can't be said to choose the religion they're born into; I know I didn't have a choice for many years until I could somewhat shake off my bias and feel I could weigh things objectively in order to actually say I've indeed made a choice.

If it's a culture, you can be born within it. If it's a belief system, you can no more be born with it than you can be born married. And the fact that you could change your beliefs is a clear case showing that's true.

If one doesn't really believe something, and believe it by choice, then one's just nominal in one's beliefs -- one then doesn't actually know what one really believes at all.

What's the difference between "culture" and "belief system"?

Culture - the behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group: the youth culture; the drug culture.

You can't help the culture you're born into that imposes its beliefs upon you such that you have no alternative and no choice.

Here is the paragraph:

In physics, redshift happens when light or other electromagnetic radiation from an object is increased in wavelength, or shifted to the red end of the spectrum. In general, whether or not the radiation is within the visible spectrum, "redder" means an increase in wavelength – equivalent to a lower frequency and a lower photon energy, in accordance with, respectively, the wave and quantum theories of light.

And no it's not there. Not in the 2nd or 3rd ether.

I'm not sure what part of that you're not understanding, but I'm happy to expand. What Hubble et al. observed was that the red shift effect showed stars and distant galaxies moving away from the epicentre of the universe. The wavelength revealed that these things were not stationary at all, but were observably moving outward. The universe was expanding linearly, in other words.

If the expansion is accelerating, then it can't be linear. But even if it were linear, how do we know it has always been linear?

The implication of this was quite staggering, and quite clear: the universe itself was not eternal, but had an origin point in time and space, from which it was expanding at a measurable rate.

Implications aren't proof or evidence.

It's that tacit premise that is the problem.

It's not a problem to me.

And it won't be a problem -- if you're right about there being no origin to the universe, and hence no necessity of a Supreme Being to create it.

There could be an origin to the universe and still not require a creator that stands outside it. A whole forest can come from one acorn, but that doesn't mean the acorn was created.

Then your life will end, as will mine, and eternal darkness will follow for both of us. You will be proved right; but neither you nor I will ever know it.

I'm not sure. I can't imagine life being a flash of consciousness occurring between two eternal darknesses. First of all, something that happens once in eternity, never happens. Eternity necessitates infinite re-occurrence or never existing.

However, if you're not right...

What could happen? The only thing that can happen after death is the same thing that happened when I was born.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 11, 2018 4:05 am

Serendipper wrote: ↑Wed Apr 11, 2018 3:20 am I've asked about 3-4 times now for you to draw the line between life and nonlife: animals, plants, bacteria, viruses, prions, proteins, amino acids, organic molecules, molecules, atoms, quarks, energy fields. <---- draw a line in there or tell me ________ and _________ is where the line should go. And since you are the one drawing lines, the burden of proof is on you that there should indeed be a line there.

Actually, my response does something even better. It shows that a) we know that at one time there was no life in the universe: just basic elements floating in the vacuum of space (which must have also come from somewhere, but let's let that slide for a moment). So we know for a certainty that there was none at all of what we call "life."

Not only do I not know that, but I totally disagree.

Equally certain is that we have an abundance of life now. So there must be a line in there somewhere, even if you want to argue we don't know where precisely to fix it. You can argue about the exact position: but about the existence of SOME line, there's no rational way to argue.

If you don't know where the line goes, then how do you know it exists?

So here's the only question that matters: not "where is the line," but "how could there be any such 'line' at all" -- which we know there must have been.

How do we know that?

So you've been fully answered.

No you beat around the bush and didn't answer it.

Now the problem is this: how do you account for life suddenly appearing from non-living materials?

Easy: it never happened. Life does not come from nonlife.

So what we DO know for sure is this: at one time, the cosmos had no life in it. Now, for certain, it does.

I don't know that.

You think that basic elements are "living" entities? Unless you do, you ought to know that for sure.

Well they must be simplistic living entities or else there's some magic going on when they are assembled into more complex forms. Complexity doesn't engender new elements, but magnifies what already existed.

That's only a question for you within your theory. Mine has less assumptions and less problems to solve.

Au contraire: your theory requires us to believe that life just appears magically.

No it doesn't. Yours does. You think that elements + magic = life. I say life is eternal, exists in the elements, and is native to the universe.

Yes, I think you're trying to say within that paragraph that every probability is a certainty in an infinite set.

No: I'm pointing out the opposite. If you have infinite events, but only a finite set of possible combinations, you might make such an argument. But in an infinite universe, you have not only infinite recursions, but also an infinite set of ways these things can be recombined.

You've just paraphrased what I said succinctly.

Think of it this way: if you roll a six-sided die ten times, you can increase your odds of rolling a 6 over your chances of rolling a 6 once. But if your die had an infinite number of sides, then mathematically, no number on it could ever be expected to recur, no matter if you rolled it for a billion years.

Although an infinite die can't be a finite thing, so it's a nonsensical problem.

No such thing as infinity.

Actually, I would agree with that, if by "infinity" you mean "an actual infinity," as opposed to a merely mathematical construct, like pi. I would also point to "Hilbert's Hotel" as a good mathematical-philosophical illustration of this fact.

Circles likely do not exist in nature, but only the construct of math. In reality, circles are probably polygons leaving PI to be finite.

However, to say so certainly strikes a decisive blow against the idea of an infinite number of universes existing.

Yes, definitely.

Greta wrote: ↑Wed Apr 11, 2018 7:03 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 11, 2018 4:05 am

Serendipper wrote: ↑Wed Apr 11, 2018 3:20 amThat's only a question for you within your theory. Mine has less assumptions and less problems to solve.

Au contraire: your theory requires us to believe that life just appears magically. Chemicals turn into immensely complex living entities with finely balanced systems, and do it all by themselves. That's what I call a huge assumption.

"Life just appears magically" is a misrepresentation of S's, views. Like me, he sees the entire edifice as alive. In context, biological emergence is merely one wondrous emergence out of many - no magic needed. All that's needed for emergence are laws of physics that limit possibilities. Thus, when thresholds are passed, emergences can happen, and have happened.

In fact we are not only emergences ourselves, new things have emerged from us that are not us - corporations and intelligent technology - and when they increasingly meld, it will be a game changer. These largely automated corporations won't be magical either, just that as the parts integrate the entity becomes ever more capable of sustaining itself.

This is where natural selection comes in - it's the game of persistence. That which can persist, does so, and that's what we see today, and that's why today's reality is as it is. Meanwhile, that which cannot persist is what has been and gone. We exist at the end of a long line of survivors.

Right, but I would say instead of laws of physics existing first, the laws were discovered or evolved from prior constructions of environments. For instance, gravity being stronger didn't work, so that idea went extinct and what survived were the "laws" that worked within the environment that was previously established. My theory starts with no assumptions; just competition within prior environments and the first environment was eternal (the life property).

We have existence and nonexistence and within existence, we have being and nonbeing. Nonbeing isn't the same as nonexistence. A light can be on, off, or nonexisting. Likewise life can be: being, nonbeing, nonexistent. When a light is off, it has potential to be on. When a light is on, it has potential to be off. Likewise, life as nonbeing has potential to be. The oscillation of being/nonbeing constitute existence. Nonexistence is nothing and there's nothing within nothing to make something.

Serendipper wrote: ↑Thu Apr 12, 2018 12:34 amWe have existence and nonexistence and within existence, we have being and nonbeing. Nonbeing isn't the same as nonexistence. A light can be on, off, or nonexisting. Likewise life can be: being, nonbeing, nonexistent. When a light is off, it has potential to be on. When a light is on, it has potential to be off. Likewise, life as nonbeing has potential to be. The oscillation of being/nonbeing constitute existence. Nonexistence is nothing and there's nothing within nothing to make something.

Agreeing with you up to here, which I like, but what you refer to are relative poles in continua rather than absolutes, seen not only in other species but, more subtly, within ourselves.

For instance, some entities are almost nothing, being infinitestimal wrinkles in reality that appear and disappear in trillionths of a second. Others, like galaxies, are inconceivably huge, powerful and very firmly embedded in reality. Then consider the variant perceptions of lower order animals, and it seems that for some sessile species their awareness is perhaps akin to our deep sleep. Then there's many other degrees of awareness and wakefulness.

Your last sentence amused me because I've been in bother for stating that "there is evidence for something but not for nothing" (the idea of evidence for nothing is nonsensical, but funny in hindsight). I agree with the sentiment you are trying to convey, though. Seemingly the concept of nothingness can do to written and spoken language what it does to math

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Apr 11, 2018 8:11 am Of course the "theory" of Serendipper and Greta is pure magical thinking. They are basically saying that out of 10^300 (or more) possibilities, our universe was the one that necessarily had to happen,

It didn't have to happen, but is what did happen. If we could rewind the tape, I think it would play out differently.

uwot wrote: ↑Wed Apr 11, 2018 8:17 am https://willijbouwman.blogspot.co.uk

That's a great link! Especially the part about the atom. There's a few errors about light though. Light is not slowed by glass, or anything, but there's a phase shift when light is re-emitted that combines with the original that produces the bending and slowing effect. Opaque objects do not block light, but cancel it. As far as I know, nothing stops light. The "big bang stuff" could only affect light if it has charge.

This video should explain it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiHN0ZWE5bk

Greta wrote: ↑Wed Apr 11, 2018 11:28 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 11, 2018 5:38 pm Okay, let's suppose I am. Then give me one example that has been reproduced scientifically (rather than, say, merely speculated) of non-life turning into life.

Have you applied this probing scientific intellect of yours...etc.

I call "red herring."

Non-responsive. Got it.

Immanuel Can wrote: What scientific warrant do you have for supposing basic elements like hydrogen and helium to be "alive"? And then, how does a non-existent universe (prior to the Big Bang) already have "life" in it? That theory won't float the boat, I'm afraid.

What scientific warrant do you have...etc.

I call "red herring #2."

Whether I believe in global warming, little green men, gun control, or Marxist economics has absolutely zero to do with the problem of getting living things from non-living. You haven't got one single instance of the same being produced under any scientific conditions at all.

And yet this cosmology of yours is supposed to be "scientific" in some sense? Not unless it meets that challenge. You can call your beliefs your metaphysics, if you want, or you can call it wishful thinking, or you can call it the deliverances of your spiritual guru, if that makes it work for you. But the one thing you can't do is legitimately claim it's in any sense scientific, and to be preferred on any rational basis. It hasn't met the basic scientific test even once.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 12, 2018 3:21 am

Greta wrote: ↑Wed Apr 11, 2018 11:28 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 11, 2018 5:38 pm Okay, let's suppose I am. Then give me one example that has been reproduced scientifically (rather than, say, merely speculated) of non-life turning into life.

Have you applied this probing scientific intellect of yours...[re: believing in virgin births].

I call "red herring."

Non-responsive. Got it.

No, you chose not to acknowledge my response.

I certainly was responsive and was hoping you might have returned the same courtesy:

More importantly, I would like you to watch this video. It is long and complex but IMO one of the most important pieces of work in the area of abiogenesis, and if you can stay with it (it took me several attempts to get through it) the implications are quite mind blowing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElMqwgkXguw&t=3105s.

My point is that reality is ultimately all one interconnected system, but with different parts. We are part of the biological and human technological systems of the Earth. Technically the Earth is not alive, but consider what it consists of - you, me, all manner of ecosystems that grew from, and are dependent on, its geological and atmospheric systems.

The only way that the Earth is not alive is technically , ie. it's not (strictly) cellular, has no (biological) metabolism and does not reproduce (yet) etc. However, to claim that the Earth is not alive is to consider biology separate from the planet and that is akin to claiming that our bones are dead but our flesh is alive. It's one living system, with some parts more animate than others.

Immanuel Can wrote:What scientific warrant do you have for supposing basic elements like hydrogen and helium to be "alive"? And then, how does a non-existent universe (prior to the Big Bang) already have "life" in it? That theory won't float the boat, I'm afraid.

What scientific warrant do you have...[for believing in virgin births].

Immanuel Can wrote:I call "red herring #2."

Whether I believe in global warming, little green men, gun control, or Marxist economics has absolutely zero to do with the problem of getting living things from non-living. You haven't got one single instance of the same being produced under any scientific conditions at all.

And yet this cosmology of yours is supposed to be "scientific" in some sense? Not unless it meets that challenge. You can call your beliefs your metaphysics, if you want, or you can call it wishful thinking, or you can call it the deliverances of your spiritual guru, if that makes it work for you. But the one thing you can't do is legitimately claim it's in any sense scientific, and to be preferred on any rational basis. It hasn't met the basic scientific test even once.

Again, did not address my post:

I do not believe there was nothing before the big bang BTW. I would also say that you'll find plenty of hydrogen and helium atoms in living systems. The nucleus of each one of those atoms is basically the closest substance in the universe today to the stuff of the Big Bang - and it's within everything we see and are. Meanwhile, what is the "nothingness" that lies between the nucleus and the electron clouds? Maybe the stuff of before the BB? (I don't think you enjoy this kind of speculation so I add it for others who do).

IC, this video may help you to get your head around the fact that non-biological things also change, interact and evolve, albeit more (but not completely!) chaotically. TED talk by Martin Hanczyc about the line between life and non life: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dySwrhMQdX4. Much shorter and more entertaining than the other, but the experiments are eye-opening.

Immanuel, this was all very clearly and obviously written to you so I cannot understand why you would write as if I'd not written these things? Don't you realise how inconsiderate it is to pressure someone to go chasing back to re-quote because you wanted to focus on the fight rather than the content?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End of conversion (with you). I have no energy to waste on game players.