Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 4:44 am

Ginkgo wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 4:37 am i think there is a big difference between and explosion and a faster than light expansion of space.

What do you think that "difference" is? Can you pin it down?

An explosion expands into existing space, a Big Bang expansion was the creation of space.

Ginkgo wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 4:52 am An explosion expands into existing space, a Big Bang expansion was the creation of space.

Oh. I see.

Well, do you think the BB was a caused event, or a completely uncaused one?

That's an important question to answer. Please give it some thought, and let me know what you decide; I'd be very interested.

All the explanations I've ever heard of the BB hold that there was something in place prior to it...usually oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, plasma...you know...basic elements just...there. But where "there" is, these explanations often avoid saying; and how these elements got to exist, the BB explanations don't even TRY to say. And what catalyst suddenly produced the explosion (or "expansion") when the elements had not done so before, this the conventional explanations also never say.

But of course the problem with all this is obvious: the BB isn't then an explanation of the actual first origin of things, but of how elements that had already been originated by something else came to explode. This makes the BB not "the Beginning," but a later stage in the formation of the cosmos. And it completely begs the question of where the cosmos originated in the first place. After all, a bunch of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and so forth just floating around "somewhere" is still a "cosmos" of a sort; and its existence itself needs a lot of explanation...

So the BB is really a non-explanation, when it comes to the origins question.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 5:01 am Well, do you think the BB was a caused event, or a completely uncaused one?

Causality still pre-supposes an arrow of time

When you pre-suppose an arrow you have already scored an own goal in terms of infinite regress.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 5:01 am So the BB is really a non-explanation, when it comes to the origins question.

Suppose matter/quarks/leptons/quantum fields are uncaused. Suppose the universe is uncaused. Does that satisfy you?

No, it doesn't. Because IF it satisfied you, then you wouldn't be asking the "origin" question to begin with!

ASKING the question invents the notion of "beginning"!

Ask a stupid question and you will get a stupid answer...

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 1:01 pm

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 5:11 am I.C.
Written like a true monotheist, but a particularly intelligent one.

Thank you. You're very gracious.

I'd like to continue this conversation with you, and believe that I can address the excellent points you've made by offering more details about the specifics of an alternative theory.

That would be good.

I'd like to figure out in advance how much you already know about concepts that will be applicable to our conversation, if we manage to have one. Do you know the Three Laws of Thermodynamics, or have a sense of them? Do you understand the concept of entropy? And if so, can you please briefly express your understanding?

Yes, I suppose I do have some grasp of that. Entropy is the rate at which the universe (and things in it) are redistributing energy towards the null-energy point (heat death).

But this is relevant to the very question I was raising, which you raised yourself inadvertently in your last message: do natural laws (such as, say, gravity, attraction/repulsion, entropy, or thermodynamic laws) pre-exist and condition the creation of the universe, or are they expressions of it. Because when we decide that, we have what we need to evaluate the idea of the necessity of either mono or dual First Cause explanations.

So I wonder, which do you think it is: first, the laws then the Creation, or all the laws coming into being AT the Creation?

Few people understand these concepts because they show up in basic physics, not in pop-sci. Whether you do or not is unimportant to me; I'm just trying to establish a conversational platform.

Fair enough. I look forward to hearing what you think, G.

I.C. I'll excerpt your most pertinent replies...

Yes, I suppose I do have some grasp of that. Entropy is the rate at which the universe (and things in it) are redistributing energy towards the null-energy point (heat death).

Thank you, but you need to know that your "grasp" consists of pop-sci bullshit. Entropy has nothing to do with "rates" which are time dependent. Entropy is not a function of time. Your physics knowledge is derived, as per most people, from pop-sci tv. That's okay. I just wanted to get a sense of who I'm writing to. We'll get along if you acknowledge that you have not graded out of a university-level physics course and drop the pretense that you know jack shit about physics, particularly thermodynamics.

You subsequently wrote

So I wonder, which do you think it is: first, the laws then the Creation, or all the laws coming into being AT the Creation?

There is a distinction between laws, which consist of arbitrary rules invented by humans, and principles. What physicists refer to as the Three Laws of Thermodynamics are actually principles-- concepts that describe how things actually work. Whereas laws can be freely created by a designated gaggle of self-appointed officials or some dumbfuck king or dictator, principles cannot be created, not even by an otherwise almighty God.

"Creation" involves utilizing existing immutable principles such as those of thermodynamics to construct the dynamic geometries that we perceive as "laws of physics."

By way of example, consider our use of trees. We cut them down; kill them, then slice them up into structural forms like 2x4''s or larger beams, rafters, siding, etc; which we assemble into buildings according to geometrical principles of force distribution otherwise known as "laws," described within basic physics as "statics."

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:01 am There is a distinction between laws, which consist of arbitrary rules invented by humans, and principles. What physicists refer to as the Three Laws of Thermodynamics are actually principles-- concepts that describe how things actually work. Whereas laws can be freely created by a designated gaggle of self-appointed officials or some dumbfuck king or dictator, principles cannot be created, not even by an otherwise almighty God.

On the contrary. Principles are created by man. We synthesize our principles from our body of knowledge and level of empirical understanding. Some principles even contradict each other. Some principles are (ultimately) falsified themselves. Principles are just heuristics.

If the 2nd "principle" of thermodynamics was insurmountable even by an almighty God then this wouldn't happen:

https://phys.org/news/2019-03-physicist ... antum.html
Physicists reverse time using quantum computer
March 13, 2019, Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology

I thought I had seen it all, but to worship principles as Gods is definitely new one for me.
The human psyche just cannot resist the urge to invent sacred cows, eh?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 2:52 am

Oh, I find that highly doubtful. Are you suggesting that "being religious" is more likely to get people elected these days? There are an awful lot of counter-examples to that right now. In fact, having any firm "religious" convictions or background is likely to wreck your chances. People with very flexible morals are the ones getting elected right now...at least in North America and in the UK for sure.

Yes, people still prefer a religious leader. While more liberal leaders will keep this private, it is understood they appear secular only to evade discrimination BETWEEN different religious groups. We are only more secular recently and this novelty alone isn't sufficient to overthrow centuries of believers...

No, I don't find that plausible. Nominal religiosity can maybe be used to impart a shallow appearance of moral earnestness, but not profound religious convictions. In fact, there's a big debate in the US over whether or not a religious person can even be a public official. And in Canada, nobody in power right now shows any sign of religious conviction at all. As for the UK, nominal Anglicanism is maybe still palatable, but that's a national tradition only. In all of those jurisdictions, religion is an impediment not an asset when somebody's trying to get elected.

As for science funding, do you actually have any evidence that religious people are attempting and succeeding in preventing any secular science funding right now? I'd be interested in seeing that. I've never seen anything like that.

Well are oddly out of the loop. [And I actually get involved in politics here in Canada as well as to the U.S.]

But I'm not interested in digressing to this concern. Let's stick with the Cosmological theories themselves because if you make comparisons to the simplest distinctions between Steady State and the Big Bang theory, my argument begins there. We can do this if you want but you even seemed to run to this harder political question rather than to the science and logic regarding origin theories themselves.

Certainly, at least as far as the origins of the BB are concerned, note who originated it:

In 1927, the Belgian Catholic priest Georges Lemaître proposed an expanding model for the universe to explain the observed redshifts of spiral nebulae, and calculated the Hubble law.

History of the Big Bang

Yeah, but that's a case of what we call "the genetic fallacy." You can't reasonably discredit a theory because of its source. (Even a practiced liar tells the truth at least 50% of the time, just to succeed in being liar.) So one must judge the theory on its own merits, not by where it started.

Yes. I'm aware of this fallacy. But it helps to set up circumstantial evidence of motives. This was a real question early on and is significant to the history. You seem to absurdly diminish the significance of religion's role in politics. I assumed this is understood by default. So we'll have to deal with the actual theory's logic and go from there.

This might be going beyond your background?

Yeah, a bit. I know about it, but I don't know it deeply. My area is moral theory.

Okay. Then you at least pointed out before that a Steady State theory type would be threatening to the religious question of God. If you personally believe this, are you not concerned should the Steady State (or its type) be proven? The question is about possibility and likelihood of INTEREST to political interference at minimal.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:06 pm Sounds similar to Hawking's theory in "A Brief History..." But that's been demonstrated untenable, I understand. The mathematics won't work with real numbers.

I'm not a fan of his. He still holds onto the Big Bang theory and even his books lack sufficient explanation for someone like my own inquisitive level. Many do understand the problem I believe if we extend faith in their apparent capacity to reason. That is why I am suspect of politics. Btw, the politics refers to scientific institutions that depend upon their own heroes as well. It doesn't fare well should one's university graduates of note be demonstrated to be in error.

Yeah, I agree. Science definitely has a "politics" to it, especially when it comes to unpalatable results. I understand the Red Shift observations were, for a long time, quite contested because of ideological resistance from entrenched beliefs about cosmology. But in the end, the facts seem to have won that one. I'm sure it wasn't nice for those involved.

But then do you think it simply just IMPOSSIBLE that the 'truth' could not be held back for the institutes of science? That is, what gives you the confidence that the correct theories always win and it to be impossible for the crowd, so to speak, to never 'conspire' without literal handshakes?

I remember seeing an old TV show called "Longitude," that went over the history of the inventor of the chronometer. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--b0eaKGWwE). Its real message is, "Gee, it's often really hard to get scientists to believe you're right, even when you most definitely are." Political inertia in the scientific community is always a roadblock to new theories. Of course, Kuhn made a similar case...

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:06 pm Or have I missed your point somewhere here?

Yes. you're presuming a posited hypothesis that rationalizes speculatively. It is not necessary to have cycles.

It depends what you mean by "cycles," I suppose. No, it's not necessary for the world to repeat itself. Not "cyclical" in that sense.

But the cosmos cannot be eternal itself unless it's non-linear. If time is linear, then inevitably it will have to have had a beginning. And that's deducible from basic logic and mathematics, without any need at all for metaphysics.

Unfortunately, that gives a political, non-scientific motive for someone to prefer an eternal universe over a chronologically-linear one. However, that wouldn't be a good reason for preferring that.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Okay, at least you on your argument assuming 'cyclic' universes, you seem to agree that we CAN find logic sufficient to override a scientifc theory.

I'm actually not against a linear possible origin. So I do follow your meaning. If you have an infinity of possible worlds, you can treat any origin beginning in absolute nothing, for instance. But if any world originated of that can also have an end, then the beginning and end points are 'nodes' that are indifferent to any state of 'nothing' to other possible worlds. So because these CAN link back to back, in any infinite pattern, you should have at least the possibility of cycling. That nothing states a these nodes would not be literal nothings though for them to actually loop together on BOTH ends. Therefore it CAN have a linear origin with relative respect to an absolute state of nothingness as an origin.

Logik wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 5:40 am When you pre-suppose an arrow you have already scored an own goal in terms of infinite regress.

Of course! That's my point. We can't just presuppose something existing prior to the BB, if the BB is to be taken for an origin explanation.

But if we can't presuppose anything prior to the BB, then we would have to believe the BB was an uncaused event. But what is and "uncaused" event? How does that idea even make sense?

So now somebody's got to save the BB explanation. Right now, as we stand, if there was a BB, it wasn't the causal event of the origin of the cosmos.

Suppose matter/quarks/leptons/quantum fields are uncaused. Suppose the universe is uncaused. Does that satisfy you?

Does it satisfy science? That's the more important question.

Let us suppose, as most BB explanations do, the pre-existence of some "stuff" -- you suggest quarks, leptons or quantum fields. These are still not "nothing". To presuppose them is to say that a kind of cosmos (in the broadest sense) already existed before the BB -- there was "stuff," and it blew up. (There's no explanation of catalyst there, once again). So now again, the BB is not any kind of explanation of how the cosmos came about. It's only a secondary-phase type of explanation, a story about what (gratuitously) happened in the already-existing cosmos of quarks, leptons and quantum fields...

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:35 am [And I actually get involved in politics here in Canada as well as to the U.S.]

I know Canadian politics. Religiosity is not an advantage there. Canadian politics is functionally completely secular -- multicultural, open to all "faiths" and none, and driven by bizarre concerns like racist and sexist quotas.

We can do this if you want but you even seemed to run to this harder political question rather than to the science and logic regarding origin theories themselves.

Actually, if you recall, it was not I who made the claim that political considerations are related to scientific funding. If you're happy to drop that idea, I am; I really don't think it bears scrutiny.

Yes. I'm aware of this fallacy. But it helps to set up circumstantial evidence of motives.

Only if the "motive" is shown to be directly relevant to the claim. Otherwise, it's only an error. If a religious person (like, say Francis Bacon, the founder of the Scientific Method, say) can state a scientific truth, then to argue that the Scientific Method is wrong because Bacon was a devout Christian would be incorrect, of course.

You seem to absurdly diminish the significance of religion's role in politics. I assumed this is understood by default.

You were mistaken, I would suggest. It is not at all to be taken for granted. It would require showing. And I don't know if you could find any US or UK evidence of it -- I suspect little or none -- but in Canada, I can definitively say it is not currently justifiable.

Okay. Then you at least pointed out before that a Steady State theory type would be threatening to the religious question of God. If you personally believe this, are you not concerned should the Steady State (or its type) be proven?

No, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, from everything I can find, the SS theory is rejected by conventional science. But if somehow that reverses, I will obviously have to rethink how my Christianity relates to that. Until that happens, though, I'd be very silly to get "in a twist" over it.

Secondly, I have zero interest in impeding the inquiry. Why? Because God is truth. Like Francis Bacon, I expect to discover more about God through the progress of knowledge -- it wouldn't do to cut that process off. And additionally, if I did, I'd know I was "cooking the books," and thus would no longer be able to practice my faith in good conscience. And that would be bad.

So if I understand my own self-interests rightly, then I can only have an interest in seeing the facts advanced. Science must go forward, if it can...but where it fails to speak clearly (as when it advances a mere theory as fact, for example) I have good reason to hold off believing it...BOTH from the point of view of faith and from the point of view of doing good science.

Fair enough?

But then do you think it simply just IMPOSSIBLE that the 'truth' could not be held back for the institutes of science? That is, what gives you the confidence that the correct theories always win and it to be impossible for the crowd, so to speak, to never 'conspire' without literal handshakes?

Is there perhaps and accidental double-negative in your first line there? If I interpret it literally, I can't quite make it come out right. "Impossible..could not..."?

Okay, at least you on your argument assuming 'cyclic' universes, you seem to agree that we CAN find logic sufficient to override a scientifc theory.

Oh, absolutely. What Kuhn called "a scientific revolution." Such theoretical "revolutions" happen quite frequently, as he showed.

I'm actually not against a linear possible origin. So I do follow your meaning. If you have an infinity of possible worlds, you can treat any origin beginning in absolute nothing, for instance.

If you do that, then you have to abandon all science to achieve it. "Something came from absolute nothing" is evidently not a scientific explanation.

...in any infinite pattern...

An actual infinite regression of causes is both scientifically and mathematically impossible, and that's quite easy to show. If we have an infinite regress of causes, then the causal chain cannot even begin.

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:01 am Thank you, but you need to know that your "grasp" consists of pop-sci bullshit. Entropy has nothing to do with "rates" which are time dependent.

Entropy increases at a measurable rate over time.

There is a distinction between laws, which consist of arbitrary rules invented by humans, and principles. What physicists refer to as the Three Laws of Thermodynamics are actually principles-- concepts that describe how things actually work.

Absolutely. In our scientific conception, natural "laws" aren't "laws" in any legislative sense at all. They're simply scientific attempts to describe and predict recursions of phenomena. As you say, they're descriptors.

I understand that, and have been taking it for granted. I'm glad to have the chance to clarify that, if it was not yet understood.

Whereas laws can be freely created by a designated gaggle of self-appointed officials or some dumbfuck king or dictator, principles cannot be created, not even by an otherwise almighty God.

But these "laws" are descriptors of constraints that exist within nature. The constraints require explanation. For example, how is it that the strong and weak forces within the atom are precisely balanced, when we ought to have a vastly-more-probable expectation that they would not be. Or why is it that the amount of cosmic radiation is sufficient to be life-enhancing, but not so much as to be life-destroying, because our atmosphere is thick enough to shield us, but not so thick as to collapse...all of which is the most astonishing confluence of the unexpected.

Why are there constraints, and why are they set where they are, when there is a vast, vast number of ways they could have gone wrong, each time resulting in the end of all life and intelligence? That requires explanation.

...existing immutable principles...

If they already "exist," then you would be positing physical constraints that have no reason for being, but somehow exist eternally anyway.

Essentially, you'd be explaining the existence of the universe by saying it always existed. That would be a circular explanation, which would be unsatisfactory enough; but additionally, it would be a denial of observable scientific phenomena like the linear expansion of the universe.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 2:19 pm

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:35 amOkay, at least you on your argument assuming 'cyclic' universes, you seem to agree that we CAN find logic sufficient to override a scientifc theory.

Oh, absolutely. What Kuhn called "a scientific revolution." Such theoretical "revolutions" happen quite frequently, as he showed.

Kuhn gained his Doctorate in physics, which strongly informed his philosophy. It was not, in his view, logic that caused scientific revolutions, rather it was a crisis caused by the accumulation of data (facts, if you will) that a current theory couldn't explain. "quite frequently" is a relative term, but it should not be taken to mean that scientific revolutions are 'common'. As it happens, a biography I wrote about Kuhn is being published in the April/May edition of Philosophy Now, available soon in all good newsagents, but you can read the first draft of it on page 10 of this thread: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=25124&start=135

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 2:19 pm

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:35 am [And I actually get involved in politics here in Canada as well as to the U.S.]

I know Canadian politics. Religiosity is not an advantage there. Canadian politics is functionally completely secular -- multicultural, open to all "faiths" and none, and driven by bizarre concerns like racist and sexist quotas.

We can do this if you want but you even seemed to run to this harder political question rather than to the science and logic regarding origin theories themselves.

Actually, if you recall, it was not I who made the claim that political considerations are related to scientific funding. If you're happy to drop that idea, I am; I really don't think it bears scrutiny.

Yes. I'm aware of this fallacy. But it helps to set up circumstantial evidence of motives.

Only if the "motive" is shown to be directly relevant to the claim. Otherwise, it's only an error. If a religious person (like, say Francis Bacon, the founder of the Scientific Method, say) can state a scientific truth, then to argue that the Scientific Method is wrong because Bacon was a devout Christian would be incorrect, of course.

You seem to absurdly diminish the significance of religion's role in politics. I assumed this is understood by default.

You were mistaken, I would suggest. It is not at all to be taken for granted. It would require showing. And I don't know if you could find any US or UK evidence of it -- I suspect little or none -- but in Canada, I can definitively say it is not currently justifiable.

Politics is any convention of people who judge by consensus, who manage the administrative factors, and who are in control authoritatively by some force. The nature of science is an institution that evolves similar to governing institutes.

As to our constitution here in Canada, we conserve the French, Catholic Church, and the Queen (catholic Anglican). These are religious justifications. They do not protect me. We are free to have 'conscience', a freedom not worth mentioning. Religions ALWAYS have the utility to justify actions when or where they lose actual justification by its citizens. This tool is a fact and while you may pretend it isn't, you require proving the opposite. The norm is that religion underlies politics for the simple fact that morality has no natural ground to base it on.

Okay. Then you at least pointed out before that a Steady State theory type would be threatening to the religious question of God. If you personally believe this, are you not concerned should the Steady State (or its type) be proven?

No, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, from everything I can find, the SS theory is rejected by conventional science. But if somehow that reverses, I will obviously have to rethink how my Christianity relates to that. Until that happens, though, I'd be very silly to get "in a twist" over it.

Secondly, I have zero interest in impeding the inquiry. Why? Because God is truth. Like Francis Bacon, I expect to discover more about God through the progress of knowledge -- it wouldn't do to cut that process off. And additionally, if I did, I'd know I was "cooking the books," and thus would no longer be able to practice my faith in good conscience. And that would be bad.

So if I understand my own self-interests rightly, then I can only have an interest in seeing the facts advanced. Science must go forward, if it can...but where it fails to speak clearly (as when it advances a mere theory as fact, for example) I have good reason to hold off believing it...BOTH from the point of view of faith and from the point of view of doing good science.

Fair enough?

But then do you think it simply just IMPOSSIBLE that the 'truth' could not be held back for the institutes of science? That is, what gives you the confidence that the correct theories always win and it to be impossible for the crowd, so to speak, to never 'conspire' without literal handshakes?

Is there perhaps and accidental double-negative in your first line there? If I interpret it literally, I can't quite make it come out right. "Impossible..could not..."?

Okay, at least you on your argument assuming 'cyclic' universes, you seem to agree that we CAN find logic sufficient to override a scientifc theory.

Oh, absolutely. What Kuhn called "a scientific revolution." Such theoretical "revolutions" happen quite frequently, as he showed.

I'm actually not against a linear possible origin. So I do follow your meaning. If you have an infinity of possible worlds, you can treat any origin beginning in absolute nothing, for instance.

If you do that, then you have to abandon all science to achieve it. "Something came from absolute nothing" is evidently not a scientific explanation.

...in any infinite pattern...

An actual infinite regression of causes is both scientifically and mathematically impossible, and that's quite easy to show. If we have an infinite regress of causes, then the causal chain cannot even begin.

We can't argue further here on science. I am not allowed to present a case. But I will assert that the ancient scriptures you rely on were relatively secular in its day and yet have devolved into religions. [a separate thread-worthy discussion] Your 'god' initially began as a variable only for "a source". Since most also felt morality in its day would be defeated if no difference existed between good and evil, those who were EMPOWERED to rule commanded this 'source' be treated with the value of being 'good' [...as deriving the word, "God" in English comes from as well as to "(g)Oden" and in Egypt, "Aten".] These ARE only political justifications and the only certain means to enforce them is through religious imposition. The Adam and Eve story was not about a literal couple of people with a humanoid god. It was a cartoon used to explain in its relatively rational day what most tribes of all peoples minimally agreed to about humanity. Another example of secular reality being turned into religion.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 5:31 pm Politics is any convention of people who judge by consensus, who manage the administrative factors, and who are in control authoritatively by some force. The nature of science is an institution that evolves similar to governing institutes.

Similar to religious ones, in some ways. There's an "orthodoxy" to which scientists are expected to subscribe, and a "tradition" which they are expected to uphold, some aspects of which are good, but some of which stands in need of revision at times. There are penalties for failing to hold to "orthodoxy," including denial of funding and critical derision. There are "approved" kinds of research and "unapprovable" kinds, and you can be impeached for failing to toe the line.

As to our constitution here in Canada, we conserve the French, Catholic Church, and the Queen (catholic Anglican).

That's ancient history now. No religious tests for office (or scientific funding) are applied in Canada, or CAN be applied legally. Most politicians are functionally secular, no matter whether or not they have an religion in name. For example, your PM is allegedly a "Catholic," though how "Catholic" he really is remains a matter of speculation. His right-hand woman is a Muslim. His party includes homosexuals, atheists, agnostics, and a whole bunch of other religious and philosophical affiliations.

These are religious justifications. They do not protect me.

Actually, they do. They support the tradition of human rights that comes down from Locke.

We are free to have 'conscience', a freedom not worth mentioning.

Locke thought it was the primary and most important right, the basis of all human rights. I'd agree with him.

The norm is that religion underlies politics for the simple fact that morality has no natural ground to base it on.

No, I think not. "Politics" as such can be very secular. You'd have a hard time claiming Stalin or Mao were "religious." On the other hand, Mennonites, Quakers, JW's and Hassidim are very religious, but completely devoid of political ambitions -- in fact, their religious beliefs completely rule against any political involvement. But you're right to say that without an ontological base, morality has no grounds. That's fair enough.

We can't argue further here on science. I am not allowed to present a case.

Why? Who said you couldn't? It certainly was not me.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 5:48 pmThere's an "orthodoxy" to which scientists are expected to subscribe, and a "tradition" which they are expected to uphold, some aspects of which are good, but some of which stands in need of revision at times.

This is not true. No one has ever won a Nobel Prize for confirming what we already knew. It is only cranks and religious nuts who think there is a conspiracy to suppress 'the Truth'.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 5:48 pm

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 5:31 pm Politics is any convention of people who judge by consensus, who manage the administrative factors, and who are in control authoritatively by some force. The nature of science is an institution that evolves similar to governing institutes.

Similar to religious ones, in some ways. There's an "orthodoxy" to which scientists are expected to subscribe, and a "tradition" which they are expected to uphold, some aspects of which are good, but some of which stands in need of revision at times. There are penalties for failing to hold to "orthodoxy," including denial of funding and critical derision. There are "approved" kinds of research and "unapprovable" kinds, and you can be impeached for failing to toe the line.

As to our constitution here in Canada, we conserve the French, Catholic Church, and the Queen (catholic Anglican).

That's ancient history now. No religious tests for office (or scientific funding) are applied in Canada, or CAN be applied legally. Most politicians are functionally secular, no matter whether or not they have an religion in name. For example, your PM is allegedly a "Catholic," though how "Catholic" he really is remains a matter of speculation. His right-hand woman is a Muslim. His party includes homosexuals, atheists, agnostics, and a whole bunch of other religious and philosophical affiliations.

I'm simultaneously on a Canadian political forum with my thread: https://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/top ... nt-1341276 If you want to debate me on the particulars (or with other Canadians) you can check the site out. Trudeau's father was the one who put Multiculturalism (originally labeled, "Biculturalism" until they realized they'd be wiser to broaden it to 'appeal' to the masses as meaning "universal culturalism". It is actually selective Pluralism that is cleverly set up to PREVENT the loss of power of those 'established wealth' from being uniquely indebted to their past crimes. It's a means to transfer the burden of their own families wealth. By appealing to SOME groups through their auspices, they look like the good guys and pass on the debt to the "common" people. Read our Constitution. It initiates it with purposeful concern to avoid Americas First Amendment.

CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:

These are religious justifications. They do not protect me.

Actually, they do. They support the tradition of human rights that comes down from Locke.

Locke didn't invent anything unique to politics. The British royalty (or Aristocrats, in general) needed a means to defer their role in running the 'common folk' in a way they can have their cake and eat it too. The industrial age is what pushed the means of the rise in democratic powers.

We are free to have 'conscience', a freedom not worth mentioning.

Locke thought it was the primary and most important right, the basis of all human rights. I'd agree with him.

It's an appeasement in rhetorical fuzziness meant to appear as giving the demos sufficient satisfaction not to overthrow the established powers. We already HAD a 'right to THINK what we wanted in our heads.' The question should be whether we can express it. We are actually losing more 'freedoms' to speak and act here and one major reason the U.S. has all its problems.

The norm is that religion underlies politics for the simple fact that morality has no natural ground to base it on.

No, I think not. "Politics" as such can be very secular. You'd have a hard time claiming Stalin or Mao were "religious." On the other hand, Mennonites, Quakers, JW's and Hassidim are very religious, but completely devoid of political ambitions -- in fact, their religious beliefs completely rule against any political involvement. But you're right to say that without an ontological base, morality has no grounds. That's fair enough.

Wasn't it Nietzsche who said something to the effect that even if Nothing (Nihil) had been distinctly proven, it would be reinvented? [I don't remember the quote. But that he carried on with this realization and came up with the idea of a 'human' superman to possibly replace this?]

We can't argue further here on science. I am not allowed to present a case.

Why? Who said you couldn't? It certainly was not me.

You implied a faith in the status quo with an expectation of convention and asserted you had zero interest in investing to understand yourself.

uwot wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:07 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 5:48 pmThere's an "orthodoxy" to which scientists are expected to subscribe, and a "tradition" which they are expected to uphold, some aspects of which are good, but some of which stands in need of revision at times.

This is not true. No one has ever won a Nobel Prize for confirming what we already knew. It is only cranks and religious nuts who think there is a conspiracy to suppress 'the Truth'.

I happen to think this. I respect your efforts of expression in your book, but disagree with the Big Bang theory on logical grounds. I believe it has to be political because of how the Steady State was treated unusually. The INTERPRETATION of those who maintain the meaning of the CMBR, for instance as an 'empirical' closure to the Steady State theory, is causally 'weak' (via induction and other poor logic linking these) while the Big Bang is NOT allowed to be challenged even on strong deductive grounds. I can't present my own proofs anywhere without them being successfully deleted or hidden. The kind of bashing or treating people as cranks or conspiracy theorists successfully bullies those, who while mostly in accordance with being 'cranks', successfully immunize in behavioral patterns similar to religions.