Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote:That's true: but I did say "conventional sciences."

But don't worry. I had something specific in mind when I wrote that. I was thinking of those the verificationists tend to revere, such as physics, chemistry and, though they have somewhat less confidence in it, biology. Below those are the aspiring "sciences," such as psychology, anthropology, sociology, political 'science,' linguistics, history, cultural studies, and so on down...all disciplines whose pedigree is regarded as less purely "scientific" than the Big Three. ...

Physics is a science, Chemistry is a science, Biology was a taxonomy until molecules were discovered and then a wing of it became a science and now with the advent of DNA and Genes(the Tree of Life so to speak) Biology is a science. The others are not sciences but that is not to say they aren't worthwhile as taxonomy plays a useful role until or if one of the sciences gets a handle on something in the observations that they can then apply the scientific method and mathematics to and produce a new science. In my opinion it's always been a mistake to try and claim 'scientific' credentials for ones subject when it is obviously not but I can understand why this happens as the success of the current sciences make them the exemplar of how to explain things, that and that latterly funding can be easier. Personally a simple rule of thumb I use is does the subject have an Engineering wing, if so its most likely a science.

Now, where cosmology fits on that scale is an open question. ...

Not really, it's Astonomy plus Physics.

... not all that gets said under that umbrella is equally "scientific."

I blame a lot of this upon the current scientific publishing model.

Even more importantly, we do not have any reason to suppose (or obviously, any "scientific proof") that the conventional sciences exhaust the world of The Real...and good reasons to suppose that perhaps they do not. ...

And here we have it, the reason why IC wishes to introduce his 'conventional/unconventional' distinction as somewhere along the line he wants to squeeze his 'God' in. Hence he also introduces this 'The Real'(by-the-by you can always tell when bullshit is about to arise when capitals get introduced), what is this 'The Real' then IC?

After all, sciences are not things that pre-exist human beings, or even, in their present incarnation, pre-exist the last century; they are fairly recent, invented categories into which we slot certain kinds of facts that we glean by limiting ourselves to certain kinds of methods. ...

And again little digs at the scientific method to pry the way in for his 'God' conveniently ignoring that these 'limited methods' have transformed the world in just a century, so hardly limited. What he doesn't like is that the 'how' explanation has pretty much along the way destroyed the 'why' of religion for a huge chunk of their previous fiefdom.

They aren't "out there" waiting to be discovered, like the Moon: the conventional categories are a sort of "grammar" we use to keep our knowledge neat for our own purposes. ...

Or more just historical developments. Instead of your hierarchy(but you would like this given your beliefs) it's better to see the structure as an inverted-pyramid with Physics at the bottom and the rest moving up in layers and mainly based upon how much mathematics can be used or applied to what are effectively taxonomies(as I say I'm not deriding this).

But biology bleeds into physics and chemistry, ...

Other way around I think.

science itself owes a great deal to psychology, among other things. ...

"science" is a catch-all term, which sciences owe a lot to Psychology?

The borders are permeable; and none of the sciences contains, on its own, a complete and satisfying description of the world as we know it...which is why we have a bunch of them, and not one.

Except if they are permeable then in toto we have a pretty satisfying description of the world and look like to be increasing it daily, much to the chagrin of many religions and to top it off we get Engineering which materially improves our lot.

uwot wrote: The 'Universe' as a term, is becoming more and more contentious. Some people take it to mean everything (material) that exists; to some it is everything that was created at the big bang, to some it is everything that we have the means to see, and for others it is any old nonsense they happen to believe. Yer pays yer money and takes yer choice.

Sounds like some people are changing the definition of the term 'Universe' so that it then fits in with what they already believe is true or what they want to believe is true.

Why do people just not remain open to the facts instead of beliving (in) things first? The Truth beomes obvious to those who do remain open.

Anyway, I like the definition 'ALL there is' for the term 'Universe', for if we do not use that word, then we will have to create another word, or just use the term 'ALL there is', itself, to replace what 'Universe' once meant previously.

uwot wrote:There is good evidence that everything we can see all started in the big bang;

That "good evidence" is what My question was directed at. "... what evidence, (good or bad), is there that the Universe began to exist?" If the only (good) evidence that the Universe started or began to exist is because human beings can not see prior to that bang with their eyes, then to Me that is NO evidence at all. That just shows Me what human beings, in this day and age, are able to see and thus how far they can see and look. That short-sightedness is NOT evidence.

Human knowledge predicts that every action causes a reaction. Obviously any size bang is a reaction from some other previous action, no matter how small or big the bang is, therefore the big bang was caused or created from some other thing. If EVERY action causes a reaction, and EVERY effect needs a cause, then this process, in the "end", would ultimately be infinite, would it not?

What is obvious to Me and what I see is IF every bang is caused by some thing, then even that one generally referred to as the big bang must have been caused by some thing.

uwot wrote:so there is evidence that the 'Universe' in that sense began to exist, but there is bugger all evidence for anything beyond what we can see, for the simple reason that we can't see it.

If there is bugger all evidence for anything beyond what can be seen, then what leads people to begin to assume that the Universe began? If human beings can not see past the big bang, then there would be NO evidence at all leading any one to assume that the Universe began, right? So why do so many people assume that the Universe began to exist?

Is the main reason that so many people believe and assume that the Universe began to exist because throughout humans existence they have been telling eac other, with strong conviction, that the Universe began? Expressing it EITHER began from a big bang or from a God?

Another theory is human beings tend to look at and see themselves in other things, there is a word for this "putting oneself into others" or "seeing oneself in others" but i can not think of that word now, anyway could of human beings believing themselves began to exist also then start believing ALL things must also begin to exist, including the Universe, Itself?

If human beings can not see some thing, then why would they think it best to assume any thing? Would it not just be better to remain open till the facts are found? Then once the facts are found, thus seen and known, would that not be a better way to share the correct and right knowledge?

Maybe if human beings looked from what they know is right instead of only looking from what they can see with their eyes, then they to would notice that If EVERY action causes a reaction and EVERY effect was caused then the Universe did not begin, with any kind of bang.

For example I can see a human baby but I can not see before it "began" , that is I was not 'there', so I can not see from that advantage point. I can not see from that place of 'before,' where it came into being from, where it was caused or created, but we KNOW that a place existed before. Yet somehow when it comes to the the big bang for some people they want to just instantly assume that it inexplicably came from nothing, or came from an inexplicable God.

Now if we are going to say a human baby must of come from some where and/or it must have been caused or created from some thing, then why do some human beings not apply this principle to the big bang? Why do some people persist with the notion that the Universe came from nothing or from a God? Where is the evidence?

I am not going to say the Universe is infinite because I can provide no evidence for this, but IF EVERY action causes a reaction, the the Universe must be infinite.

attofishpi wrote:attofishpi wrote:
My popcorn is ready.

Popcorn? Well, then you need a movie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CulBuMCLg0

Atto:

I never heard if you liked my movie.

Immanuel Can wrote:

attofishpi wrote:attofishpi wrote:
My popcorn is ready.

Popcorn? Well, then you need a movie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CulBuMCLg0

Atto:

I never heard if you liked my movie.

"Liked" in what way?

ken wrote:"Liked" in what way?

The normal, non-YouTube way. But your name's not atto.

ken wrote:Sounds like some people are changing the definition of the term 'Universe' so that it then fits in with what they already believe is true or what they want to believe is true.

In fairness, it's historically contingent. Until the renaissance, the most widely accepted view was that the universe was confined by a spherical sphere of the fixed stars, beyond which was heaven, the size and shape of which was anyone's guess. The telescope gave us the means to see the 'universe' in more detail and it became clear that the 'fixed stars' were neither fixed, nor all the same distance. So in practice, the 'universe' came to mean the Milky Way. Greater resolution showed that fuzzy patches of light, like Andromeda, were in fact other 'island universes' and universe gradually came to mean all the galaxies we can see.

ken wrote:Why do people just not remain open to the facts instead of beliving (in) things first? The Truth beomes obvious to those who do remain open.

The truth is we are can only see so far. With optics, we are pretty much at the theoretical limit, Our current best hope of 'seeing' further is gravitational waves and while we can speculate about what they might reveal, we won't know until the results come in.

ken wrote:Anyway, I like the definition 'ALL there is' for the term 'Universe', for if we do not use that word, then we will have to create another word, or just use the term 'ALL there is', itself, to replace what 'Universe' once meant previously.

Some people use the term multiverse and the ' many worlds' interpretation of quantum mechanics is fairly respectable.

uwot wrote:There is good evidence that everything we can see all started in the big bang;

ken wrote:That "good evidence" is what My question was directed at. "... what evidence, (good or bad), is there that the Universe began to exist?"

Well, if you notice, I was using the definition of 'everything we can see'. The evidence that all began to exist is the red shift of galaxies.

ken wrote:If the only (good) evidence that the Universe started or began to exist is because human beings can not see prior to that bang with their eyes, then to Me that is NO evidence at all. That just shows Me what human beings, in this day and age, are able to see and thus how far they can see and look. That short-sightedness is NOT evidence.

It's absolutely true that we have no direct evidence of the conditions in which the big bang took place. But physics concerns itself primarily with what we can see. You can make up any story you like about the stuff we can't see.

ken wrote:Human knowledge predicts that every action causes a reaction.

Newton's third law of motion says that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, but that's not the same thing. We have no knowledge of the behaviour of nothing, because we can't create nothing in the lab.

ken wrote:Obviously any size bang is a reaction from some other previous action, no matter how small or big the bang is, therefore the big bang was caused or created from some other thing.

"Obviously" is a bad way to start any argument about the nature of reality.

ken wrote:If EVERY action causes a reaction, and EVERY effect needs a cause, then this process, in the "end", would ultimately be infinite, would it not?

It's the IF which is big, rather then the every.

ken wrote:What is obvious to Me and what I see is IF every bang is caused by some thing, then even that one generally referred to as the big bang must have been caused by some thing.

It's a tenable hypothesis, but not one we can currently test.

ken wrote:

uwot wrote:so there is evidence that the 'Universe' in that sense began to exist, but there is bugger all evidence for anything beyond what we can see, for the simple reason that we can't see it.

If there is bugger all evidence for anything beyond what can be seen, then what leads people to begin to assume that the Universe began? If human beings can not see past the big bang, then there would be NO evidence at all leading any one to assume that the Universe began, right? So why do so many people assume that the Universe began to exist?

You'd have to ask the people who think 'obviously' is a good place to start.

ken wrote:Is the main reason that so many people believe and assume that the Universe began to exist because throughout humans existence they have been telling eac other, with strong conviction, that the Universe began? Expressing it EITHER began from a big bang or from a God?

Short answer: yes.

ken wrote:Another theory is human beings tend to look at and see themselves in other things, there is a word for this "putting oneself into others" or "seeing oneself in others" but i can not think of that word now...

Anthropomorphism.

ken wrote:...anyway could of human beings believing themselves began to exist also then start believing ALL things must also begin to exist, including the Universe, Itself?

Some do.

ken wrote:If human beings can not see some thing, then why would they think it best to assume any thing? Would it not just be better to remain open till the facts are found? Then once the facts are found, thus seen and known, would that not be a better way to share the correct and right knowledge?

For all the crazy ideas people explore, ultimately that is how science operates.

ken wrote:Maybe if human beings looked from what they know is right instead of only looking from what they can see with their eyes, then they to would notice that If EVERY action causes a reaction and EVERY effect was caused then the Universe did not begin, with any kind of bang.

The moment people give up on their eyes, they stop doing science. It's that simple: if it makes no difference to what you can see, it isn't science.

ken wrote:For example I can see a human baby but I can not see before it "began" , that is I was not 'there', so I can not see from that advantage point. I can not see from that place of 'before,' where it came into being from, where it was caused or created, but we KNOW that a place existed before. Yet somehow when it comes to the the big bang for some people they want to just instantly assume that it inexplicably came from nothing, or came from an inexplicable God.

Now if we are going to say a human baby must of come from some where and/or it must have been caused or created from some thing, then why do some human beings not apply this principle to the big bang? Why do some people persist with the notion that the Universe came from nothing or from a God? Where is the evidence?

We are constantly in that place. As you read this, there are babies being conceived and born. The mechanics of that are reasonably well understood, but when that bundle of joy becomes a person, with rights, is a thorny issue. There is a broad spectrum of option, which in current western dialogue ranges from the potential, which prohibits the spilling of seed (Onanism, wanking to you and me. See ch. 38 Genesis for details. Long story short: God kills Onan for having a wank.), through a spermatozoa penetrating the cell wall of an ovum, to the fusing of nuclei, the division of cells, a whole number of stages in embryo development up until some shifting point that people who know tuck all about anything insist a foetus can survive outside a womb, all the way up to birth. Even then, personhood is still not uncontestested

ken wrote:I am not going to say the Universe is infinite because I can provide no evidence for this, but IF EVERY action causes a reaction, the the Universe must be infinite.

I'm afraid I don't follow the logic.

Immanuel Can wrote:Atto:

I never heard if you liked my movie.

Stop teasing, attofishpi, throw the doggy a bone. Look, he's getting snarly:

Immanuel Can wrote:...your name's not atto.

Really Mr Can; is that what Jesus would say?

ken wrote:I am not going to say the Universe is infinite because I can provide no evidence for this, but IF EVERY action causes a reaction, the the Universe must be infinite.

Just to nitpick here: You repeatedly misquote Newton's third law in your posts, and imply that it is fact, which is strange for somebody claiming no beliefs.
The third law states that for every action there is a reaction, and it is a law concerning conservation of anything that is conserved. Newton was speaking in particular of conservation of momentum, but it also applies to kinetic energy and energy in general.
What is NOT in that law is any mention of one causing the other. There is no such relationship implied by the law. It therefore has no application to the argument about there being an infinite past or not.

Strangely, the law would seem to contradict a beginning where there is suddenly a pile of energy from none, but in fact the total energy of the universe adds up to zero since a great deal of it is negative. Any mass in a gravity well has negative potential energy since there is no limit how far down the well it can fall, but one can go up only so far before hitting zero, a point where there is no more 'up'. In a heat-death of the universe, all positive and negative energy cancel out leaving nothing.

Immanuel Can wrote regarding how sciences are mutually differentiated:

They aren't "out there" waiting to be discovered, like the Moon: the conventional categories are a sort of "grammar" we use to keep our knowledge neat for our own purposes. ...

But the Moon is not necessarily "waiting to be discovered". The Moon might be entirely mind-dependent as might be the case for all that we naively take to be reality. In other words, the Moon may be an invention not a discovery.

Belinda wrote:But the Moon is not necessarily "waiting to be discovered". The Moon might be entirely mind-dependent as might be the case for all that we naively take to be reality. In other words, the Moon may be an invention not a discovery.

So if I throw a rock at your head you won't dodge?

Arising_uk wrote:

Belinda wrote:But the Moon is not necessarily "waiting to be discovered". The Moon might be entirely mind-dependent as might be the case for all that we naively take to be reality. In other words, the Moon may be an invention not a discovery.

So if I throw a rock at your head you won't dodge?

The rock is merely a figment of her imagination, till it hits her.

Belinda wrote:...the Moon may be an invention not a discovery.

If so (and I don't agree, of course), but if so, then that only argues even more strongly that science isn't something "out there," given in the world, but rather a human construct. Which was, of course, my point in using the illustration.

Harbal wrote:Have we got to the part where God creates everything yet?

Not yet, be patient.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Belinda wrote:...the Moon may be an invention not a discovery.

If so (and I don't agree, of course), but if so, then that only argues even more strongly that science isn't something "out there," given in the world, but rather a human construct. Which was, of course, my point in using the illustration.

Yes, I understand that was the point.

Harbal, Bishop Berkeley got to the point where the whole coherent array*** of what we take to be reality is mind-dependent, and that it is indeed God who makes it coherewith our perceptions. As Berkeley said(in Latin) "To be is to be perceived". Berkeleyan idealism. MRDA.

*** "the whole coherent array" includes being hit on the head by a rock.