Philosophy Now Forum

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

That's sort of the point of some early interpretations of quantum mechanics. Quantum objects, sub-atomic particles and photons for example, only appear to have momentum and position if they are being observed. In other words, if they are not being looked at, they're not there. This give rise to the apparently absurd notion that the Moon, being made ultimately of sub-atomic particles, is only there if someone is looking at it. As you say, that 'someone' was god, as far as Berkeley was concerned, although not for quantum mechanical reasons. Daft as it seems, it was taken seriously enough for a colleague of Einstein to comment: "We often discussed his notions on objective reality. I recall that during one walk Einstein suddenly stopped, turned to me and asked whether I really believed that the moon exists only when I look at it."

uwot wrote:

That's sort of the point of some early interpretations of quantum mechanics. Quantum objects, sub-atomic particles and photons for example, only appear to have momentum and position if they are being observed. In other words, if they are not being looked at, they're not there. This give rise to the apparently absurd notion that the Moon, being made ultimately of sub-atomic particles, is only there if someone is looking at it. As you say, that 'someone' was god, as far as Berkeley was concerned, although not for quantum mechanical reasons. Daft as it seems, it was taken seriously enough for a colleague of Einstein to comment: "We often discussed his notions on objective reality. I recall that during one walk Einstein suddenly stopped, turned to me and asked whether I really believed that the moon exists only when I look at it."

Can you tell me, uwot, do all or most modern physicists believe , probably implicitly, that the reality as expressed by modern physics is not mind dependent, and that science corresponds with reality?

If so, in your opinion, are they justified in this belief?

Belinda wrote:Can you tell me, uwot, do all or most modern physicists believe , probably implicitly, that the reality as expressed by modern physics is not mind dependent, and that science corresponds with reality? ...

What, I think, all physicists believe is that there is an external world open to reason and that follows law-like laws. What they think is that they can make models of this phenomenon and so far this has allowed them to accurately predict what's going to happen and explain how it happens. Any other metaphysics is pretty much immaterial to them unless of course one can show them reliably that this external world of phenomena is subject to 'mind' interference as they'd then be all over it like a rash as there'd be Nobel prizes involved.

If so, in your opinion, are they justified in this belief?

They don't really have this belief, at least those that bother to think about it don't.

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.

There is only infinity. The universe is a concept in Infinity which is just another concept for NOW, which is just another concept for PRESENCE which is just another concept for AWARENESS, which is just another concept for SPACE, which is just another concept for EMPTINESS.
Absence of ANY concept, there's just REALITY -as it is-
Any concept of ''what reality is'' ...is NOT & NEVER what it actually is.

The evidence of infinity is space itself IN which all things appear - nothing could appear without space - a space that has no border. It's impossible for there to be an edge to space where space can end. All reference points to beginnings and endings appear in Space which has never started or ended. Therefore, cause and effect is only relative to the space in which it happens which is without beginning nor end, meaning, cause and effect is illusory, in reality, nothing ever started or ended or moved or happened, since reality is everywhere and everything at once.

There's just infinitely (everywhere & everything) at once AKA (''one eye'')looking at itself as and through finite points of view AKA (''thoughts'') experiencing infinity simultaneously.... so to speak.

Things appear to happen IN space, but....HOW DOES SPACE HAPPEN? ..how is space caused? ..is what we should be asking our self, but never do?
Does the dog wag the tail or does the tail wag the dog?

Space cannot be grasped as a solid entity, yet solid entities appear in it, are sourced from it, appear and disappear in it. But, how can that which appears in space get a permanent foothold as an independent thing apart from it?
Just as one cannot drive a nail into space with a hammer, there is no where for it to hang.

Why worry about birth and death? where can things appear, where can they go? what is this? ...no one can really know.

Reality / Life is a very weird place. Children instinctively know that. Adults have invented their own version of this aching not-knowing. And I for one don't buy into anything human said about it. Don't tell me how to think, I'll just watch and think for myself, and make my own mind up about what it is, it's totally free to be what ever we make it to be.

“The universe looks more and more like a great thought rather than a great machine.” ― James Hopwood Jeans, The Mysterious Universe

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

Of course, that's not really plausible.

We may well say that the name "Moon" is a human convention. Perhaps the Vulcans call it "Kaleth" and Klingons call it "Zorg." But when they call it anything, it's because it's the same thing 'out there' that provoked us to call it "Moon."

However, science is not like that. Science is a set of artificial categories into which we slot certain kinds of knowledge we have of the real world. And we achieve science's sharp insights only by first agreeing to a particular, limiting methodology and a particular, limited set of acceptable observations. Things like meaning, morals, consciousness, self, and so on, as important as they are to everyday life, are ruled out of science before it even begins its work. They are ruled out in order to permit sharp and focused observation of the material world...just as a scientist looking down a microscope sees the invisible world more sharply than those in the room around her, but by reason of having her eye fixed to an oculus, cannot any longer see any of the people in the room itself. There are things science allows us to see, and things (meaning, morals, self, consciousness, identity, values, aesthetics...) that it does not permit us to consider since they are simply outside of its methodologies.

But that neither shows them to be unimportant or unreal. It merely shows we have no such thing as a material science for them, since they are not material. The physical entity "moon" is material and is a matter for science; the invention of the name "Moon" is a linguistic and cultural matter, and thus is not a subject of inquiry for physics, chemistry or biology.

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.

I did, and i don't actually care much for popcorn - or any food if i'm at the cinema, the cause and effect of the rustling and unwrapping of wrappers and the munching really does piss me off.
But alas - i'm at home where it is peaceful and i watched this video. It still raised more questions than it answers. I know from vast experience that God exists, but i have to side with atheists - it answers nothing - it only raises more questions - and to be quite honest, and ive had arguments along these lines, for all i know our brains are just on a shelf being fed all the sensory requirements to make up this reality - and God is in fact an A.I. of sorts.
The only reason i consider God to have some sort of 'divinity' is in relation to what ive been told re Christ.

I will always side with atheists if a theist is attempting to suggest that God's existence is outside of REASON.

attofishpi wrote: I will always side with atheists if a theist is attempting to suggest that God's existence is outside of REASON.

Why?

I'm always bemused when people say, "I'll never believe...X," or "I will always believe...Y." It seems to me a bit arbitrary. Why wouldn't new evidence count for you? And doesn't it disturb your equilibrium to know that reasons can be given, even if you're not fond of reasons?

Just asking.

Immanuel Can wrote:

attofishpi wrote: I will always side with atheists if a theist is attempting to suggest that God's existence is outside of REASON.

Why?

Understand, i will never side with atheism - i know it to be wrong - but it comes down to comprehending the nature of 'God' and some could disagree with one of my views of its nature - as i mentioned above - that it is not 'divine' as being 'God'.

Immanuel Can wrote:I'm always bemused when people say, "I'll never believe...X," or "I will always believe...Y." It seems to me a bit arbitrary. Why wouldn't new evidence count for you? And doesn't it disturb your equilibrium to know that reasons can be given, even if you're not fond of reasons?

Just asking.

Yes, i'm not sure that i have been given any new evidence. I do not read other peoples philosophies as i've always wanted to develop my own, clear of other thoughts, perhaps im at the age where i should.

We are still at the point of a primordial event. Unless you have a model\mechanism for such a thing, other than just relying on there being a thing called 'God' i'm left questioning your view. If its beyond reason, then its simply because we haven't developed the tools to comprehend it reasonably.

I believe there is a REASON for God's existence.

attofishpi wrote:I do not read other peoples philosophies as i've always wanted to develop my own, clear of other thoughts,

Well, that sounds fine, in a limited way...it's not a bad thing to make up your own mind about things, especially if one suspects one is of a misleadable disposition...

But to remain perfectly "clear" in that way, that would mean that you could have no benefit from the wisdom of anyone who had come before you. And to be ahead while not reading would require you to become Socrates, Aquinas, Hume and Camus all rolled into one. Are you the person who can make all their discoveries without their help?

If you're not that, then there's rich benefit for you to be found in reading those guys. Compare that to remaining "clear" of other thoughts, and I think you'll see where you ought to come down, perhaps.

perhaps im at the age where i should.

Essentially, that's what I'm suggesting.

I believe there is a REASON for God's existence.

Well, perhaps I can ask you this: do you believe God created reason itself? And do you think that reason, as a faculty, is a good or bad thing?

If God created reason, and reason is a good gift, then why would we think it wrong to use reason to get at least some kind of understanding of God?

uwot wrote:

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.

The exact point I was making in the question, why do people not just wait till the results come in, and thus have the facts, BEFORE they start assuming or believing any thing?

I wonder if others 'see' the coincidence between the continual advancement of telescopes and how much human beings continue to see further, and thus how much more they learn, discover, and more. There is no reason to presume that this will not continue. The more one is able to 'see', then the more they learn and thus know

uwot wrote:

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.

If people want to change the use of terms and/or definitions of words in relation to the Universe, then that is fine but if they want to reduce confusion and thus conflict then they will just have to stipulate that what they are referring to is still a part of 'ALL there is'. For example if people are going to say that there are different or more verses, then it has to be acknowledged that those things are still a part of Everything, which may or may not be infinite. Otherwise we are back to the problem of how are the people who say that some thing external to every thing, obviously every thing other than itself, created every thing else?

(By the way 'multiverse' implies a larger number of verses, when there may, in fact, be only one or two, or some, more verses. Obviously all of would belong in the One Everything.)

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. [/quote]

Yes I did notice you wrote 'everything we can see', which is why I have been questioning why do people believe (in) things, like "it all bega" before they have any real and true hard evidence. These people are yet to see things but they talk as though they already have seen them and know the answers.

What I have just come to notice, however, is that I was mistakenly taking your 'everything we can see' as though it meant 'Everything', literally meaning the Universe. I thought you were saying Everythin (ALL there is) began to exist. But as you explained earlier in this post that because people change terms and the definition of terms like 'the Universe', then what you are saying here is just 'every thing we can see' started AT the big bang. I now notice you were not saying that in relation to the bigger picture of 'ALL there is'.

Obviously 'everything we can see' all began to exist in what we agree was a big bang, but what exactly took place prior that is the problem here?

When you wrote, "... all began to exist ..", I literally thought you meant all, as in 'ALL there is'. My apologies for not noticing the subtleties here the first time.

uwot wrote:

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.

But I do not like to make up a story about what I can NOT see. I am, in fact, the one pointing out that human beings are continually making up stories, like " It ALL began in the big bang", "There was no time before the big bang", "God created everything", et cetera, BEFORE they have any direct evidence and knowledge of what actually did happen. I am the one asking, Why do human beings not wait for the results, and thus have the facts, BEFORE they start making up stories, and then spreading those stories around as though they are true facts?

The only story, which by the way I am just learning how to express, is the story of the Life I CAN see, and thus do know.

uwot wrote:

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.

"No thing", speaks for itself, does it not?

uwot wrote:

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.

Very true. My wrong.

I am, by the way, NOT arguing for or against any thing. I am just making comments about what I observe.

I certainly did not write that sentence correctly as it was meant to contain the words, 'IF every action causes a reaction, then', between 'obviously' and 'any'.

uwot wrote:

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.

Maybe not, but IF every action cause a reaction, then it must be true.

uwot wrote:

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.

Okay so science operates on assumptions. Good to learn and know this. Will come in very handy.

uwot wrote:

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.

It is possible to 'see' from not just the physical human eyes.

uwot wrote:

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.

Premise: If every action causes a reaction, then every reaction is a result of a prior action.
Premise: A reaction is just an action, itself, which obviously would then cause another reaction, which is just another action, causing another re-action, and so on.
IF you can agree with and accept the word 'Universe' to mean Everything, or ALL there is, and, the premises are true, then the Universe must be infinite.

Belinda wrote: As Berkeley said(in Latin)

No, doc, I'm not going to start posting in Latin just to please you.

Belinda wrote:Can you tell me, uwot, do all or most modern physicists believe , probably implicitly, that the reality as expressed by modern physics is not mind dependent, and that science corresponds with reality?

I can't think of any mainstream physicist who publicly argues that. Leonard Susskind and Gerard t'Hooft are both Nobel Prize winners that have made a case for the holographic principle, essentially that what we think is reality is a projected image. By and large, physicists tend to keep their philosophical beliefs private; there is still a better than evens chance that they will be told to 'shut up and calculate'. Steven Weinberg, another Nobel Prize winner, makes the point that "Physicists do of course carry around with them a working philosophy. For most of us, it is a rough-and-ready realism, a belief in the objective reality of the ingredients of our scientific theories." So yes, I think physicists generally do believe in objective reality, even if some of their ideas about what reality is are perplexing.

Belinda wrote:If so, in your opinion, are they justified in this belief?

From the point of view of a physicist, as long as the sums add up, and nature behaves itself, it's job done. It's only when theories stop working that new ones are needed. But yes, I do think they are justified, if only for pragmatic reasons. I personally think that the most likely cause of all the phenomena that give the impression that there is a universe made of some stuff, is some stuff the universe is made of. For all I know though, Berkeley was right and it is all an idea in god's mind, but it is simpler to do physics without having to take god into account.

ken wrote:...why do people not just wait till the results come in, and thus have the facts, BEFORE they start assuming or believing any thing?

At the end of the day, we can only construct a story from the information that is available to us.

ken wrote:I wonder if others 'see' the coincidence between the continual advancement of telescopes and how much human beings continue to see further, and thus how much more they learn, discover, and more. There is no reason to presume that this will not continue. The more one is able to 'see', then the more they learn and thus know.

Some people go to great lengths to make themselves familiar with as much information as possible, and make a story based on that. Some will do so with the fruit that falls at their feet, and some will be visionaries that who shape the facts to fit their dream.

ken wrote:If people want to change the use of terms and/or definitions of words in relation to the Universe, then that is fine but if they want to reduce confusion and thus conflict then they will just have to stipulate that what they are referring to is still a part of 'ALL there is'.

Unfortunately, you cannot rely on others to mean exactly what you mean. If you want to understand them, you need to get a handle on their context-you have to learn their language.

ken wrote:These people are yet to see things but they talk as though they already have seen them and know the answers.

People often make the mistake of thinking that because a story 'makes sense' it must be true.

ken wrote:But I do not like to make up a story about what I can NOT see. ... I am the one asking, Why do human beings not wait for the results, and thus have the facts, BEFORE they start making up stories...

The problem is that if you wait for all the facts, you will never make up a story.

ken wrote:...and then spreading those stories around as though they are true facts?

Well again, some people don't have the imagination to entertain more than one story.

ken wrote:The only story, which by the way I am just learning how to express, is the story of the Life I CAN see, and thus do know.

That puts you in the same boat as everyone else.

Immanuel Can wrote:

ken wrote:"Liked" in what way?

The normal, non-YouTube way.

Ah okay if it is in the 'normal' way, then yes I most certainly liked it. However i think you may discove that your normal is certainly very different from My normal.

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

Very true.