Philosophy Now Forum

yearly calendars that don't have some correlation with planting, fishing, or hunting, are not worth the time...

-Imp

uwot wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 8:14 amMy own view is basically that expressed by Richard Feynman in this clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM-zWTU7X-k Theories or explanations for why something works generally make no difference to how it behaves in practise.

I’ve seen that clip before a few times. What Feynman is saying makes perfect sense and not hard to understand. I don’t see what I said in any way contravening it. If there are multiple theories predicting the same result as typically occurs in its various formulations being a possible explanation of what is observed, there remains only one considered more accurate...or possibly that all failed in their own way without being condemned as complete failures.

The point is devising a theory that’s explanative and not merely predictive as Feynman himself pointed out. Being simply predictive doesn't even require a theory but a mechanical model which explains nothing of its causes. To the extent a theory prevails in explaining all phenomena under its domain it becomes less theoretical but never to the point of becoming absolute which evolution is not far from being.

Dubious wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 12:14 amThe best one can say is there's a higher probability of it being correct. As for being certain. I don't think one can be certain about anything. No theory in science can be considered dead-bolt certain except evolution. For that we have the planet as proof.

uwot wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 8:14 amI don't doubt evolution, but even that is underdetermined.

In what way is it “underdetermined”. What in our understanding of evolution on so many fronts underdetermines it?

Dubious wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 12:14 amWe can't even be certain there is no god with the exception that Jesus ain't IT. I'd claim total certainty on that.

uwot wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 8:14 amIf you allow the possibility of a god, then there is the possibility that it created everything.

That’s true, even the process of evolution without further interference left to its own devices of randomness, mutation, and selection in which the 6th day of creation – in a manner of speaking – would have manifested in a completely different way. That is, serendipity, a few times along the way, caused us to be here now always wondering whether there’s a god out there!

uwot wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 8:14 amI don't think anyone has made a compelling case that this is so...

Neither do I.

uwot wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 8:14 am...but I agree that the evidence that Jesus is a fictional character is overwhelming.

I don’t think he was a fictional character. Remove the biblical endorsements and he could easily have been like so many other wandering preachers rampant at the time. He was human and died on the cross as a human...until Paul resurrected him and screwed up the next 2000 years.

Dubious wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 11:49 pmIf there are multiple theories predicting the same result as typically occurs in its various formulations being a possible explanation of what is observed, there remains only one considered more accurate...or possibly that all failed in their own way without being condemned as complete failures.

The thing is there are many instances where there is no consensus. Scientists, like the rest of us, sometimes believe things for idiosyncratic reasons - aesthetic reasons; they might simply find one idea more beautiful than another for reasons no more or less profound than why some people like mustard on their sausage, and others ketchup. Hence hypotheses non fingo and shut up and calculate.

Dubious wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 11:49 pmThe point is devising a theory that’s explanative and not merely predictive as Feynman himself pointed out.

Well I would argue that's the point of philosophy. But that goes back to where to draw the line between philosophy and science.

Dubious wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 11:49 pmBeing simply predictive doesn't even require a theory but a mechanical model which explains nothing of its causes.

Mechanical, or better yet mathematical, but yeah, science works perfectly well without theories that explain causes.

Dubious wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 11:49 pmTo the extent a theory prevails in explaining all phenomena under its domain it becomes less theoretical but never to the point of becoming absolute which evolution is not far from being.

That evolution is called a theory is an accident of history. Or laziness. Or religious paranoia. There is absofuckinglutely no reasonable doubt that evolution occurs. Charles Darwin's theory was that the cause is natural selection, rather than intelligent design or divine intervention.

Dubious wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 11:49 pmWhat in our understanding of evolution on so many fronts underdetermines it?

Natural selection is a compellingly parsimonious theory, in my opinion, but who knows? Maybe Shiva is twiddling the knobs.

Dubious wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 11:49 pm...serendipity, a few times along the way, caused us to be here now always wondering whether there’s a god out there!

Yep, can't argue with that.

Dubious wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 11:49 pmI don’t think he (Jesus) was a fictional character. Remove the biblical endorsements and he could easily have been like so many other wandering preachers rampant at the time. He was human and died on the cross as a human...

Well, the key thing in the story is not that Jesus died on a cross, there was no shortage of crucifixions, it is that he came back from the dead. I keep referring to the Myth of Er, at the end of Plato's Republic. In that myth, Er is slain in battle. His body is returned to be cremated. On the funeral pyre, he comes back to life to tell us mortals about the afterlife; about the gates to heaven and hell, where souls are judged and go up to eternal loveliness, or are condemned to fiery torture. Add to that the story that Plato's mother Perictione, according to legend, was a virgin, and that the ensuing thousand years of western academia were devoted to assimilating Plato and christianity. Plato's Republic is a handbook for how to manage populations; critical to which is telling lies to everyone, but particularly the masses. I don't think it is a coincidence that that is precisely what appears to have happened.

Dubious wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 11:49 pm...until Paul resurrected him and screwed up the next 2000 years.

Who knows? But if you look at the rest of the planet and history, there really isn't anything remarkable about christianity. My favourite line on religion is still David Hume's. Religion depends on at least one miracle - that anyone believes it.

Dubious wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 11:49 pmI don’t think he (Jesus) was a fictional character. Remove the biblical endorsements and he could easily have been like so many other wandering preachers rampant at the time. He was human and died on the cross as a human...

uwot wrote: ↑Sat Jul 02, 2022 3:08 pmWell, the key thing in the story is not that Jesus died on a cross, there was no shortage of crucifixions, it is that he came back from the dead. I keep referring to the Myth of Er, at the end of Plato's Republic. In that myth, Er is slain in battle. His body is returned to be cremated. On the funeral pyre, he comes back to life to tell us mortals about the afterlife; about the gates to heaven and hell, where souls are judged and go up to eternal loveliness, or are condemned to fiery torture. Add to that the story that Plato's mother Perictione, according to legend, was a virgin, and that the ensuing thousand years of western academia were devoted to assimilating Plato and christianity. Plato's Republic is a handbook for how to manage populations; critical to which is telling lies to everyone, but particularly the masses. I don't think it is a coincidence that that is precisely what appears to have happened.

It's amazing how myth combines with fact to create miracles. Let's face it, we're a very gullible species which all the science in the world hasn't changed.

Dubious wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 11:49 pm...until Paul resurrected him and screwed up the next 2000 years.

Who knows?

uwot wrote: ↑Sat Jul 02, 2022 3:08 pmBut if you look at the rest of the planet and history, there really isn't anything remarkable about christianity. My favourite line on religion is still David Hume's. Religion depends on at least one miracle - that anyone believes it.

What is remarkable about Christianity are not its stories and myths which were already well-known at the time but the way it developed and established itself as the center of Western Civilization...its very real history. It's a lesson in how to maximize a simple story, a myth to create the reality which followed and had effect for so long. The miracle - more like a miracle in reverse - is in reifying a myth to be the main event in history...which we still do. There's one well-known on this forum who still can't escape from its shackles.

Dubious wrote:

Dubious wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 11:49 pm...until Paul resurrected him and screwed up the next 2000 years.

Who knows?

uwot wrote: ↑Sat Jul 02, 2022 3:08 pmBut if you look at the rest of the planet and history, there really isn't anything remarkable about christianity. My favourite line on religion is still David Hume's. Religion depends on at least one miracle - that anyone believes it.

What is remarkable about Christianity are not its stories and myths which were already well-known at the time but the way it developed and established itself as the center of Western Civilization...its very real history. It's a lesson in how to maximize a simple story, a myth to create the reality which followed and had effect for so long. The miracle - more like a miracle in reverse - is in reifying a myth to be the main event in history...which we still do. There's one well-known on this forum who still can't escape from its shackles.

I get up. Pop in to two threads, this one and the other have me fuming. I retracted what I stated re the Christian thing since it wasn't appropriate in this thread. Investing so much time in reading what amounts to heresay ain't gonna cut it out beyond fiction for some..
Personally, I decided there was more to this account of it all, had faith, got my arse kicked by God and learned from the SOURCE about Christ. And let's face it look around at all the beautiful Cathedrals that atheism has built for when at times in peoples lives, they may just need some solace, zilch.
You talk with such confidence that it is fiction, where I know you are wrong, I get a tad pissed off at the arrogance. Sometimes atheists piss me off more than evangelists!
Well, that's my morning venting done, carry on..

uwot wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 11:48 pm

Dubious wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 9:44 pmYou mean you regard my poo theory of the Big Bang unreasonable, unsustainable?

Well that's the nature of ontology. If the universe is a big fart, then it is a big fart. Nothing to do with reason.

Dubious wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 9:44 pmNot very scientific! Isn't it a prime directive of science that the probability status of all reasonable theories must be considered?

Nah. The prime directive of science is 'Does it work?'

Dubious wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 9:44 pmBut seriously! The reason there is something rather than nothing is because there was never any such thing as Nothing in the first place.

I think that is almost certainly true. What makes you certain?

Because it is BOTH logically and physically IMPOSSIBLE for absolutely ANY thing to come out of NO thing.

In fact besides ONE Thing is it is IMPOSSIBLE for ANY thing to come from just one thing, let alone NO thing.

uwot wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 8:14 am

Dubious wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 12:14 amA simplistic "does it work" attitude is fine regarding technology but in science even if something works resoundingly well in theory doesn't mean the theory is correct.

It depends on where you draw the line between science and philosophy. And technology. And mathematics. 'Science' is very difficult to define, but it usually is some blend of maths, technology and philosophy which varies according to the science, and even the scientist. My own view is basically that expressed by Richard Feynman in this clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM-zWTU7X-k Theories or explanations for why something works generally make no difference to how it behaves in practise.

I am STILL WAITING for 'you', people, to EXPLAIN WHY 'you' MAKE UP theories or explanations for WHY some thing works, INSTEAD of just LOOKING AT and DISCUSSING HOW they behave in practise.

In other words, WHY ASSUME what the truth MIGHT BE when thee ACTUAL Truth is HERE to be LOOKED AT, SEEN, and DISCUSSED.

uwot wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 8:14 am

Dubious wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 12:14 amThe best one can say is there's a higher probability of it being correct. As for being certain. I don't think one can be certain about anything. No theory in science can be considered dead-bolt certain except evolution. For that we have the planet as proof.

I don't doubt evolution, but even that is underdetermined. As you say:

Dubious wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 12:14 amWe can't even be certain there is no god with the exception that Jesus ain't IT. I'd claim total certainty on that.

If you allow the possibility of a god, then there is the possibility that it created everything. I don't think anyone has made a compelling case that this is so, but I agree that the evidence that Jesus is a fictional character is overwhelming.

Is there One Thing that could have created everything?

If yes, then could this Thing just be what the word 'God' means or refers to?

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jul 03, 2022 4:22 am
Is there One Thing that could have created everything?

If yes, then could this Thing just be what the word 'God' means or refers to?

The best candidate would be vacuum energy, meaning the amount of energy contained per cubic centimeter of empty space, aka, cosmological constant.

If that's what you want to call it though I can't see how calling it that would increase one's comfort level. Why not just call it what it is!

Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Jul 03, 2022 6:24 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jul 03, 2022 4:22 am
Is there One Thing that could have created everything?

If yes, then could this Thing just be what the word 'God' means or refers to?

The best candidate would be vacuum energy, meaning the amount of energy contained per cubic centimeter of empty space, aka, cosmological constant.

If that's what you want to call it though I can't see how calling it that would increase one's comfort level. Why not just call it what it is!

I'd just like to pop back in since God bothering is still occurring and insist from my understanding God formed FROM the universe, was not the cause of it. Did it cause a reality that we can then perceive the universe from, yes (in my humble opionion).

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Jul 03, 2022 7:11 am

Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Jul 03, 2022 6:24 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jul 03, 2022 4:22 am
Is there One Thing that could have created everything?

If yes, then could this Thing just be what the word 'God' means or refers to?

The best candidate would be vacuum energy, meaning the amount of energy contained per cubic centimeter of empty space, aka, cosmological constant.

If that's what you want to call it though I can't see how calling it that would increase one's comfort level. Why not just call it what it is!

I'd just like to pop back in since God bothering is still occurring and insist from my understanding God formed FROM the universe, was not the cause of it. Did it cause a reality that we can then perceive the universe from, yes (in my humble opionion).

There isn't anything wrong, in my view, in considering god in that context. But god is/remains a variable in many people's minds to be initialized in whatever manner they prefer. For those like me, of which there are many, that variable simply does not exist or remains invariant to all propositions which include god as an explanation for anything.

I don't know why you would be upset. Concerning god, people can believe what they like; for some it serves a purpose, for others not so much or not at all. None of it implies that one part is better off than the other where our daily existence is concerned. We all struggle in the same way to make a go of it...until no-longer necessary.

Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Jul 03, 2022 6:24 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jul 03, 2022 4:22 am
Is there One Thing that could have created everything?

If yes, then could this Thing just be what the word 'God' means or refers to?

The best candidate would be vacuum energy, meaning the amount of energy contained per cubic centimeter of empty space, aka, cosmological constant.

There is NO WAY there could be a better condidate, to you?

Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Jul 03, 2022 6:24 am If that's what you want to call it though I can't see how calling it that would increase one's comfort level. Why not just call it what it is!

What is 'it'?

Is not EVERY 'thing' just what one calls 'it'?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Jul 03, 2022 7:11 am

Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Jul 03, 2022 6:24 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jul 03, 2022 4:22 am
Is there One Thing that could have created everything?

If yes, then could this Thing just be what the word 'God' means or refers to?

The best candidate would be vacuum energy, meaning the amount of energy contained per cubic centimeter of empty space, aka, cosmological constant.

If that's what you want to call it though I can't see how calling it that would increase one's comfort level. Why not just call it what it is!

I'd just like to pop back in since God bothering is still occurring and insist from my understanding God formed FROM the universe, was not the cause of it. Did it cause a reality that we can then perceive the universe from, yes (in my humble opionion).

This is another perspective, which i had not heard before, and which might just fit in PERFECTLY.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Jul 03, 2022 7:11 amI'd just like to pop back in since God bothering is still occurring and insist from my understanding God formed FROM the universe, was not the cause of it. Did it cause a reality that we can then perceive the universe from, yes (in my humble opinion).

Primordial ooze. Flux. Chaos. Cacoastrum.

The essential of the universe, in all its myriad forms and shapes. Essence.

Any and all combinations of form and shape exist within this essence. Eventually, of course, cacoastrum may deny itself. Order within chaos.

How many times is order created? The question has no meaning. A tree falls in the forest, and the universe hears it. Order doesn't last; cacoastrum will out.

The flux creates the essence of order, which is illiaster, which was the staff of life long before bread had the privilege.
It can't last, however. Conscious? Sentient? Self-aware? Perhaps these things exist for a timeless instant, only to be lost again before they can begin to understand. They may have shape; they may have the seeds of thoughts—none of this matters. One of them may be a unicorn, another a greyish stone of unknown properties, still another a girl-child with big brown eyes who vanishes before she really appears. It doesn't matter.

But let us give to one of these forms something new. Let us give it, for the sake of argument, an instinct to survive. Ah! Now the game is different, you see.

So this form resists, and strives to hold itself together. And as it strives, cacoastrum and illiaster produce more illiaster, and consciousness produces more consciousness, and now there are two.

The two of them strive; and then they find that they can communicate, and time means something now. And space, as well.

As they work together, to hold onto themselves, a third one appears. They find that they can bend the cacoastrum to their will, and force shape upon it, and command it to hold, for a while. They build walls at this place where the three of them are, and a top and a bottom.

Cacoastrum howls, almost as a living thing itself, and seeks entry. The three resist, and then there are four, then five, then six, then seven.

And the seven finish the walls, and the top, and the bottom and for a moment, at last, there is peace from the storm.

To Reign in Hell Steven Brust

Now back to what was referred to as 'the big bang', if there is NO one disputing that A 'bang' happened, then we can continue along here and UNCOVER whether that was the BEGINNING OF, every thing and every process, or just PART OF Everything and just ANOTHER PART in A 'process'.

Also, it appears NO one here is disputing EXPANSION. Some just like to CLAIM that it is the Universe, Itself, which IS EXPANDING, of which I CLAIM there is absolutely NO 'proof' AT ALL for. Some here will INSIST that there is 'evidence' for this, but they also admit that the sun's movement relative to earth is also 'evidence' that the sun revolves around the earth, which obviously speaks for itself.

Dubious wrote: ↑Sat Jul 02, 2022 10:33 pmWhat is remarkable about Christianity are not its stories and myths which were already well-known at the time but the way it developed and established itself as the center of Western Civilization...its very real history.

Well, I've made the case before that Rome was acutely aware of the efficacy of winning 'the hearts and minds' of the people they conquered. Rome was surprised by the resistance of Jerusalem and I think it is at least plausible that, instead of installing a statue of the emperor in the local temple, they sought to conquer by stealth and invent a new state religion, based on the prophecies of the old testament. It didn't come off in Jerusalem, but it worked a treat everywhere else Rome had any influence.

Dubious wrote: ↑Sat Jul 02, 2022 10:33 pmIt's a lesson in how to maximize a simple story, a myth to create the reality which followed and had effect for so long.

One which wasn't lost on Mohammed. Christians are very keen to take credit for western hegemony, but that only started in earnest with the Italian renaissance, the fracturing of christianity. So even if christianity has some responsibility, which I doubt, there certainly isn't any one sect that has been more influential Islam or Judaism, or even Hinduism and Taoism given the contributions from India and China to western science and technology.

Dubious wrote: ↑Sat Jul 02, 2022 10:33 pmThe miracle - more like a miracle in reverse - is in reifying a myth to be the main event in history...which we still do. There's one well-known on this forum who still can't escape from its shackles.

Well yeah, you get the likes of you-know-who that will insist anyone who doesn't think like them isn't really a christian - unless they happen to be a scientist.
Anyway; have you looked at any of these?
https://youtu.be/nXW6TD2TpLU
https://youtu.be/1ylMYL_yKwQ
https://youtu.be/nOw_TT79reI
Ostensibly, they're what this thread is about.