Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Apr 07, 2018 8:03 pmRight. So what did they come from? Why is there something, rather than nothing? Why is there anything, given that such physical laws as we have are mostly wildly against anything existing at all? And why does this allegedly accidental collocation of atoms-proceeding-from-nowhere have "laws" at all? That's surely terribly surprising.

Lie. "Laws" aren't magical entities that run things. We make up laws to explain the world.

It doesn't. We know that. Time is linear. Our universe has a beginning (long prior to the Big Bang, necessarily) and an end (called "heat death"). This has been scientific orthodoxy for half a century now.

Lie. That is ONE possibility. There are many scenarios, none of them is proven.

Actually, that's the reason the Multiverse Hypothesis was first produced. A linear universe requires an origin point, and origins require causes. If the universe is not eternal, then we have to ask, "What made it, and what made it what it is?" The MH is an attempt to escape talking about origins again...but as I said in my previous message, you'll find out it's a totally non-scientific and speculative model, not an empirical one.

Maybe it was first invented for that, but, lie, the multivese has become pretty mainstream in physics. Physics is a science.

In your last message. You said you were imagining the universe I proposed to you.

Lie, no one can imagine a whole universe or unimaginable things. And I didn't claim I can.

No, you can't. You can say it in words, but if you think you can imagine it, then you would be able to tell me what it looks like.

Lie, not all abstract concepts have to "look like" something.

Male-Female, and composed of six molecules only, who still works at The Daily Planet, and flies?

I can't imagine a six molecule Superman.

That's unkind. I was genuinely trying to figure out what you meant.

I doubt it

Actually, no. By definition, it's not. "Uni-verse" means "the oneness of everything that exists," not merely, say, "solar system" or "galaxy." So by definition, anything actually known scientifically to exist is part of this "uni-verse." A "Multi-Verse" means there have to be universes that have no relation to this one at all.

Lie, that definition was used before multiverse theories. That has changed significantly.

I was right. You're clearly thinking that "multiverse" means something smaller, and tied to the laws and existences we currently understand, like a cluster of galaxies or system of stars within the existing universe, not a multiverse. But if another galaxy or star-cluster ever communicated with ours, it would give evidence that OUR universe was bigger than we knew, perhaps; but it would not argue for a multiverse.

Lie, by multiverse I mean a multitude of unvierses.

Have you ever looked? I can't believe you have, if you make this claim. Even Richard Dawkins, who has spent his waning years trying to convince everyone that God is a "delusion" has frankly admitted that the Design Argument is psychologically very powerful (see the intro to The Blind Watchmaker, for example). And that's just one possible evidence.

Lie, I agree that it's psychologically powerful but that's not evidence for anything.

I'm not saying you ought to believe the Design Argument, or any other argument on the basis that I say so; but to imagine that no such arguments exist? Nobody, not even the most ardent Atheists, would say that, at least, not if they have any understanding of the issue at all.

Yeah I more like meant some kind of tangible evidence.

Non-sequitur, I'm afraid. you can't deduce the existence of other planes of being from the existence of this one. In fact, if this is indeed the "uni-verse," then there's not going to be another one, and this would argue, if anything, against the MH.

I think you only try to confuse the issue that's all. Pretty much everyone knows what is meant by a multiverse nowadays.

Well, the evidence suggests that the cat didn't see the man.

Don't you think invisibility is the eternal upon which the visible appears?

I think that most of this universe is space.

Isn't space invisible, and we see what is beyond the space, or in the space?

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Apr 07, 2018 8:23 pm "Laws" aren't magical entities that run things. We make up laws to explain the world.

That's not actually an answer. "Laws" can't describe regularities that do not observably exist. We might as easily ask, why do these very precise and narrow-window regularities (which we describe with "laws") exist.

That is ONE possibility. There are many scenarios, none of them is proven.

Sorry. That's just not true. Ever since Edwin Hubble, we've known that the universe had an origin point. Here I will quote Alexander Vilenkin:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.

Now, Vilenkin is not a Theist. He's just a cosmologist. But even he can't get away from the fact you simply want to deny. We could argue, as Vilenkin does, that perhaps it's not enough evidence to prove Theism conclusively: but as he points out, we really can't really argue that the universe had no origin.

Maybe it was first invented for that, but, lie, the multivese has become pretty mainstream in physics.

The MH has become a common conjecture among scientists. There's still not a single stitch of evidence for it; plus, there are problems even inherent in the idea of a "Multiverse Generator," since in itself that would need an explanation as to cause.

Physics is a science.

Yes. But MH isn't. It's a speculation. Science runs on empirical evidence, and for the MH, there is, and can be none.

Not all abstract concepts have to "look like" something.

But you said you could "imagine" it. How do you "imagine" something that has no "look" to it?

Male-Female, and composed of six molecules only, who still works at The Daily Planet, and flies?

I can't imagine a six molecule Superman.
Right. So we're back to the main point: "everything" doesn't happen. "Everything" isn't even rational or imaginable."

That's unkind. I was genuinely trying to figure out what you meant.

I doubt it

Well, I really was trying to have a nice conversation. But I don't think these things can go forward with someone who keeps gratuitously accusing you of insincerity. A certain amount of minimal politeness is always necessary, and maybe never more than when discussing from two different positions.

Best wishes.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Apr 07, 2018 8:54 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Apr 07, 2018 8:23 pm "Laws" aren't magical entities that run things. We make up laws to explain the world.

That's not actually an answer. "Laws" can't describe regularities that do not observably exist. We might as easily ask, why do these very precise and narrow-window regularities (which we describe with "laws") exist.

Laws require an authority to institute and enforce. All we can conclude from the information given is that some observations reveal regularities.

Physical laws are misnamed and the nomenclature is a holdover from theocracy.

That is ONE possibility. There are many scenarios, none of them is proven.

Sorry. That's just not true. Ever since Edwin Hubble, we've known that the universe had an origin point. Here I will quote Alexander Vilenkin:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.

Now, Vilenkin is not a Theist. He's just a cosmologist. But even he can't get away from the fact you simply want to deny. We could argue, as Vilenkin does, that perhaps it's not enough evidence to prove Theism conclusively: but as he points out, we really can't really argue that the universe had no origin.

I think all we can say with confidence is that the universe used to be smaller. Where is the evidence that it had a beginning? As far as I know, all we've done is extrapolate into the past and conclude, under the assumption the extrapolation is true, the universe must have had no size at one point.

What does "size" mean when viewed from outside the universe? What doe size mean when viewed from the inside? From the point of view of light, it still has zero size.

Maybe it was first invented for that, but, lie, the multivese has become pretty mainstream in physics.

The MH has become a common conjecture among scientists. There's still not a single stitch of evidence for it; plus, there are problems even inherent in the idea of a "Multiverse Generator," since in itself that would need an explanation as to cause.

Yes I think it just pushes the problem back and camouflages with language of infinity. Occam's razor should eliminate all that speculation.

Physics is a science.

Yes. But MH isn't. It's a speculation. Science runs on empirical evidence, and for the MH, there is, and can be none.

Yes by definition.

Not all abstract concepts have to "look like" something.

But you said you could "imagine" it. How do you "imagine" something that has no "look" to it?

Abstract is relative to what's its abstracted from. Within the set of parallelograms, a triangle is abstract. I can't imagine abstract from the universe.

Male-Female, and composed of six molecules only, who still works at The Daily Planet, and flies?

I can't imagine a six molecule Superman.
Right. So we're back to the main point: "everything" doesn't happen. "Everything" isn't even rational or imaginable."

That's a good point that I hadn't previously considered. Are there things which had no possibility of existing?

Walker wrote: ↑Sat Apr 07, 2018 8:40 pm Isn't space invisible, and we see what is beyond the space, or in the space?

The vibration of charge is what causes light, so anything without charge is invisible and transparent (dark matter, space).

Serendipper wrote: ↑Sun Apr 08, 2018 3:41 am Physical laws are misnamed and the nomenclature is a holdover from theocracy.

Theocracy? Do you literally mean "rule by God"?

I can't think we've had that for a very, very long time, at least in the West, if we ever really had anything like that at all -- certainly not since long, long before the Scientific Revolution and the advent of the concept of natural laws, I'm thinking.

So I'd be more inclined to see it as a kind of awkward metaphor, a slightly off way of saying, "regularities of physical phenomena."

I think all we can say with confidence is that the universe used to be smaller. Where is the evidence that it had a beginning? As far as I know, all we've done is extrapolate into the past and conclude, under the assumption the extrapolation is true, the universe must have had no size at one point.

Essentially. It's a bit more complicated than that, but that's how it works.

We can calculate the rate of expansion of the universe, and the distribution of matter in it. We can do this through things like "The Red Shift Effect." You could add in principles like entropy, velocity and so forth, and you get a series of converging calculations, indicating an origin point for this universe.

So all we do is rewind the tape, and we get to some original singular event, a "Big Bang," if you will, from which the universe is expanding. Not that that answers all questions -- one residual one would be, how did this original singularity infuse so much order into the universe that "exploded" so as to produce the conditions of planets and stars, let alone life.

But there's no cyclical model of the universe that works empirically with these observations. For example, the amount of matter in the universe is too widely distributed to allow for us to suppose a "Big Crunch" or reversal of the "Big Bang" effect, and this matter has exceeded escape velocity relative to any know scientific force or law. So it seems everything's going one way, not cyclically recollapsing; and without that, we have only one-way, linear time with which to work.

Yes I think it just pushes the problem back and camouflages with language of infinity. Occam's razor should eliminate all that speculation.

Agreed. There's a lot of smoke-and-mirors going on with the Multiverse Hypothesis and the idea that "everything happens somewhere." The former is at most a conjecture without empirical evidence, and the latter is premised on a very basic mathematical error. Neither is, at present, what one should regard as a genuinely scientific theory.

Male-Female, and composed of six molecules only, who still works at The Daily Planet, and flies?

I can't imagine a six molecule Superman.
Right. So we're back to the main point: "everything" doesn't happen. "Everything" isn't even rational or imaginable."

That's a good point that I hadn't previously considered. Are there things which had no possibility of existing?

Well, self-contradictory things, for example. A four-sided triangle. A married bachelor, a fallible Supreme Being...

And some would say, a civil engineer.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Apr 08, 2018 10:10 pm

Serendipper wrote: ↑Sun Apr 08, 2018 3:41 am Physical laws are misnamed and the nomenclature is a holdover from theocracy.

Theocracy? Do you literally mean "rule by God"?

It's a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God.

I can't think we've had that for a very, very long time, at least in the West, if we ever really had anything like that at all -- certainly not since long, long before the Scientific Revolution and the advent of the concept of natural laws, I'm thinking.

So I'd be more inclined to see it as a kind of awkward metaphor, a slightly off way of saying, "regularities of physical phenomena."

It's still going on to some extent: "In God we trust" and we have many laws of morality: drugs, gambling, prostitution, etc making the police essentially armed clergy.

Nearly all the great geniuses were theists who believed in laws to govern the universe and that idea is so ingrained in the population that one could live a lifetime while never even considering the possibility that they aren't actually laws, but observed regularities.

I think all we can say with confidence is that the universe used to be smaller. Where is the evidence that it had a beginning? As far as I know, all we've done is extrapolate into the past and conclude, under the assumption the extrapolation is true, the universe must have had no size at one point.

Essentially. It's a bit more complicated than that, but that's how it works.

We can calculate the rate of expansion of the universe, and the distribution of matter in it. We can do this through things like "The Red Shift Effect." You could add in principles like entropy, velocity and so forth, and you get a series of converging calculations, indicating an origin point for this universe.

So all we do is rewind the tape, and we get to some original singular event, a "Big Bang," if you will, from which the universe is expanding.

Yup, but that's making a lot of assumptions however. If we take a map of Kansas and try to project what is to the west based on what evidence is contained in Kansas, we'd never expect to find the Rocky Mtns nor the ocean. Assuming the expansion was linear or follows some other function is an assumption. It's possible that there is a size greater than zero for the starting point and before that, maybe the universe shrank or was the same size for all time until that time. Anyway, have we decided what "size" means when viewed from outside the universe?

Not that that answers all questions -- one residual one would be, how did this original singularity infuse so much order into the universe that "exploded" so as to produce the conditions of planets and stars, let alone life.

Well, a slowly expanding dust cloud is an explosion if we speedup the tape, so "explosion" is just a function of time and doesn't confer a new property per se, but carries connotations of a big mess of disorder, but I don't think that necessarily follows. Maybe or maybe not. Maybe the process can be better-described by "growing" rather than "exploding" or sterile terms like "inflating", especially if order is implied. We could say a plant is a spontaneous ejection of organics from the ground and then pose ourselves the question of how it became ordered.

But there's no cyclical model of the universe that works empirically with these observations. For example, the amount of matter in the universe is too widely distributed to allow for us to suppose a "Big Crunch" or reversal of the "Big Bang" effect, and this matter has exceeded escape velocity relative to any know scientific force or law. So it seems everything's going one way, not cyclically recollapsing; and without that, we have only one-way, linear time with which to work.

Yeah the dark energy is accelerating everything outward, but how do we know dark energy won't stop or turn negative at some point? Maybe the universe grows so large that it disappears then begins again by some process that we don't understand.

Yes I think it just pushes the problem back and camouflages with language of infinity. Occam's razor should eliminate all that speculation.

Agreed. There's a lot of smoke-and-mirors going on with the Multiverse Hypothesis and the idea that "everything happens somewhere." The former is at most a conjecture without empirical evidence, and the latter is premised on a very basic mathematical error. Neither is, at present, what one should regard as a genuinely scientific theory.

Well said and I don't understand how Max Tegmark buys into that.

I can't imagine a six molecule Superman.
Right. So we're back to the main point: "everything" doesn't happen. "Everything" isn't even rational or imaginable."

That's a good point that I hadn't previously considered. Are there things which had no possibility of existing?

Well, self-contradictory things, for example. A four-sided triangle. A married bachelor, a fallible Supreme Being...

And some would say, a civil engineer.

A four-sided triangle is something only a civil engineer could come up with

What I mean is are there things existing somewhere that had no possibility of existing in our universe? Are those part of "everything"?

The idea hinges around this universe, so all things that have a probability of happening in this universe, but do not happen, must happen in another universe, but what about the things that had no possibility of happening here, but had a possibility of happening in other universes?

Suppose event-A could happen in universe-1, but doesn't, so it happens in universe-2 per the MWI theory. Well what if within universe-2, event-B can happen, but cannot happen in universe-1. Suppose event-B doesn't happen in universe-2 and cannot happen in universe-1, so does that invoke another universe? Remember, the reason the other universes are conjured is to explain events that CAN happen in this universe, but don't.

Serendipper wrote: ↑Mon Apr 09, 2018 2:58 am It's a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God.

Where, in the last 1500 years, have "priests" ruled? And have they ever so out-batted the secular authorities that we would really say they "ruled"? I can't imagine.

It's still going on to some extent: "In God we trust"

Heh. That's hardly evidence of a Theocracy. It's hardly evidence of anything more than a residual, cultural nod to Theism. I think most Americans use their money without ever thinking, "Gee, I'd better trust in God if I'm going to spend this."

and we have many laws of morality: drugs, gambling, prostitution, etc making the police essentially armed clergy.

Police as "armed clergy"? Wow. What religion do they serve?

Yup, but that's making a lot of assumptions however.

Not too many. All we have to assume is that the rates of things like the speed of light have remained calculable. That's what made scientists so sure by the middle of last century that the cyclical model was actually dead.

Maybe the process can be better-described by "growing" rather than "exploding"

That's not going to do it as an explanation, I'm afraid. "Growing" already assumes the existence of a living, replicating system, and doesn't even bother to explain it. The great mystery is why there's any order at all, living or not. If the balance of forces within an atom, for example, were marginally different than they are, even things like stars wouldn't form. Matter itself would lack coherence.

or sterile terms like "inflating", especially if order is implied. We could say a plant is a spontaneous ejection of organics from the ground and then pose ourselves the question of how it became ordered.

Maybe the universe grows so large that it disappears then begins again by some process that we don't understand.

Maybe unicorns turn it around. We wouldn't understand that process either; but I wouldn't hold out for it.

No, I think our best scientific evidences are the observable regularities we already have, not the postulating of yet-to-be-found properties that nobody has ever yet discovered. That doesn't mean that what you're suggesting is ultimately utterly impossible, but that it's so improbable as to be about on the level of a wild guess.

What I mean is are there things existing somewhere that had no possibility of existing in our universe? Are those part of "everything"?

If we could ever discover them then they would be another part of our "uni-verse" by definition.

The idea hinges around this universe, so all things that have a probability of happening in this universe, but do not happen, must happen in another universe, but what about the things that had no possibility of happening here, but had a possibility of happening in other universes?

Well, a) we have no evidence of "other universes" even existing, and by definition, can never have any. As I say, if we had evidence of it, then it would just be an extension of the one universe we do know. b) The idea that "other things happen" in universes we can never see or know about has...well, limited utility, shall we say, for us, and c) The idea of science is this: it's a methodology, a way of working within the material "laws" or "regularities" that we do know, not of speculating against that methodology and those material laws, so as to subvert them. Once we do that, we are, by definition, outside of any science. In fact, we wouldn't even know how to use logic or reason in a universe that was different from our own on the ontic level, if such a thing were to exist -- how would we know those same faculties would even apply there?

Immanuel Can wrote:

Well, a) we have no evidence of "other universes" even existing, and by definition, can never have any. As I say, if we had evidence of it, then it would just be an extension of the one universe we do know. b) The idea that "other things happen" in universes we can never see or know about has...well, limited utility, shall we say, for us, and c) The idea of science is this: it's a methodology, a way of working within the material "laws" or "regularities" that we do know, not of speculating against that methodology and those material laws, so as to subvert them. Once we do that, we are, by definition, outside of any science. In fact, we wouldn't even know how to use logic or reason in a universe that was different from our own on the ontic level, if such a thing were to exist -- how would we know those same faculties would even apply there?

Sometimes what consciousness reveals cannot be explained by science. For example what is being referred to here as multiverse theory I know of as the sixth dimension. Science may not be able to prove it but it is possible that conscious beings exist within our six dimensional universe far exceeding the limitations of our consciousness. They would be as far above us as we are to an ant.

I’ll post a link which will allow those interested follow the progression of a point with no dimensions or a “limit” into a line of one dimension, a surface of two dimensions, a cube of three dimensions into the fourth dimension of a moment in time, the fifth dimension of eternity and the sixth dimension into all possible eternities science is speculating as multiverse theory. The link provides a good beginning to a very deep concept

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. - Hamlet (1.5.167-8),

http://www.rahul.net/raithel/otfw/dimensions.html

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Apr 09, 2018 3:51 am

Serendipper wrote: ↑Mon Apr 09, 2018 2:58 am It's a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God.

Where, in the last 1500 years, have "priests" ruled? And have they ever so out-batted the secular authorities that we would really say they "ruled"? I can't imagine.

I can't imagine how you can't imagine. Which universe did you inhabit before now?

The Papal States, officially the State of the Church, were a series of territories in the Italian Peninsula under the direct sovereign rule of the Pope, from the 8th century until 1870. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_States

You should study Galileo:

Pope Paul V instructed Cardinal Bellarmine to deliver this finding to Galileo, and to order him to abandon the opinion that heliocentrism was physically true. On 26 February, Galileo was called to Bellarmine's residence and ordered:

... to abandon completely... the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing.[78]

It's still going on to some extent: "In God we trust"

Heh. That's hardly evidence of a Theocracy. It's hardly evidence of anything more than a residual, cultural nod to Theism.

Fine. The residual cultural nod is evidence of what its residual of: the theocracy.

I think most Americans use their money without ever thinking, "Gee, I'd better trust in God if I'm going to spend this."

That's not relevant.

and we have many laws of morality: drugs, gambling, prostitution, etc making the police essentially armed clergy.

Police as "armed clergy"? Wow. What religion do they serve?

Why does it need a name? "Christianity" will do. We have the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Someone doing drugs, gambling, prostituting, or purchasing beer on sunday is not infringing upon the pursuit of our inalienable rights because vice is not a crime against someone else (except God); therefore it's religious imposition which actually restricts rights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice#Law_enforcement

Yup, but that's making a lot of assumptions however.

Not too many. All we have to assume is that the rates of things like the speed of light have remained calculable.

Remained calculable? What does that mean?

Maybe the process can be better-described by "growing" rather than "exploding"

That's not going to do it as an explanation, I'm afraid. "Growing" already assumes the existence of a living, replicating system, and doesn't even bother to explain it.

Can you prove that it was not living? Where do you draw the line between life and nonlife? Bacteria? Viruses? Proteins? Amino acids? Molecules? Atoms? And why do you place the line there and not some other arbitrary place?

The great mystery is why there's any order at all, living or not. If the balance of forces within an atom, for example, were marginally different than they are, even things like stars wouldn't form. Matter itself would lack coherence.

That's evidence of refinement/honing/iteration similar to the solution of genetic algorithms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm

Maybe the universe grows so large that it disappears then begins again by some process that we don't understand.

Maybe unicorns turn it around. We wouldn't understand that process either; but I wouldn't hold out for it.

No, I think our best scientific evidences are the observable regularities we already have, not the postulating of yet-to-be-found properties that nobody has ever yet discovered. That doesn't mean that what you're suggesting is ultimately utterly impossible, but that it's so improbable as to be about on the level of a wild guess.

I haven't seen the evidence that determines the probabilities, but I have seen conjecture for the evidence.

What I mean is are there things existing somewhere that had no possibility of existing in our universe? Are those part of "everything"?

If we could ever discover them then they would be another part of our "uni-verse" by definition.

Of course we can never discover them, but is it rational to describe them as things? "No" is the answer I'm looking for, but wanted to be sure.

The idea hinges around this universe, so all things that have a probability of happening in this universe, but do not happen, must happen in another universe, but what about the things that had no possibility of happening here, but had a possibility of happening in other universes?

Well, a) we have no evidence of "other universes" even existing, and by definition, can never have any.

True, unless the evidence can be somehow deductive.

b) The idea that "other things happen" in universes we can never see or know about has...well, limited utility, shall we say, for us,

Unless it's somehow necessary to make the math work. I can't imagine why, but just wanted to be sure. Tegmark isn't stupid.

and c) The idea of science is this: it's a methodology, a way of working within the material "laws" or "regularities" that we do know, not of speculating against that methodology and those material laws, so as to subvert them.

The problem is randomness doesn't have a cause or else it would be determined, so to eliminate randomness, they postulate the other universes.

Once we do that, we are, by definition, outside of any science. In fact, we wouldn't even know how to use logic or reason in a universe that was different from our own on the ontic level, if such a thing were to exist -- how would we know those same faculties would even apply there?

I have no idea.

Serendipper wrote: ↑Mon Apr 09, 2018 7:26 am
I can't imagine how you can't imagine. Which universe did you inhabit before now?

I'm aware of states in which religion was much stronger than it is now, of course. I'm just not aware of any theocracies on this side of the ocean or anything you could even reasonably call a Western theocracy in about a thousand years. Western governments have been essentially predominantly a State matter since shortly after Constantine, and it's debatable that even Constantine could be called a "theocrat."

I'm just suggesting that it takes an awfully loose definition of "theocracy" to suggest there are any recent ones outside of, say Islamic states.

It's still going on to some extent: "In God we trust"

Heh. That's hardly evidence of a Theocracy. It's hardly evidence of anything more than a residual, cultural nod to Theism.

Fine. The residual cultural nod is evidence of what its residual of: the theocracy.

Deism, at most. Hardly theocracy. Theocracy means that the religion is making all the key decisions about political life and policy. I don't think you can find a time in US history when that actually happened. Maybe briefly with a few early religious colonies, but never for the nation.

I think most Americans use their money without ever thinking, "Gee, I'd better trust in God if I'm going to spend this."

That's not relevant.

Then I can't think that "In God We Trust" indicates anything very much.

We have the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Someone doing drugs, gambling, prostituting, or purchasing beer on sunday is not infringing upon the pursuit of our inalienable rights because vice is not a crime against someone else (except God); therefore it's religious imposition which actually restricts rights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice#Law_enforcement

This isn't actually what "pursuit of happiness" means. You seem to be thinking in modern terms. But the founders were thinking of a more Aristotelean kind of "happiness," which really has nothing to do with what we call "happiness" today. Aristotle speaks of what we should roughly translate as something like "blessed by the gods" (eudaemonia) rather than of gambling, prostitutes and beer.

Yup, but that's making a lot of assumptions however.

Not too many. All we have to assume is that the rates of things like the speed of light have remained calculable.

Remained calculable? What does that mean?

It means "If we know the speed at which light travels." And we do, of course.

Can you prove that it was not living?

Well, the burden of proof goes the other way: when somebody says, "In the beginning, things were already living and growing," then it would be the one who asserts that who has to explain where the "living" stuff came from...or else he really has not gone back far enough to give any credible account of the origin of the universe, has he?

True, unless the evidence can be somehow deductive.

"Evidence," by definition, is inductive. It's dependent on empirical observation, rather than on purely formal or logical sequences.

There's no such thing as a multiverse except as concept.

Concepts exist ONLY in relation to that which is not a concept.

And while all things can exist as concepts, they are all contained within that which is not a concept.

That which is not a concept..aka the ''not a thing'' that is space itself cannot repeat itself, because that would be like there were two spaces...there cannot be two spaces..there is only one space.

Every thing is within that one space everywhere at once. The nothingness(absolute) and the somethingness(relative) are one thing.

One cannot repeat itself..for there is nothing separate from one that is not of the one or more of the one. One can never become two except as concept which is conceived by the one that cannot be conceived.



All things are within that which is everywhere at once all inclusive...there is nothing outside of everywhere all at once without a second.

There's just no way of crossing the conceptual horizon without creating more conceptual horizons infinitely without end.

As consciousness we can only know what we know right here and now as the experience dictates. Nothing can be known of that which has not yet entered into knowingness as experience. All that is unknown will eventually become known, but that which is unknowable, will never be known.



.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Apr 09, 2018 12:40 pm

Serendipper wrote: ↑Mon Apr 09, 2018 7:26 am
I can't imagine how you can't imagine. Which universe did you inhabit before now?

I'm aware of states in which religion was much stronger than it is now, of course. I'm just not aware of any theocracies on this side of the ocean or anything you could even reasonably call a Western theocracy in about a thousand years. Western governments have been essentially predominantly a State matter since shortly after Constantine, and it's debatable that even Constantine could be called a "theocrat."

I'm just suggesting that it takes an awfully loose definition of "theocracy" to suggest there are any recent ones outside of, say Islamic states.

Heh. That's hardly evidence of a Theocracy. It's hardly evidence of anything more than a residual, cultural nod to Theism.

Fine. The residual cultural nod is evidence of what its residual of: the theocracy.

Deism, at most. Hardly theocracy. Theocracy means that the religion is making all the key decisions about political life and policy. I don't think you can find a time in US history when that actually happened. Maybe briefly with a few early religious colonies, but never for the nation.

I think most Americans use their money without ever thinking, "Gee, I'd better trust in God if I'm going to spend this."

That's not relevant.

Then I can't think that "In God We Trust" indicates anything very much.

We have the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Someone doing drugs, gambling, prostituting, or purchasing beer on sunday is not infringing upon the pursuit of our inalienable rights because vice is not a crime against someone else (except God); therefore it's religious imposition which actually restricts rights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice#Law_enforcement

This isn't actually what "pursuit of happiness" means. You seem to be thinking in modern terms. But the founders were thinking of a more Aristotelean kind of "happiness," which really has nothing to do with what we call "happiness" today. Aristotle speaks of what we should roughly translate as something like "blessed by the gods" (eudaemonia) rather than of gambling, prostitutes and beer.

You're just being argumentative and essentially wasting time trying to spin history to ironically undermine your own conclusion. How about you tell me how the "law" nomenclature came about and why it remains since you're exhibiting such dogmatic determination to dismiss a theocracy at all costs. Maybe you're alluding to a group of atheists who decided an authority must exist to enforce our "laws" of nature? What could you possibly be arguing except arguing just to argue? Hell, I'm on your side and you're still arguing with me!

Not too many. All we have to assume is that the rates of things like the speed of light have remained calculable.

Remained calculable? What does that mean?

It means "If we know the speed at which light travels." And we do, of course.

What does it mean to be uncalculable? How could the speed of light be unable to be calculated?

Can you prove that it was not living?

Well, the burden of proof goes the other way: when somebody says, "In the beginning, things were already living and growing," then it would be the one who asserts that who has to explain where the "living" stuff came from...or else he really has not gone back far enough to give any credible account of the origin of the universe, has he?

Nope, the burden is on the one drawing lines. You're positing the existence of a differentiation and that proposition requires proof. Where do you draw the line? And why put it arbitrarily there? Stop evading the question and show me where nonlife magically turns to life and describe the process that supports your assertion. If you can't do it, then your assertion is without foundation.

Serendipper wrote: ↑Mon Apr 09, 2018 5:19 pm You're just being argumentative

Actually, no...I just had some modifications to suggest to some of the things you were saying. No hard feelings at all.

...you're exhibiting such dogmatic determination to dismiss a theocracy at all costs.

Actually, it was you who brought it up. I don't even see any historical evidence that such a thing has existed in recent history. It's certainly not what we're dealing with today, that much is very clear. Well, as I say, perhaps with the exception of Islamic states.

How could the speed of light be unable to be calculated?

It couldn't. That's precisely the point.

You asked how we could know that the universe had an origin point, and I was pointing out that our knowledge of it is as reliable as our knowledge of the speed of light. We get our timeline from the Red Shift Effect. After that, the calculation is pretty darn reliable.

Can you prove that it was not living?

Well, the burden of proof goes the other way: when somebody says, "In the beginning, things were already living and growing," then it would be the one who asserts that who has to explain where the "living" stuff came from...or else he really has not gone back far enough to give any credible account of the origin of the universe, has he?

Nope, the burden is on the one drawing lines. You're positing the existence of a differentiation and that proposition requires proof. Where do you draw the line?

What "line" do you mean? "Differentiation" between what and what?

If you can tell me that, I'll happily answer. I just honestly can't tell what you're asking me to respond to.

Stop evading the question and show me where nonlife magically turns to life

I said it didn't.

It's you, if you believe in the "growth" metaphor as an explanation of cosmic origins, that must be arguing that life bursts into existence magically. You used that term...growing...I didn't. I wouldn't say that it happens that way. I took exception to that explanation, actually.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Apr 09, 2018 6:46 pm

Serendipper wrote: ↑Mon Apr 09, 2018 5:19 pm You're just being argumentative

Actually, no...I just had some modifications to suggest to some of the things you were saying. No hard feelings at all.

...you're exhibiting such dogmatic determination to dismiss a theocracy at all costs.

Actually, it was you who brought it up. I don't even see any historical evidence that such a thing has existed in recent history. It's certainly not what we're dealing with today, that much is very clear. Well, as I say, perhaps with the exception of Islamic states.

Then explain how the "law" terminology originated.

How could the speed of light be unable to be calculated?

It couldn't. That's precisely the point.

I was pointing out that our knowledge of it is as reliable as our knowledge of the speed of light.

How does the light calculation factor into determining that the universe had an origin?

Well, the burden of proof goes the other way: when somebody says, "In the beginning, things were already living and growing," then it would be the one who asserts that who has to explain where the "living" stuff came from...or else he really has not gone back far enough to give any credible account of the origin of the universe, has he?

Nope, the burden is on the one drawing lines. You're positing the existence of a differentiation and that proposition requires proof. Where do you draw the line?

What "line" do you mean? "Differentiation" between what and what?

Life and nonlife.

If you can tell me that, I'll happily answer. I just honestly can't tell what you're asking me to respond to.

The line between life and nonlife.

Stop evading the question and show me where nonlife magically turns to life

I said it didn't.

It's you, if you believe in the "growth" metaphor as an explanation of cosmic origins, that must be arguing that life bursts into existence magically. You used that term...growing...I didn't. I wouldn't say that it happens that way. I took exception to that explanation, actually.

No I'm saying life never had a beginning therefore the big bang is a process of growing.

Life could not have come from nonlife because there is no way to cross that bridge without invoking magic. Either life does not exist now or there was never a time when life did not exist.