What did it all started with?

[Guy Threepwood]

What gets me here is the seeming lack of awareness of: that as soon as anyone contemplates 'an entity' or 'nature', or 'nothingness', what is guaranteed is that we will all see, will be products of the mind doing the contemplation! This is plainly obvious.

These philosophers, (at least all of those I've read up on), never seem to recognise that they are using concepts of: 'an entity' or 'nature', or 'nothingness', and that those concepts are produced by their (or someone else's) human mind. I mean those concepts weren't just sorta floatin' around in some sort of ethereal Ether, waiting for their (or their ancestors') minds to just grab and instantly understand them, yet, this is exactly what their true posits imply! .. That is a truly miraculous method!

At least scientists leave behind objective evidence of 'the how' of they come up with what they mean when they refer to, say: 'nothing' .. (Its clearly a 'something', which they freely admit to, and leave an audit trail behind them, so that others can follow what they mean by that term).

Because philosophers haven't seen their own fundamentally flawed arguments, (eg: 'nothing has no nature and is just a concept that denotes a negation', without noticing that they even use term 'concept' there), we are left with no choice other than to accept their miraculous way of thinking therefrom!?

Many scientists have remarked, on how curious it is, that the universe so lends itself to our understanding.

We are the only means we know of, by which the universe can literally contemplate it's own existence- and I don't think this is all a coincidence. As a book written in English is intended to be understood by English speakers- nature leaves us a trail that we can follow- ultimately to it's source.

'Nature is the executor of God's laws': Galileo

 

[SelfSim]

Many scientists have remarked, on how curious it is, that the universe so lends itself to our understanding.

Yes and many scientists have put in vast amounts of effort, over long timeframes, in arriving at what 'the universe' there, actually means. As a result of the trail of (historical) evidence they've left behind in doing that, its now clear that 'what the universe actually is', has been nicely tailored to fit our human understanding capability.

Of course, the idea that 'the universe' exists independently from any of that process of arriving at our understanding, is complete nonsense .. (or just yet another belief).

We are the only means we know of, by which the universe can literally contemplate it's own existence- and I don't think this is all a coincidence.

You imply our minds are the purpose of the universe there, whereas thermodynamics and biological evolution don't point to the need for any such purposes.

(Above, you started out by citing what scientists remarked upon .. so I guess the context of those scientist's worldview is important to you .. so thermodynamics and biological evolution is that context).

As a book written in English is intended to be understood by English speakers- nature leaves us a trail that we can follow- ultimately to it's source.

Yes .. 'Nature' is yet another term science works at providing us with a useful meaning for. That meaning points back to the purpose of it being understandable to us .. same as 'the universe' does. They're our (human) words .. and its up to us to develop our own meanings for them. They weren't just handed to us on some platter, by some waitress, at some galactic restaurant someplace y'know(?) ..

'Nature is the executor of God's laws': Galileo

Well when he was facing persecution, torture and possible execution, I'm pretty sure he would have been aware that it wasn't nature pursuing him(?)

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Yes and many scientists have put in vast amounts of effort, over long timeframes, in arriving at what 'the universe' there, actually means. As a result of the trail of (historical) evidence they've left behind in doing that, its now clear that 'what the universe actually is', has been nicely tailored to fit our human understanding capability.

no disagreement there

You imply our minds are the purpose of the universe there, whereas thermodynamics and biological evolution don't point to the need for any such purposes.

Ah well that is debatable- and why we are here on this forum! The capacity for anticipation, the ability to act according to a desired future, instead of merely reacting to pre-existing conditions... is a phenomena unique to creative intelligence, which in turn leaves unique fingerprints. Ultimately without this capacity, you are bound to a paradoxical infinite regression of 'natural laws', with no means of true innovation.

They're our (human) words .. and its up to us to develop our own meanings for them. They weren't just handed to us on some platter, by some waitress, at some galactic restaurant someplace y'know(?)

well kinda they were.. One remarkable 'coincidence' for example- is that the 'platter' of the moon if you will perfectly masks that of the Sun's during a total solar eclipse. This allows us to observe the Sun's corona, establish the composition of our star, and hence that of much of the visible universe. Of course it's up to us to follow these clues, to take from the platter, but they are placed curiously within our grasp.

Well when he was facing persecution, torture and possible execution, I'm pretty sure he would have been aware that it wasn't nature pursuing him(?)

He got a fairly cushy house arrest, but still a good argument for the separation of church and state, one rare issue both sides often agree on here, but what fun is that?

 

[Estrid]

Deleted

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Many scientists have remarked, on how curious it is, that the universe so lends itself to our understanding.

Yes, it is curious why they feel this way because a simple anthropic argument can explain it. If the universe - at semi-classical macro scales, at least - was not, FAPP, deterministic, predictable, and constructed from a 'kit' of relatively simple components, we would not be able to function as we do and exist to contemplate the universe. In that respect, it really isn't surprising that the universe at macro-scales lends itself to our understanding.

When we get down to the micro-scales of what appears to be the fundamental fabric of the universe, we find it really does not lend itself to our understanding, although it is amenable to mathematical analysis - as we might expect of something that gives rise to our emergent, predictable, semi-classical macro-scale.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Yes, it is curious why they feel this way because a simple anthropic argument can explain it. If the universe - at semi-classical macro scales, at least - was not, FAPP, deterministic, predictable, and constructed from a 'kit' of relatively simple components, we would not be able to function as we do and exist to contemplate the universe. In that respect, it really isn't surprising that the universe at macro-scales lends itself to our understanding.

I take your point, but I think theirs goes beyond that. As above, the moon's disk perfectly masking the sun's- is an apparently arbitrary coincidence regarding our ability to function and contemplate nature here on Earth to practical ends. But in terms of advancing our knowledge of the larger universe through observation of the sun's corona- it is an extremely convenient coincidence- particularly when bearing in mind, that the moon is receding from the earth, this coincidence is occurring at the time it can be made use of.

Similarly the age of exploration by sail, occurred when it did through various circumstances of technology, politics, etc- it was not driven by the remarkable coincidence of a bright guiding star drifting into place at the precise time that could be taken advantage of, but it certainly helped speed progress enormously.

Dawkins again remarks on how 'uncannily similar' the machine code of DNA is to our own digital information systems. This did not cause our invention of digital information- but it helps us understand not just biological mechanisms, but how to advance our own information technology.

You can only put so much down to coincidence, at some point, when the die keeps rolling a 6, you have to suspect it is loaded, however profound the implications of that may be.

When we get down to the micro-scales of what appears to be the fundamental fabric of the universe, we find it really does not lend itself to our understanding, although it is amenable to mathematical analysis - as we might expect of something that gives rise to our emergent, predictable, semi-classical macro-scale.

Things get pretty gnarly at the macro end also.. yes the challenges get tougher, and so without all the preceding stepping stones, placed just within our leap, we would not have come this far this fast. Again none of this was necessary for our mere 'evolutionary fitness' as a species, it guides us to an understanding far beyond ourselves and our planet.

 

[sjastro]

I take your point, but I think theirs goes beyond that. As above, the moon's disk perfectly masking the sun's- is an apparently arbitrary coincidence regarding our ability to function and contemplate nature here on Earth to practical ends. But in terms of advancing our knowledge of the larger universe through observation of the sun's corona- it is an extremely convenient coincidence- particularly when bearing in mind, that the moon is receding from the earth, this coincidence is occurring at the time it can be made use of.

A good example of apophenia.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

A good example of apophenia.

would be Piltdown man

 

[SelfSim]

I take your point, but I think theirs goes beyond that. As above, the moon's disk perfectly masking the sun's- is an apparently arbitrary coincidence regarding our ability to function and contemplate nature here on Earth to practical ends. But in terms of advancing our knowledge of the larger universe through observation of the sun's corona- it is an extremely convenient coincidence- ..

Its notable that it was still convenience though .. (with no evidence for that it was anything but a convenience).

Similarly the age of exploration by sail, occurred when it did through various circumstances of technology, politics, etc- it was not driven by the remarkable coincidence of a bright guiding star drifting into place at the precise time that could be taken advantage of,

Solar eclipses were recognised as a being a convenient opportunity for determining more accurately, the composition of the Sun (and thence, stars) .. so scientific thinkers took advantage of that opportunity. The are many other recognised opportunities where scientists have also taken full advantage .. (eg: Flandro's recognition of the planetary grand tour opportunity).
Scientists are humans. Humans take advantage of opportunities.
So what's so special about that?

Dawkins again remarks on how 'uncannily similar' the machine code of DNA is to our own digital information systems. This did not cause our invention of digital information- but it helps us understand not just biological mechanisms, but how to advance our own information technology.

There are sooo many misconceptions about the origins of systems information modelling approaches around these parts. This is yet more woo about this.

Entropy (Thermodynamics theory) is the objective basis of all information models and was the resultant of much hard work done by Boltzmann, Nyquist, Shannon, etc. This always seems to be completely forgotten when discussing the information explanation for biological inheritance.
Perhaps you could elaborate for us all on why you've also chosen to fall into that same category?

You can only put so much down to coincidence, at some point, when the die keeps rolling a 6, you have to suspect it is loaded, however profound the implications of that may be.

.. and it doesn't always keep coming up as a '6' .. So why completely ignore that particular fact?

Things get pretty gnarly at the macro end also.. yes the challenges get tougher, and so without all the preceding stepping stones, placed just within our leap, we would not have come this far this fast.

Change your 'stepping stones' filtered view of what's really been happening all the way along throughout human scientific endeavour then .. and you'll then be looking through the more realistic view of human history.

Again none of this was necessary for our mere 'evolutionary fitness' as a species, it guides us to an understanding far beyond ourselves and our planet.

Our environment keeps changing, and so our continual updating of our understanding of that, is all about our adapting to those changes for our conscious desire of surviving them ... From a more forward looking perspective however, its all about us making sense of our perceptions .. with zip evidence for it being about anything other than that.

 

[SelfSim]

He got a fairly cushy house arrest, but still a good argument for the separation of church and state, one rare issue both sides often agree on here, but what fun is that?

The only reason I can think of, (from the Faith 'side' there), as to why that might be 'agreeable', would be because the honest admission there, acknowledges that history demonstrates that fixed (intransigent) beliefs, result in the persecution of other humans who don't share exactly the same beliefs ... (which then accounts for a very large, persecuted proportion, (even the majority?), of the total human population.

 

[SelfSim]

would be Piltdown man

I'd call that grasping at straws, especially given that science finally sorted that one out .. and called it out for what it was.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I'd call that grasping at straws, especially given that science finally sorted that one out .. and called it out for what it was.

Oh sure, after only 40 years of basing human evolution on a single dodgy fraud, exhibited in natural history museums all over the world- even using it as evidence in court to have it taught in schools

While at the same time the primeval atom, or 'big bang' was declared 'religious pseudoscience' until proven beyond most reasonable doubt when Lemaitre was on his deathbed.

A slight double standard depending on the implications of the theory is it not?

 

[SelfSim]

Oh sure, after only 40 years of basing human evolution on a single dodgy fraud, exhibited in natural history museums all over the world- even using it as evidence in court to have it taught in schools

While at the same time the primeval atom, or 'big bang' was declared 'religious pseudoscience' until proven beyond most reasonable doubt when Lemaitre was on his deathbed.

A slight double standard depending on the implications of the theory is it not?

I don't agree on the equivalences you draw there. Faith based beliefs are accountable for hundreds (if not thousands) of years of non-evidence (objectively) based notions, the core of which is still not clearly distinguished as being belief based, for the vast majority of religious folk. .. Not to mention the darkest phases of executions and Holy wars.

I will agree that both 'diversions' there, had non-evidence (objective) based beliefs at their core though and in the case of Piltdown, 'twas objective analysis which uncovered the fraud .. Does Faith-based have such examples it can cite?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The only reason I can think of, (from the Faith 'side' there), as to why that might be 'agreeable', would be because the honest admission there, acknowledges that history demonstrates that fixed (intransigent) beliefs, result in the persecution of other humans who don't share exactly the same beliefs ... (which then accounts for a very large, persecuted proportion, (even the majority?), of the total human population.

The lesson is don't let politics interfere with personal faith. The catholic church was the dominant political force. We all believe in something, the problems always start when faith is denied & 'undeniable truth' is declared, which 'justifies' forcing the belief on the masses- e,g, atheism in the case of USSR , North Korea, communist China etc

Galileo's case is a little more nuanced.. it's actually something I've read a lot about the old fashioned way- (books!) He was initially given great support for his ideas, until a new Pope was put in place. By this time Galileo had grown accustomed to using the Vatican's printing press as his own publishing outlet. The new Pope made a not unreasonable request- that he add a disclaimer to the effect 'These views do not necessarily reflect those of the Catholic church' Galileo repeatedly flew in the face of this, directly attacking the church's position with their own printing- so as much a legal/copyright dispute as religious persecution

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I don't agree on the equivalences you draw there. Faith based beliefs are accountable for hundreds (if not thousands) of years of non-evidence (objectively) based notions, the core of which is still not clearly distinguished as being belief based, for the vast majority of religious folk. .. Not to mention the darkest phases of executions and Holy wars.

I will agree that both 'diversions' there, had non-evidence (objective) based beliefs at their core though and in the case of Piltdown, 'twas objective analysis which uncovered the fraud .. Does Faith-based have such examples it can cite?

Georges Lemaitre, founder of the primeval atom, was a catholic priest- his theory was from objective analysis. His opponents objections were explicitly based on their dislike of the overt religious implications they saw in such a 'creation event '. They overwhelmingly preferred steady state/ static models for the opposite rationale: 'no creation = no creator'

Objective science v materialistic ideology in this case.

Just one example, but concerning arguably the greatest scientific discovery of all time. For which Lemaitre never received a Nobel prize

 

[sjastro]

would be Piltdown man

You must be getting sick and tired of individuals pointing out your false equivalence fallacies.
I can make an equally 'valid' argument the moon existed so as to retard the development of astronomy for thousands of years as it is the only natural body to support a geocentric model which led astronomers to erroneously assume this also applied to the Sun, planets and stars.

 

[sjastro]

I'd call that grasping at straws, especially given that science finally sorted that one out .. and called it out for what it was.

That's how science works it is self correcting through continuous testing and observation even of established theories.
It's also good at detecting fraud.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You must be getting sick and tired of individuals pointing out your false equivalence fallacies.
I can make an equally 'valid' argument the moon existed so as to retard the development of astronomy for thousands of years as it is the only natural body to support a geocentric model which led astronomers to erroneously assume this also applied to the Sun, planets and stars.

Ah yes! But either way the moon was necessary to stabilize the Earth's rotation & provide tides to assist with the sea to land transition- this phenomena of one great stabilizing satellite developing around an inner rocky planet is a very uncommon result in any modelling of the solar system..

So it's gotta be there, a design constraint you might say- so also providing a perfect mask for observing the corona at just the right time is a bonus!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That's how science works it is self correcting through continuous testing and observation even of established theories.
It's also good at detecting fraud.

Ideally yes, except that Piltdown man was 'we'll assume it's true until proven wrong'
while The Primeval Atom/ Big Bang was 'we'll assume it's pseudoscience until proven true'

And the implications of each had a lot to do with that double standard

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You must be getting sick and tired of individuals pointing out your false equivalence fallacies.
.

It's always easier for people to respond with 'equivocation! fallacy! oh no it's not! '

It is a little trickier to come up with a substantive counter argument, but there are a few decent tries now and again.

Must run for now but I much appreciate the 'substantive' parts of the debate- and will respond to those later