Human Evolution

[doubtingmerle]

The 'laws of nature' were distilled by humans describing everyday perceptions. They are models.

The laws of nature always existed in nature. They applied long before humans existed.

'Nature' doesn't go to some mythical galactic laws written on a tablet floating around in space someplace and consult with some alien lawyer, so it can 'follow' or 'obey' them, y'know.

Straw man. Nobody said nature follows tablets floating in space.

Nature follows neither tablets floating in space nor the laws of people. Nature does what the forces of nature cause it to do.

When we human write down laws of nature, all we are doing is describing how it works.

The notion that reality, the laws of nature and things that truly exist independently from all human minds, is a pure belief.

No sir, there is abundant evidence that particles all over the universe are following the laws of nature, and they are doing it independently of all human minds.

You, nor anyone else I've ever encountered, can even come close to citing the objective test independent from any human mind whatsoever, that would lead to such a conclusion. It is thus a belief.

Look through a telescope. See stars? The light from many stars left those stars long before the first human existed. And when we look at the starlight that comes to us, we find it was caused by ordinary physical processes just like on earth. There was nobody around to observe it when it happened. But it happened anyway, and followed the same laws of nature we know today.

What can be demonstrated from objective test results, is that what we mean by 'reality' or 'exists', whenerever we use those terms, comes about by either of two ways: by belief or by the scientific method.

No sir, neither belief nor the scientific method can make reality "come about".

 

[Estrid]

The laws of nature always existed in nature. They applied long before humans existed.



Straw man. Nobody said nature follows tablets floating in space.

Nature follows neither tablets floating in space nor the laws of people. Nature does what the forces of nature cause it to do.

When we human write down laws of nature, all we are doing is describing how it works.


No sir, there is abundant evidence that particles all over the universe are following the laws of nature, and they are doing it independently of all human minds.


Look through a telescope. See stars? The light from many stars left those stars long before the first human existed. And when we look at the starlight that comes to us, we find it was caused by ordinary physical processes just like on earth. There was nobody around to observe it when it happened. But it happened anyway, and followed the same laws of nature we know today.

Excepting some of what people figure must be laws
turn out to have exceptions, and are not laws at all.
"Abundant evidence", as you put it, can never be a complete set.

Here in the tropics we have abundant evidence that the
ocean never freezes. I expect if I asked people at the
market here if the ocean can freeze they'd think I am bonkers.

Now, there may be " laws" without any exceptions but we will
never know.

So your assurance about these eternal verities is a bit
misplaced.

 

[SelfSim]

The laws of nature always existed in nature. They applied long before humans existed.

Two contradicting claims.
Today's four known forces, underpinning your 'laws of nature' there, did not become distinct until after the Grand Unified Theory (GUT) Era.
Therefore, your 'laws of nature' did not 'apply' (or 'cause nature' at all), in a that time before humans existed.

Straw man. Nobody said nature follows tablets floating in space.

Nature follows neither tablets floating in space nor the laws of people. Nature does what the forces of nature cause it to do.

When we human write down laws of nature, all we are doing is describing how it works.

So can you describe what you mean by 'nature' there then, in such a way that's completely independent from any minds whatsover? (I mean given, for eg, that the fundamental forces 'causing nature' didn't even exist as distinct forces during the GUT era?)

No sir, there is abundant evidence that particles all over the universe are following the laws of nature, and they are doing it independently of all human minds.

.. and how do you know this independently from any human minds whatsoever, if not by way of just believing or observing that?
(Both of which, of course, just demonstrates the mind dependence of how you know that).

Look through a telescope. See stars? The light from many stars left those stars long before the first human existed. And when we look at the starlight that comes to us, we find it was caused by ordinary physical processes just like on earth. There was nobody around to observe it when it happened. But it happened anyway, ..

Same question: How do you know that it 'happened anyway', independently from any human minds?

No sir, neither belief nor the scientific method can make reality "come about".

Of course not (I've never argued that) .. but beliefs or the scientific method are our ways of assigning the meaning to our human language word, which you keep referencing there, and which you soley depend upon in making your claims, ie, the word/concept of: 'reality'.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The idea is that everything, once perceived and described using language, becomes a model. There are two main types of models: beliefs and testables. The testable ones can become real .. beliefs don't.

Hahaha yeah, the power of the mind and all that! We can't make anything real that isn't. Get used to being a human! —Ayn Rand Lexicon (aynrandlexicon.com)

 

[SelfSim]

Hahaha yeah, the power of the mind and all that! We can't make anything real that isn't. Get used to being a human! —Ayn Rand Lexicon (aynrandlexicon.com)

I don't are about Ayn Rand's philosophical musings. I only care about a philosophy which can be shown as being consistent with science.

So, I haven't explained why a belief, (like your 'first cause'), doesn't become real, where, by 'real' there, I mean objectively real.

The reason is simple .. it is because the operational definition of a belief is constrained by science and logic:
'A belief is any notion held as being true out of preference, that does not follow from objective tests, and is not beholden to the rules of logic'.
.. like your 'first cause' .. which fits that testable definition like a glove.

 

[Estrid]

I don't are about Ayn Rand's philosophical musings. I only care about a philosophy which can be shown as being consistent with science.

So, I haven't explained why a belief, (like your 'first cause'), doesn't become real, where, by 'real' there, I mean objectively real.

The reason is simple .. it is because the operational definition of a belief is constrained by science and logic:
'A belief is any notion held as being true out of preference, that does not follow from objective tests, and is not beholden to the rules of logic'.
.. like your 'first cause' .. which fits that testable definition like a glove.

If " law" or logic has an exception then it's faulty.

 

[AV1611VET]

If "law" or logic has an exception then it's faulty.

It's only "faulty," if science can't make up something to explain the exception.

Is light a particle, or a wave?

Ever heard of monotremes? chimeras? cryptids?

QV please:

Dragons, along with other cryptids that pwn evolution's paradigms are depicted in the Bible as real.

Here's a list:

1. coneys
2. whale-fish
3. satyrs
4. unicorns
5. straw-eating lions
6. four-legged locusts
7. dragons
8. dinosaurs with navels (behemoths)

Source: Behold the Terrible Lizard!

 

[Mark Quayle]

I don't are about Ayn Rand's philosophical musings. I only care about a philosophy which can be shown as being consistent with science.

So, I haven't explained why a belief, (like your 'first cause'), doesn't become real, where, by 'real' there, I mean objectively real.

The reason is simple .. it is because the operational definition of a belief is constrained by science and logic:
'A belief is any notion held as being true out of preference, that does not follow from objective tests, and is not beholden to the rules of logic'.
.. like your 'first cause' .. which fits that testable definition like a glove.

I don't agree with Ayn Rand either. Just pointing at a point of view that has some relevance to our discussion.

If a belief can become real, then it is not only a belief to start with. It is not belief that becomes real. It is a real object that remains real, and belief concerning it that becomes, perhaps, more solid understanding at best.

You seem to me to be letting either words mess with your head, or going into some hocus pocus cross-eyed new-age philosophy.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't agree with Ayn Rand either.

Who is Ayn Rand?

 

[Astrophile]

Look through a telescope. See stars? The light from many stars left those stars long before the first human existed.

The first Homo sapiens existed about 300,000 years ago, so the light from all the stars in the Milky Way and the Magellanic Clouds left after the evolution of Homo sapiens. To see an object whose light left it before the evolution of the genus Homo you have to look at the Andromeda galaxy (M31) or the Triangulum galaxy (M33).

 

[doubtingmerle]

Excepting some of what people figure must be laws
turn out to have exceptions, and are not laws at all.
"Abundant evidence", as you put it, can never be a complete set.

Here in the tropics we have abundant evidence that the
ocean never freezes. I expect if I asked people at the
market here if the ocean can freeze they'd think I am bonkers.

Now, there may be " laws" without any exceptions but we will
never know.

So your assurance about these eternal verities is a bit
misplaced.

People misunderstand the laws of nature. That is true. That does not change the fact that nature works by fixed rules independent of what people think.

 

[doubtingmerle]

The first Homo sapiens existed about 300,000 years ago, so the light from all the stars in the Milky Way and the Magellanic Clouds left after the evolution of Homo sapiens. To see an object whose light left it before the evolution of the genus Homo you have to look at the Andromeda galaxy (M31) or the Triangulum galaxy (M33).

Understood. The point is that starlight was headed our way based on the same as physics as we have, but the light left long before the first human.

 

[Estrid]

People misunderstand the laws of nature. That is true. That does change the fact that nature works by fixed rules independent of what people think.

It does?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Today's four known forces, underpinning your 'laws of nature' there, did not become distinct until after the Grand Unified Theory (GUT) Era.

Therefore, your 'laws of nature' did not 'apply' (or 'cause nature' at all), in a that time before humans existed.

You have not yet told us if you think the Big Bang even happened. Do you or do you not believe the Big Bang happened? How can we discuss the Big Bang if we don't even know if you think it happened?

Sure, particles acted differently at the enormous temperatures at the start of the Big Bang. Physics does not predict that particles will act the same at any temperature.

Just like physics does not predict that water at 5 deg F and 300 deg F will behave the same.

So can you describe what you mean by 'nature' there then, in such a way that's completely independent from any minds whatsover? (I mean given, for eg, that the fundamental forces 'causing nature' didn't even exist as distinct forces during the GUT era?)

The GUT theory transition was long before the first humans. So what does that have to do with stars acting to create light for millions of years before the first human?

Again, my point is that physical actions have been happening in our universe based on the same underlying physics for 13 billion years, long before there were any humans to observe them So yes, physical reality exists independent of human thought.

.. and how do you know this independently from any human minds whatsoever, if not by way of just believing or observing that?

Understood. The only way we know this is to use our senses and our minds. And yes, our senses could be deceiving us. But as there is overwhelming consistent evidence for physical phenomena by fixed rules, nobody serious questions that this is actually happening. It is unreasonable to think that all senses are fooling us to think the world is working by consistent laws, when it is not.

We can study the distant starlight and say it almost certainly began from stars billions of years before the first human, and those stars worked with essentially the exact same physics as happens in stars in the present near us.

but beliefs or the scientific method are our ways of assigning the meaning to our human language word, which you keep referencing there, and which you soley depend upon in making your claims, ie, the word/concept of: 'reality'.

Don't confuse actual physics with the words we use to describe physics. Actual physics represents the rules by which particles work in nature.

Written physics are our best approximation of putting those rules into human understandable words. Written physics is limited to the weakness of written language, and the limited understanding of humans. But, written physics is a good approximation of what actual physics is doing.

 

[doubtingmerle]

It does?

Yes.

 

[SelfSim]

People misunderstand the laws of nature. That is true. That does change the fact that nature works by fixed rules independent of what people think.

I'll assume that was a typo and you meant to type 'That doesn't change the fact ..'(?) If so, then;

Humans share an in-common mind type which perceives in largely in-common ways. There are some differences however across the entire population of humans. (All this is observably demonstrable).

It is thus, unsurprising that we perceive, then describe in similar ways, the 'laws of nature'. The 'fixed nature' of those laws, is just evidence supporting what I just said there, with 'the laws of nature' just being our way of making sense of our in-common perceptions.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I'll assume that was a typo and you meant to type 'That doesn't change the fact ..'(?)

Yes. I now fixed the typo. Thanks.

If so, then;

Humans share an in-common mind type which perceives in largely in-common ways. There are some differences however across the entire population of humans. (All this is observably demonstrable).

It is thus, unsurprising that we perceive, then describe in similar ways, the 'laws of nature'. The 'fixed nature' of those laws, is just evidence supporting what I justsaid there, with 'the laws of nature' just being our way of making sense of our in-common perceptions.

The scientific method overcomes human bias, and make our conclusions about nature reliable (but not perfect.)

 

[SelfSim]

You have not yet told us if you think the Big Bang even happened. Do you or do you not believe the Big Bang happened? How can we discuss the Big Bang if we don't even know if you think it happened?

Sure, particles acted differently at the enormous temperatures at the start of the Big Bang. Physics does not predict that particles will act the same at any temperature.

Just like physics does not predict that water at 5 deg F and 300 deg F will behave the same.

The GUT theory transition was long before the first humans. So what does that have to do with stars acting to create light for millions of years before the first human?

So, you agree that 'the laws of nature' haven't always existed in nature, as compared with your original claim of:

The laws of nature always existed in nature.

Further, you also agreee that 'the laws of nature' are contextually dependent and subject to change?

Understood. The only way we know this is to use our senses and our minds. And yes, our senses could be deceiving us. But as there is overwhelming consistent evidence for physical phenomena by fixed rules, nobody serious questions that this is actually happening. It is unreasonable to think that all senses are fooling us to think the world is working by consistent laws, when it is not.

I largely agree that it would be pointless to assume our (collective) senses 'deceive' or 'fool' us. The hidden assumption there, of course, is that there is some mind independent 'thing' we can access independently from our own senses, which must be 'true', for the purpose of performing comparisons which would lead us to such a conclusion(?)

We can study the distant starlight and say it almost certainly began from stars billions of years before the first human, and those stars worked with essentially the exact same physics as happens in stars in the present near us.

Yes .. with the 'physics' you refer to there, being demonstrably contextually dependent and subject to change with new objective data ... along with: 'the physics' you refer to there, of course, being demonstrably yet another testable model developed by human scientific thinkers, because of that.

Don't confuse actual physics with the words we use to describe physics. Actual physics represents the rules by which particles work in nature.

I'm quite clear about there being *zip* objective evidence for the idea that 'actual physics' exists independently from human (scientifically thinking) minds.
There is plenty of evidence for that notion being just another belief though, (eg: contextually dependent and subject to revision), and is mostly likely a hangover from a deep attachment most folk have for philosophical Realism, (whose posits never get tested independently from human mind perceived models).

Written physics are our best approximation of putting those rules into human understandable words.

This idea of physics being 'an approximation' of something existing independently from the observer's perceptions, is a hangover/belief in philosphical Realism, I mention above.

Written physics is limited to the weakness of written language, and the limited understanding of humans. But, written physics is a good approximation of what actual physics is doing.

So your conclusion that we have a 'limited understanding' assumes the independent existence of some other kind of, presumably, transcendently superior understanding then, eh?
How does that idea come about then, eh?

 

[SelfSim]

If a belief can become real, then it is not only a belief to start with. It is not belief that becomes real. It is a real object that remains real, and belief concerning it that becomes, perhaps, more solid understanding at best.

You seem to me to be letting either words mess with your head, or going into some hocus pocus cross-eyed new-age philosophy.

The only hocus pocus cross eyed-ness creeping in here, comes from your own attachment to the notion that things exist independently from your mind. All I have to do is to ask you to describe why you think that, and the objective evidence for the mind dependence immediately pours forth from your own fingertips .. putting lie to the claim.

That's what my 'Empire State building' dialogue demonstrates.

 

[SelfSim]

If " law" or logic has an exception then it's faulty.

Hmm (I generally agree) .. I'd express that slightly differently, though:
- scientific laws are already expected to be provisional and subject to change with new objective data and;
- if some notion can be demonstrated as contradicting the rules of logic, then its false under those rules, whereas it can still be claimed as true, out of personal choice. (I guess that's what you mean by 'faulty' there, eh?)
An argument can still be logically valid, but can also be traced back to a believed-in posit .. so that's where the first condition of my test of a belief kicks in: held as being true out of preference, that does not follow from objective tests.
The definition is phrased for the sole purpose of being an objectively test criteria admissable to the scientific testing process.

I think we're both in agreement there anyway(?)