The Origins of Young Earth Creationism

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Recently?
This is par for the course.

Perhaps it's just that I'm more involved in his 'discussions' of late...

 

[trophy33]

If you ate a meal off a table, would that experience tell you whether it's real? How can you tell a table is a 'real thing' if not by experience?

You can dream of eating. Experience can be stimulated and was stimulated with various experiments with brain.
You cannot tell if a table is a real thing or not, its just a belief.

Yes, and we can (mostly) distinguish between virtual reality, dreams, and what is physically present.
How do you suppose we come to decide what is real and what isn't? I suggest that we test it.

You cannot test that your inner experience is a reflection of physical world because there is no proven connection between the two. In a dream you can test whatever you want and everything fits. Until you wake up. The test would logically be a part of the world you are trying to test.

But what do you mean by 'real' in this context? How could we exist if the world wasn't 'real'? What difference would it make to science if the world wasn't 'real'?

Real in the meaning that its not just our imagination (consider for example the movie Matrix).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You can dream of eating. Experience can be stimulated and was stimulated with various experiments with brain.
You cannot tell if a table is a real thing or not, its just a belief.

Ultimately, that's true, but we can (mostly) distinguish dreams from reality by the overall consistency, coherence, and credibility of the experience(s), and the fact that we experience them in the context of sleep (we go to sleep and we wake up).

You cannot test that your inner experience is a reflection of physical world because there is no proven connection between the two. In a dream you can test whatever you want and everything fits. Until you wake up. The test would logically be a part of the world you are trying to test.

Nevertheless, we do (mostly) successfully distinguish between dreaming and reality (as above).

In my experience, I can often explicitly tell the difference because, for example, there are odd discontinuities (like movie jump-cuts), and when I try to read text, it changes and becomes indecipherable; those are my in-dream tests when I'm sufficiently lucid.

But mostly, post-hoc, they are simply not consistent, coherent, or credible enough, or contiguous with prior experience, i.e. the previous day, week, etc. Those are the tests we typically apply.

Real in the meaning that its not just our imagination (consider for example the movie Matrix).

The Matrix was fiction; there is an infinite variety of possible fictional deceptive alternate realities. How do you propose we deal with the potential of all those possibilities, short of suggesting and testing explanations for what we are able to observe and keeping those explanations that satisfy reasonable criteria?

 

[trophy33]

Ultimately, that's true, but we can (mostly) distinguish dreams from reality by the overall consistency, coherence, and credibility of the experience(s), and the fact that we experience them in the context of sleep (we go to sleep and we wake up).

Nevertheless, we do (mostly) successfully distinguish between dreaming and reality (as above).

In my experience, I can often explicitly tell the difference because, for example, there are odd discontinuities (like movie jump-cuts), and when I try to read text, it changes and becomes indecipherable; those are my in-dream tests when I'm sufficiently lucid.

We can distinguish between our personal dream state and our personal woke state. But we cannot prove that our woke state is corresponding to external reality and that we are not a part of some higher system to which our woke state is on the similar level as our personal dreaming state is to our personal woke state.

To clarify - I am not claiming that we are dreaming right now. I am using dreaming as an example that our experiences do not prove the reality of the things we experience.

But mostly, post-hoc, they are simply not consistent, coherent, or credible enough, or contiguous with prior experience, i.e. the previous day, week, etc. Those are the tests we typically apply.

Post-hoc would be, in our case, after we leave this current state of existence. Like waking up from a dream. Leaving this body.

The Matrix was fiction; there is an infinite variety of possible fictional deceptive alternate realities.

I do not claim that matrix is real. I am claiming that we cannot prove that. Its just our (Christian-like) trust that we live in the real world.

How do you propose we deal with the potential of all those possibilities, short of suggesting and testing explanations for what we are able to observe and keeping those explanations that satisfy reasonable criteria?

I propose more or less what humanity is already doing - living like the world is real, trusting more or less our senses and trust God that He is not giving us non-realistic experiences. Therefore let us continue with our scientific progress.

Its the philosophy we chose to follow (at least in the western culture). My point is just this - that it cannot be proven as a fact. Its a belief.

 

[partinobodycular]

You can dream of eating. Experience can be stimulated and was stimulated with various experiments with brain.
You cannot tell if a table is a real thing or not, its just a belief.

Having been an epistemological solipsist for fifty years now I must say that you're missing the point. It doesn't matter if the world is "real" or not. Or if it's a simulation or not. As far as science is concerned, and as far as what you can know, it just doesn't matter. All that you can do is look for predictable patterns and then attempt to explain why those patterns exist.

What one shouldn't do however is assume an overarching cause, be it God, or a simulation, because then one risks interpreting the observations from the perspective of that presumed cause. The cause should be a goal that you work toward, not a position that you work from.

So yes, reality may be a simulation, or it may be the product of a creator, but one should never begin a search for the answer by assuming that one already has it.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

We can distinguish between our personal dream state and our personal woke state. But we cannot prove that our woke state is corresponding to external reality and that we are not a part of some higher system to which our woke state is on the similar level as our personal dreaming state is to our personal woke state.

To clarify - I am not claiming that we are dreaming right now. I am using dreaming as an example that our experiences do not prove the reality of the things we experience.

As I already said, you can speculate all you like, and there have been literally thousands of religions and thousands of paranormal and mystical worldviews involving some meta-reality or afterlife, not to mention philosophical ideas such as the simulation hypothesis, but despite all that, we have no good evidence for any of it, just lots of conflicting claims and stories.

Until there is compelling evidence, there is no compelling reason to suppose that any of them are real. What is real and what exists is philosophically problematic, but in this context (i.e. as far as we can reasonably know), I'd suggest it is what is demonstrable and/or what can reasonably be inferred from that, e.g. our current state of scientific knowledge. Abstractions such as concepts, ideas, and beliefs are real in themselves (they exist) but their referents or contents are not necessarily real, so the idea or concept of a unicorn is real but we can't say the unicorn is real, and a belief in bigfoot is real, but we can't say that bigfoot is real.

Post-hoc would be, in our case, after we leave this current state of existence. Like waking up from a dream. Leaving this body.

There is no compelling evidence to suggest that occurs or is possible. It is just one of an infinite number of conceivable but unsubstantiated possibilities.

I do not claim that matrix is real. I am claiming that we cannot prove that. Its just our (Christian-like) trust that we live in the real world.

I propose more or less what humanity is already doing - living like the world is real, trusting more or less our senses and trust God that He is not giving us non-realistic experiences. Therefore let us continue with our scientific progress.

Proof is for mathematics and logic. We have little choice about reality - as Philip K. Dick said, "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." IOW, it is objective, persistent, and demonstrable.

Its the philosophy we chose to follow (at least in the western culture). My point is just this - that it cannot be proven as a fact. Its a belief.

It is a matter of pragmatic experience - without getting into the semantic weeds of 'reality', it is how we find the world to be, and if we were part of a simulation, that simulation would be reality for us. 'Facts' are statements about reality, i.e. statements about how we find the world to be.

In science, the nature of reality isn't a belief, it's something we constantly test and model in more precise ways. The progression from classical mechanics to Einsteinian Relativity to quantum field theory in each case totally revised our ideas of the nature of 'fundamental' reality.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Having been an epistemological solipsist for fifty years now I must say that you're missing the point. It doesn't matter if the world is "real" or not. Or if it's a simulation or not. As far as science is concerned, and as far as what you can know, it just doesn't matter. All that you can do is look for predictable patterns and then attempt to explain why those patterns exist.

What one shouldn't do however is assume an overarching cause, be it God, or a simulation, because then one risks interpreting the observations from the perspective of that presumed cause. The cause should be a goal that you work toward, not a position that you work from.

So yes, reality may be a simulation, or it may be the product of a creator, but one should never begin a search for the answer by assuming that one already has it.

Concisely put! but too late to save me from trying to say the same thing in a much more verbose way

 

[partinobodycular]

Concisely put! but too late to save me from trying to say the same thing in a much more verbose way

I'm glad that you did. Sometimes my philosophical musings miss the mark by mile.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'm glad that you did. Sometimes my philosophical musings miss the mark by mile.

Me too!

 

[essentialsaltes]

"I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned"

Translate that for me, would you?

There are some questions to which I will never find an answer. While displeasing, this state of affairs is preferable to being given answers without justification that I must accept unquestioningly.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Why did you refer to him as Dracula then, if he is a real person?

Because I didn't. I referred to Dracula as Dracula.

 

[AV1611VET]

"I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned"

Translate that for me, would you?

There are some questions to which I will never find an answer. While displeasing, this state of affairs is preferable to being given answers without justification that I must accept unquestioningly.

Are you translating that?

If so, is he saying, "I would rather have questions to which I will never find an answer, than answers that can never be questioned?"

 

[AV1611VET]

Feynman's quote is basically a rejection of dogma.

I have a feeling he rejected too much.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because I didn't. I referred to Dracula as Dracula.

What brought Dracula into the conversation?

 

[Mr Laurier]

What brought Dracula into the conversation?

You did. By invoking the script from a dozen or more bad "horror" movies from the 1950s.
Such movies were more comedy than anything else, but generally involved the "mad scientist" with a German sounding name, and accent... attempting to re-animate a monster made of dead people. Often with the help of a vampire-like character based on the Bella Lugosi version of Dracula... and a hunchbacked slave named "Igor", or "Brucey".
Usually thwarted by Abbot and Costello, or Marylin Monroe.

But you also attempted to conflate these cute movies, with the real world research of Dr's Harold Urey and Stan Miller, who NEVER attempted to kick-start life.

 

[sjastro]

Only on paper.

My simplest example to explain is SN1987A.

According to science, its light took 170,000 years to reach us.

But God could have made the leading edge of the light of SN1987A and placed it 5990 light years away from the earth, and its source (the star Sanduleak) even farther.

So it goes like this:

1. 23 October 4004 BC, God creates Earth.
2. 23 October 4004 BC, God creates the light from SN1987A and places it 5990 light years from Earth.
3. 26 October 4004 BC, God creates Sanduleak and places it 1,020,000,000,000,000,000 miles from Earth.

Scientists err by using the formula t=d/s (time equals distance divided by speed).

Only on paper.

So in order for God to be right, astronomers must be imbeciles.
What half wit scientist would use the formula t=d/s in the first place for galactic or cosmological scales?

Astronomers are more intelligent than what you give them credit for.
SN 1987 has produced light echoes as shown in the image.
By knowing the absolute diameter of the rings and measuring their relative diameter from Earth the distance of the supernova can be determined.

The distance of the supernova using the light echoes is 51.4 +/- 1.2 kpc ≈ 168,000 +/- 3900 light years.

Using the new reductions of the IUE light curves by Sonneborn et al (1997) and an extensive set of HST images of SN 1987A we have repeated and improved Panagia et al. (1991) analysis to obtain a better determination of the distance to the supernova. In this way we have derived an absolute size of the ring Rabs = (6.23 +/- 0.08) x 1017 cm and an angular size R = 808 +/- 17 mas, which give a distance to the supernova d(SN1987A) = 51.4 +/- 1.2 kpc and a distance modulus m-M(SN1987A) = 18.55 +/- 0.05. Allowing for a displacement of SN 1987A position relative to the LMC center, the distance to the barycenter of the Large Magellanic Cloud is also estimated to be d(LMC) = 52.0 +/- 1.3 kpc, which corresponds to a distance modulus of m-M(LMC) = 18.58 +/- 0.05. Revising accordingly the zero point of the Cepheid distance scale, and using the SNIa measured by Sandage and collaborators, one finds a value of the Hubble constant H0 = 60 +/- 6 km s-1 Mpc-1.

Distance to SN 1987 A and the LMC

 

[AV1611VET]

So in order for God to be right, astronomers must be imbeciles.

God is right, whether astronomers are imbeciles or not.

Which they aren't.

On the IQ scale, an imbecile is a person with an IQ of 26-50, falling between an idiot (0-25) and a moron (51-70).

So no, astronomers are not imbeciles.

BUT ... compared to omniscience in the field of astronomy, they know practically nothing.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I have a feeling he rejected too much.

Unsurprising.

 

[trophy33]

Having been an epistemological solipsist for fifty years now I must say that you're missing the point. It doesn't matter if the world is "real" or not. Or if it's a simulation or not. As far as science is concerned, and as far as what you can know, it just doesn't matter. All that you can do is look for predictable patterns and then attempt to explain why those patterns exist.

What one shouldn't do however is assume an overarching cause, be it God, or a simulation, because then one risks interpreting the observations from the perspective of that presumed cause. The cause should be a goal that you work toward, not a position that you work from.

So yes, reality may be a simulation, or it may be the product of a creator, but one should never begin a search for the answer by assuming that one already has it.

As I already said, you can speculate all you like, and there have been literally thousands of religions and thousands of paranormal and mystical worldviews involving some meta-reality or afterlife, not to mention philosophical ideas such as the simulation hypothesis, but despite all that, we have no good evidence for any of it, just lots of conflicting claims and stories.

Until there is compelling evidence, there is no compelling reason to suppose that any of them are real. What is real and what exists is philosophically problematic, but in this context (i.e. as far as we can reasonably know), I'd suggest it is what is demonstrable and/or what can reasonably be inferred from that, e.g. our current state of scientific knowledge. Abstractions such as concepts, ideas, and beliefs are real in themselves (they exist) but their referents or contents are not necessarily real, so the idea or concept of a unicorn is real but we can't say the unicorn is real, and a belief in bigfoot is real, but we can't say that bigfoot is real.

There is no compelling evidence to suggest that occurs or is possible. It is just one of an infinite number of conceivable but unsubstantiated possibilities.

Proof is for mathematics and logic. We have little choice about reality - as Philip K. Dick said, "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." IOW, it is objective, persistent, and demonstrable.

It is a matter of pragmatic experience - without getting into the semantic weeds of 'reality', it is how we find the world to be, and if we were part of a simulation, that simulation would be reality for us. 'Facts' are statements about reality, i.e. statements about how we find the world to be.

In science, the nature of reality isn't a belief, it's something we constantly test and model in more precise ways. The progression from classical mechanics to Einsteinian Relativity to quantum field theory in each case totally revised our ideas of the nature of 'fundamental' reality.

I did not claim that science does it wrongly. I only said that science has some beliefs and philosophical principles that are not provable. And those are similar to Christian ones, but very different from for example buddhist ones.

But people in this section are used to take sides or fight against each other, so its just it.

 

[partinobodycular]

I did not claim that science does it wrongly. I only said that science has some beliefs and philosophical principles that are not provable.

This, I think, is where people get confused. While scientists may ascribe to certain philosophical beliefs, science itself doesn't. Science is simply the method by which we discover things. It's then up to philosophy or theology to tell us what those discoveries mean.

I'll admit that scientists can be just as dogmatic as theologians are, and as a solipsist I'm perfectly willing to question either one of them. Try to assert something that you can't possibly know to be true, and you and I are going to have a problem.

All that I ask of anybody is...be honest. Recognize the difference between what you know and what you simply believe. Then openly and honestly tell me why you believe it.

I long ago figured out what theists believe. The much harder question to answer...is why.