Origins of the Universe

ronbyrne2005

I have always felt that the probability of a "god" was remarkably slim but lately I have been thinking about the nature of the universe(initiation of universe/big bang, space, time etc) and am puzzled by how the universe initiated. Does'nt the creation of the universe defy the laws of physics which we observe? (speed of light etc). Maybe the concept of a universe just poping into existence is beyond our minds , it seems such an amazing occurance and there is the chance that there was a creator of the universe, I just find it hard to accept that the universe just began out of nothing with nothing initiating the start. Even if a parallel universe or something outside of our universe created the universe what created the thing that created our universe?

Even if something consciously created the universe, it doesnt mean that something has any interaction with it now,maybe it created itself. What does science hypothesise about the creation of the universe?
I have been getting the feeling that everything in the universe is predestined right down to our thoughts and ability to change our destiny is an illusion, but this is probably just because of my anxiety.

Are we just animals? Are animals just self aware matter? What is matter? mmmmm
Wish i could find solace in theism. Can't accept that the universe emerged from a timeless spaceless void. Maybe universe has always existed but just constantly expanded then contracted.

Ciaran500

But we can't assume that the physics before our universe are what we observe now.

I've just come to accept that we can't know what happened before our universe, what will happen after our universe or what happens outside our universe.

Crucifix

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

What is matter? mmmmm

What is matter? Never mind. What is mind? Doesn't matter.

My favourite theory is always that the universe didn't begin.

Zillah

Your problem is that you can't imagine something existing without something creating it?

How is God the answer then? Where did God come from? And if the answer is that God is beyond our paltry logic, then why couldn't the (non) universe before space and time also be beyond our puny logic?

BreadBoard

I blame the Matrix.

Scofflaw

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

I have always felt that the probability of a "god" was remarkably slim but lately I have been thinking about the nature of the universe(initiation of universe/big bang, space, time etc) and am puzzled by how the universe initiated. Does'nt the creation of the universe defy the laws of physics which we observe? (speed of light etc). Maybe the concept of a universe just poping into existence is beyond our minds , it seems such an amazing occurance and there is the chance that there was a creator of the universe, I just find it hard to accept that the universe just began out of nothing with nothing initiating the start. Even if a parallel universe or something outside of our universe created the universe what created the thing that created our universe?

Even if something consciously created the universe, it doesnt mean that something has any interaction with it now,maybe it created itself. What does science hypothesise about the creation of the universe?
I have been getting the feeling that everything in the universe is predestined right down to our thoughts and ability to change our destiny is an illusion, but this is probably just because of my anxiety.

Are we just animals? Are animals just self aware matter? What is matter? mmmmm
Wish i could find solace in theism. Can't accept that the universe emerged from a timeless spaceless void. Maybe universe has always existed but just constantly expanded then contracted.

As far as I can tell, the answers to these are currently:

1. causality (ie cause-and-effect) is a property of our Universe - we don't know whether it was a property of whatever preceded or contains the universe (if anything). Therefore, there may literally have been no reason whatsoever.

2. if whatever preceded/contains the universe is causal, then no matter how unlikely the universe was to form, from our point of view it has to have done - if it had not, we wouldn't be around to wonder about it.

3. that last argument, the "anthropic principle", applies to almost everything else. As intelligent self-aware observers, we should not be surprised to find ourselves intelligent, self-aware, and observing the universe, since all these were given in the first part of the statement.

4. similarly, the "personal anthropic principle" applies to you personally. Depsite the sheer unlikeliness of all your ancestors meeting each other as opposed to someone else, and succesfully producing surviving children/spawn/hatchlings, etc etc, for all the billions of years life has been going - here you are. Seriously, how likely was it that your ancestors, and mine, survived the end-Permian extinction? And the end of the Cretaceous? And the end-Triassic extinction, Devonian extinctions, and all the macro-extinctions in the geological record? You are one lucky lucky lucky guy.

While the anthropic principle seems regrettably circular, and can be regarded as explaining nothing whatsoever, I've considered it "the answer" since I first thought of it age 8.

It's not a very good answer, but it's the same one you'd get if by a ludicrous sequence of coincidences you found yourself stranded on a tiny island in the Pacific - you're here because you're here, and the mind-boggling odds against you being here are now irrelevant. The question then becomes, what will you do?

Zillah

Scofflaw wrote:

1. causality (ie cause-and-effect) is a property of our Universe - we don't know whether it was a property of whatever preceded or contains the universe (if anything). Therefore, there may literally have been no reason whatsoever.

I really really like this.

I've always thought of thinking about the origin of the universe as quite redundant. You're essentially trying to observe a system from within the system.

Its a bit like a narcissist diagnosing themselves as having a psychological flaw, you can't do it from within the system.

aidan24326

Zillah wrote:

I've always thought of thinking about the origin of the universe as quite redundant. You're essentially trying to observe a system from within the system.Its a bit like a narcissist diagnosing themselves as having a psychological flaw, you can't do it from within the system.

In the case of the universe it's impossible to say whether or not it can be understood/explained from within the system. With a normal physical system you can detach yourself from it, observe from 'outside'. There may not be an 'outside' to the universe, in which case observing from within is the only observing possible. Of course this may render the ultimate answers we're looking for unknowable to us, but that doesn't mean it's redundant to think about it or seek to understand as much as we can.

Scofflaw, the anthropic principle is fine for explaining how we happen to be here but tells us nothing of the origin of the universe or if there even was an origin in the way we normally understand. I know you are well aware of this but you seem to be suggesting that the question of origin is a rather pointless one?

You are right in a way, it makes no difference at all to our everyday life, but I still feel it is a question very much worth asking and an answer worth searching for (even if we never find it). Certainly something beyond the useless 'answer' as supplied by religion, that some obscure unknowable entity called 'god' was behind it all. We should remember that science and even human civilisation itself is only in it's infancy and if humanity and the scientific endeavour continue to prosper (which they mightn't of course) then who knows what wonders will be discovered in the future? Or how much our understanding might evolve from what would be seen (then) as our primitive position today? Perhaps alien civilisations have already gained insights we can't even imagine.

Scofflaw

aidan24326 wrote:

Scofflaw, the anthropic principle is fine for explaining how we happen to be here but tells us nothing of the origin of the universe or if there even was an origin in the way we normally understand. I know you are well aware of this but you seem to be suggesting that the question of origin is a rather pointless one?

Pretty much. In a sense, I don't even understand why it should matter, particularly if the answer is actually a matter of physics. I would be fascinated to see anything that gives us pointers to what was there before, but content to leave it to the experts.

aidan24326 wrote:

You are right in a way, it makes no difference at all to our everyday life, but I still feel it is a question very much worth asking and an answer worth searching for (even if we never find it).

Let me put it to you this way. If it turned out that we were part of a complex simulation, that will not impact me, except insofar as I will wonder if it can be hacked from the inside, and where the bugs are. It will not make me question the pointlessness of my existence, because I've pretty much accepted that objectively my life is utterly pointless - a short walk from nothing to nothing.

If it turned out that we were part of God's plan, I would consider that equally pointless - not very different to the simulation, actually. What's the point of God, after all? I can understand how submission to God (aka faith) clears up all these questions, but I couldn't do it in any honest way - there would always be a bit of me going "God's plan - so what?". It just moves the problem a step up the chain.

So, yes, for me "you're here because you're here" is the only satisfactory answer, followed by "now get on with it - it's not a bloody dress rehearsal, you know!".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Funsterdelux

Crucifix wrote:

What is matter? Never mind. What is mind? Doesn't matter.

My favourite theory is always that the universe didn't begin.

.

I am of similar thought,

why does something need to begin?

Sure we were born, but the particles that makes us have been in existence since the "begining" of the universe.

Playboy

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

I have been getting the feeling that everything in the universe is predestined right down to our thoughts and ability to change our destiny is an illusion, but this is probably just because of my anxiety.

Are we just animals? Are animals just self aware matter? What is matter? mmmmm
Wish i could find solace in theism. Can't accept that the universe emerged from a timeless spaceless void. Maybe universe has always existed but just constantly expanded then contracted.

What do you mean by "probably because of my anxiety"? Are you having a sort of existential crisis? Faith can give comfort if you are anxious about these sorts of questions. Faith doesnt mean you have to embrace theism but that you maybe accept and hope that there is a spiritual side to you. Try and find meaning and purpose inside of yourself and in the relationships you have instead of out in cosmos and at the beginning of existence. There is no comfort or purpose to be found there only more questions that are equally unanswerable or unknowable. Shift the focus of your search to a place where answers and meaning were meant to be found.

Zombrex

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

Does'nt the creation of the universe defy the laws of physics which we observe? (speed of light etc).

The laws of physics are properties of the universe, so they were created when the universe was created.

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

Maybe the concept of a universe just poping into existence is beyond our minds , it seems such an amazing occurance

How do you know it was an "amazing" occurance. For all we know billions of universes pop in and out of existence ever second.

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

I just find it hard to accept that the universe just began out of nothing with nothing initiating the start.

Who said it did?

There is a difference between saying that we don't know what happened before the Big Bang and saying that nothing existed before the Big Bang (because saying "nothing" existed is still a judgement on what existed, and we don't know)

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

Even if a parallel universe or something outside of our universe created the universe what created the thing that created our universe?

Well if you assume it was a super powerful intelligence (God) doesn't the question just shift to "What created God"

Tar.Aldarion

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

Are we just animals? Are animals just self aware matter? What is matter? mmmmm

I was going to start a thread on this, I may still do.
We are indeed 'just animals' but are we any different from the rest of matter?
Do people believe in a 'soul' or that we are just chemical machines?
Is there a difference between a computer and us?
Are we just part of a system and interacting with it in a kindof foretold way, in that we are programmed just like we would program a computer?
Are we aware, or just seemingly so?
I imagine we are by standard definition, but I also come to teh conclusion that without proof of a soul, a spark, we are just chemical machines.

Zillah

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

We are indeed 'just animals' but are we any different from the rest of matter?

Fundamentally, no.

Do people believe in a 'soul' or that we are just chemical machines?

Electro chemical machines.

Is there a difference between a computer and us?

Philosophically, no.

Are we just part of a system and interacting with it in a kindof foretold way, in that we are programmed just like we would program a computer?

Programmed just like a computer from the future that is vastly more sophisticated than any computer currently in existence and blessed with ingenius adaptive software of the likes modern programmers can only dream.

Are we aware, or just seemingly so?

Everything is aware, its just degrees of complexity.

I imagine we are by standard definition, but I also come to teh conclusion that without proof of a soul, a spark, we are just chemical machines.

Yup. Goo vats. Fantastical bags of slime

Fallen Seraph

I'm of the opinion that "what created the universe" is fundamentally a phyiscs question. Akin to "what makes the sky blue?". I mean the universe was clearly created, and there's nothing to suggest that a supernatural being had anything at all to do with it.

Playboy

Zillah wrote:

Electro chemical machines.

Thats what you think. The argument is a philosophical dead end.

Zillah wrote:

Philosophically, no.

In what sense philosophically? I presume you mean that we are all made from basically the same stuff because that is the only sense in which you could say we are the same.

Zillah wrote:

Programmed just like a computer from the future that is vastly more sophisticated than any computer currently in existence and blessed with ingenius adaptive software of the likes modern programmers can only dream.

I dont think there is any evidence to suggest that we are programmed like computers. Cognitive psychology, artifical intelligence etc try and model the human brain in a computeristic fashion but there is still huge gaps in that way of understanding the mind and it remains to be seen if it will be completely successful. We still have no idea how conciousness arises out of chemical interactions in the brain. You cant philosophically rule out a metaphysical explanation with our current level of understanding and knowledge. This kind of Eliminative Materialism has its problems as a philosophy. You speak as if the questions that Tar posed have definite answers and not merely your perspective or opinion on the matter.

Zillah wrote:

Everything is aware, its just degrees of complexity.

Thats an interesting point .. could you elaborate on it a little further because I'm not sure I understand properly.

Zillah wrote:

Yup. Goo vats. Fantastical bags of slime

Maybe there is no such thing as a soul and maybe the default scientific and skeptical position has to be materialistic but I wouldnt be so sure. Human experience leads us to believe in a mind distinct from the body which in turn facilitates our conception of a metaphysical soul. It's really a matter of choice whether one accepts reductive explanations of human experience or one chooses to find meaning and answers within the experience. If you are a pragmatist you can do both just as many religious scientists do

aidan24326

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

Are we just animals? Are animals just self aware matter? What is matter? mmmmm.

Are we 'just' animals? Yes, that's all we are. The issue of self-awareness is a bit more complicated. We don't know to what degree any creature is self-aware. All of the matter in your body is by no means self-aware anyway, it might be more accurate to say we are a highly complex arrangement of matter where consciousness and self-awareness has come about as an emergent property of the system through millions of years of natural selection.

Wish i could find solace in theism. Can't accept that the universe emerged from a timeless spaceless void. Maybe universe has always existed but just constantly expanded then contracted

I wouldn't bother seeking solace in theism if I was you, unless it's a deluded solace you're after. Theology has an unfortunate habit of being wrong on almost every question it attempts to answer. That you can't accept the universe emerging from a timeless spaceless void is simply that timeless spaceless voids (should they even exist) are way outside the realm of normal human experience and pretty much impossible for us to imagine. That doesn't mean they're actually impossible though.

I agree with you that the universe may always have existed with no need for a beginning or end and no need for a creator. Again this is difficult for us to comprehend though. We are designed to think in terms of 'beginning' and 'end'. Infinity doesn't sit well in the human brain. Natural selection has shaped us to feel comfortable thinking about and dealing with the types of situations we ordinarily encounter, and it's easy to see why. Unfortunately that does limit our ability to understand counterintuitive concepts in physics.

Tar.Aldarion

Zillah wrote:

Fundamentally, no.

Obviously it's a fundamental no. What i am asking is, are you any different than that rock over there, at all?
It may be playing a part in a system, just as you may be, interacting in a way that you 'think' is due to 'consciousness'.
Btw, as Playboy mentioned, there are no answers to my questions.

Electro chemical machines.

Well, if we must get pedantic, electrochemical is but one word. :P

Philosophically, no.

What does that mean?
I am aware that my question has no answer that we can possibly know. It is a yes or no question that has an answer just based on ones opinion.

Programmed just like a computer from the future that is vastly more sophisticated than any computer currently in existence and blessed with ingenius adaptive software of the likes modern programmers can only dream.

Yes, yes, Data, Lor and all that.
As my question does not have an answer I am just asking for a general opinion on whether people(of the non religious variety) think that there is a 'spark' or 'soul' or if they think that this computer in front of me is just the same as a human.

Everything is aware, its just degrees of complexity.

What makes you say that? Aware in what sense? To stimulus? To surroundings? To?
I think that everything, nothing, or some things are 'aware', but I have no inkling as to which it is.
Nothing... would be an interesting truth. Maybe 'aware' does not even exist, if we are just part of a predetermined system from the start. But is being seemingly aware, actually aware? Maybe thinking you are aware, even if you are not, is awareness.
These advanced computers you speak of, take data from star trek, would you consider him aware?
If your answer is yes, i think everything is aware, if no, then nothing is, with the possiblility of a 'soul' meaning some things could be.

Playboy wrote:

Maybe there is no such thing as a soul and maybe the default scientific and skeptical position has to be materialistic but I wouldnt be so sure. Human experience leads us to believe in a mind distinct from the body which in turn facilitates our conception of a metaphysical soul.

What experience makes you think this?
I would imagine 'human experience' is what makes many people believe in a 'god'.
What would the default scientific be to most people? No soul? Soul? I would purpose that it is the former, although there is something to be said with an agnostic approach. As science does not start with presumptions, IE, does not start out with an opinion of a god existing or not, the same could be said of a soul.
For the same reason I would find it hard to believe in a god, the believing in a 'soul' also will elude me, burden of a proof that cannot be had.
With a science aimed perspective, is the default not that we are, in fact, just electrochemical machines, controlled by our 'biological makeup, and nothing else?

Zillah

Imagine me having a badly hidden smile in my last post

Zillah

Although some of the responses were fun :

Playboy wrote:

Thats what you think. The argument is a philosophical dead end.

Thats because most of philosophy is a dead end.

Philosopher: What are the ramifications of when a human fails to follow their conscience?
Me: Uh, none outside the social context in which it evolved. They may be arrested or shunned.
Philosopher: But that is a redundant position, it says nothing philosophically.
Me: Yes, exactly. Philosophy usually fails to say anything.

In what sense philosophically?

Both a human and a computer are systems interacting with other systems. When I do indulge in philosophy, its usually disquietingly Nihilistic (Although I prefer the term "deconstruction", people tend to make all sorts of silly assumptions about Nihilism).

I dont think there is any evidence to suggest that we are programmed like computers. Cognitive psychology, artifical intelligence etc try and model the human brain in a computeristic fashion but there is still huge gaps in that way of understanding the mind and it remains to be seen if it will be completely successful. We still have no idea how conciousness arises out of chemical interactions in the brain.

Functionally they are the same; a computer is a system that takes in data, processes it, stores it (long term and short term) and provides out puts. The human brain does the same. Perhaps the base code is different, and the method of programming is extremely different, but fundamentally they're the same sort of system.

You cant philosophically rule out a metaphysical explanation with our current level of understanding and knowledge. This kind of Eliminative Materialism has its problems as a philosophy. You speak as if the questions that Tar posed have definite answers and not merely your perspective or opinion on the matter.

To the best of the human ability to perceive, any metaphysical argument is useless until there is any verifiable reason to even consider it. We may as well say "Universe = X" until one can quantify whatever God-nonesense is the myth of the day.

Thats an interesting point .. could you elaborate on it a little further because I'm not sure I understand properly.

It would appear that sentience is a side effect of a system that is complex enough to guage its own place in the world. I think of it as being a matter of degrees.

For example:

A rock rolls down the cliff. Is it sentient? Did it choose to roll down the cliff? Most people say no, of course not, its just a stupid rock. It didn't choose to roll, it just did because of the wind/soil/errosion.

Well what about a virus? Is its complex behaviour evidence for its sentience? Most people would say no, its just a fancy bunch of molecules reacting to their environment. Chemical and physical processes drive its "behaviour".

A dog? I think most people would say that a dog is certainly aware, but not really sentient the way we are. It doesn't truly understand its existence, it just works on levels of instinct that evolution programmed into its brain.

Well what about people? Are we sentient? Most say yes. But in the same way are we not just a reactionary system, like all the other one's I've mention, just of a degree of complexity that we consider sentient?

So its a sliding scale, sentience is not on/off. I wouldn't be suprised if there were (non supernatural!) entities out there of a scale of sentience fundamentally beyond ours, like us to a cat.

I might post more later, for now I really want a smoke.

aidan24326

Posted by Zillah
Functionally they are the same; a computer is a system that takes in data, processes it, stores it (long term and short term) and provides out puts. The human brain does the same. Perhaps the base code is different, and the method of programming is extremely different, but fundamentally they're the same sort of system.

...though modern research in neuroscience is suggesting that the brain works far more differently to a computer than was previously thought.

I do agree with what you say about our relation to other creatures though. It is nonsense to say we are 'aware 'and a cat isn't or we are 'conscious' and a mouse isn't etc. It would appear to be a sliding scale and if there is life on other planets there is likely to be something out there much further along the scale than us.

Tar.Aldarion

Why do you think a mouse is any less 'aware' than you are?

Red Hand

aidan24326 wrote:

Posted by Zillah
Functionally they are the same; a computer is a system that takes in data, processes it, stores it (long term and short term) and provides out puts. The human brain does the same. Perhaps the base code is different, and the method of programming is extremely different, but fundamentally they're the same sort of system.

...though modern research in neuroscience is suggesting that the brain works far more differently to a computer than was previously thought.

Yep, the idea of us thinking broad blurry "concepts" suggests that the brain is quite different to a computor.

Red Hand

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Why do you think a mouse is any less 'aware' than you are?

Just a side-question: what does being "aware" mean? Knowledge of a creature's surroundings?

Tar.Aldarion

Having knowledge; conscious; cognizant. Knowledge gained through one's own perceptions or by means of information.
Awareness describes a human or other animal's perception and cognitive reaction to a condition or event. Awareness does not necessarily imply understanding, just an ability to be conscious of, feel or perceive.
Etc.

...though modern research in neuroscience is suggesting that the brain works far more differently to a computer than was previously thought.

How so?
Also, what do you mean by 'computer'? Our standard one or something that is programmed?

monkeyfudge

Wicknight wrote:

The laws of physics are properties of the universe, so they were created when the universe was created.

It's thought that the laws of physics weren't determined until a few seconds after the big bang.

One idea that I've had is that at some point in the future we develop a way to look back through time to examine the very beginning of the universe and through that act of observation a universe is created that allows us to exist to observe it.

aidan24326

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

do you think a mouse is any less 'aware' than you are?

I don't. A mouse is presumably aware of it's surroundings in much the same way as I am. I was thinking more of self-awareness. I meant overall mental capacity seems to run along a sliding scale. Other creatures may not have the same sort of mind as we do but that doesn't mean that we go in one box and every other creature in another.

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

How so?
Also, what do you mean by 'computer'? Our standard one or something that is programmed?

Too complex for me to explain. You'd have to look it up yourself I'm afraid. I read a book called 'Consciousness - How matter becomes imagination' which is a theory of mind put forward by Gerald Edelman (nobel prize winner in the 70s) and Giulio Tononi who are leading researchers at The Neurosciences Institute in America, you could give it a go if you're interested though it's fairly heavy stuff. Basically they're suggesting that the brain works in a very different way to any standard programmable devices that we've invented, and if anything it appears to be even more complex than previously thought.

Anyway, we're wandering a bit off-topic now. As to the origins of the universe, maybe if we keep posting here for long enough somebody will hit on the answer. Like the one about the monkey bashing on a keypad for zillions of years and eventually typing the works of Shakespeare.

I guess we just don't have a bloody clue really, and that's the bottom line. Why is there a universe at all, as opposed to there not being one? What was there before it? Was there anything? Nothing at all? Is absolute nothingness possible? Was there even a 'before' in any meaningful sense? Is the big bang singularity a brick wall beyond which we will never know? Are we just temporarily animated assemblies of matter getting ideas above our station by even asking such questions?

Playboy

Zillah wrote:

Thats because most of philosophy is a dead end.

Philosopher: What are the ramifications of when a human fails to follow their conscience?
Me: Uh, none outside the social context in which it evolved. They may be arrested or shunned.
Philosopher: But that is a redundant position, it says nothing philosophically.
Me: Yes, exactly. Philosophy usually fails to say anything.

Philosophy is more about the journey than the answer. It chooses to try and answer unanswerable questions .. it might not come to scientific conclusions on the questions it poses but it is fundamental to the development of knowledge. Philosophical thought has shaped the world we live in and there would not have been much 'progress' without it.

Zillah wrote:

Both a human and a computer are systems interacting with other systems. When I do indulge in philosophy, its usually disquietingly Nihilistic (Although I prefer the term "deconstruction", people tend to make all sorts of silly assumptions about Nihilism).

hmmm for someone who claims to be nihilistic or deconstructionist you seem to be quite sure of the validity of a scientific position. Surely science and its assumptions can be deconstructed to the meaningless like anything else? I cant understand why a nihilist or deconstrutionist would put so much faith in science when the philosphy of deconstructionism can be seen as an attack on scientific values. Maybe I am misunderstanding what you mean or am incorrectly remembering my Derrida and Neitzche?

Zillah wrote:

Functionally they are the same; a computer is a system that takes in data, processes it, stores it (long term and short term) and provides out puts. The human brain does the same. Perhaps the base code is different, and the method of programming is extremely different, but fundamentally they're the same sort of system.

This is what I was saying earlier. We model the human mind/brain in cognitive psychology, neuroscience, AI etc. on a computer system in order to understand it. Just becuase we model a system on another system does not mean that is in fact the way it operates.

Zillah wrote:

To the best of the human ability to perceive, any metaphysical argument is useless until there is any verifiable reason to even consider it. We may as well say "Universe = X" until one can quantify whatever God-nonesense is the myth of the day.

Useless to whom? Useless to you maybe but not to others. You are applying strict scientific criteria to rational argument. Just because something is unverifiable does not mean it is useless and worthless to consider. There are many postulates in science which are unverifiable so far. There are many things which were once considered unverifiable which were later verified. Why do human beings believe in a soul ... why and how did the idea arise .. why does the idea exist practically in every culture. There must be something that exists within the human experience that indicates the existence of this thing. Is the idea not worth investegating for those reasons alone?

Crucifix

monkeyfudge wrote:

It's thought that the laws of physics weren't determined until a few seconds after the big bang.

In the popular theory at least the laws of physics are there as far back as it goes, they were just mad and unified and shit til everything calmed down a bit.

kleefarr

The thing is, where does it all ended? The universe could be just a small part of a much much bigger thing!

What's it all about?

Not the sort of thing you want to think about too much, it could have strange effects on your mind. :eek:

Zillah

Playboy wrote:

Philosophy is more about the journey than the answer. It chooses to try and answer unanswerable questions .. it might not come to scientific conclusions on the questions it poses but it is fundamental to the development of knowledge.

How? Everything philosophy has achieved could have been achieved by other means, better and faster. Saying its the journey rather than the destination is rather meaningless, theres always a result, even if its just a side effect of the process.

hmmm for someone who claims to be nihilistic or deconstructionist you seem to be quite sure of the validity of a scientific position. Surely science and its assumptions can be deconstructed to the meaningless like anything else? I cant understand why a nihilist or deconstrutionist would put so much faith in science when the philosphy of deconstructionism can be seen as an attack on scientific values. Maybe I am misunderstanding what you mean or am incorrectly remembering my Derrida and Neitzche?

I didn't say I was a Nihilist, simply that I has such leanings. In a world that is ultimately relative, then observable results are all that I can trust. Hence, science. And nihilism isn't something to which one subscribes, its a way of describing similar outlooks.

Just because something is unverifiable does not mean it is useless and worthless to consider.

Yes it does. It is completely pointless to consider something that is unverifiable. Unless you just want a logic work out.

There are many postulates in science which are unverifiable so far. There are many things which were once considered unverifiable which were later verified.

But none that are fundamentally unverifiable. As opposed to something like God. Its a crucial element in the scientific process; its called falsifiability. Something must have a reasonable method by which it can be proven false for it to be a scientific theory.

Why do human beings believe in a soul ... why and how did the idea arise .. why does the idea exist practically in every culture. There must be something that exists within the human experience that indicates the existence of this thing. Is the idea not worth investegating for those reasons alone?

Analysing the origins of human belief in the supernatural is part of the fascinating science of Anthropology. Philosophy doesn't do that.

And widespread belief in the soul is not evidence for its existence.

Playboy

Zillah wrote:

How? Everything philosophy has achieved could have been achieved by other means, better and faster. Saying its the journey rather than the destination is rather meaningless, theres always a result, even if its just a side effect of the process.

Thats just plain stupid. If something could have achieved things better and faster then it would have.

Zillah wrote:

I didn't say I was a Nihilist, simply that I has such leanings. In a world that is ultimately relative, then observable results are all that I can trust. Hence, science. And nihilism isn't something to which one subscribes, its a way of describing similar outlooks.

that doesnt make any sense.

Zillah wrote:

Yes it does. It is completely pointless to consider something that is unverifiable. Unless you just want a logic work out.

thats a ridiculous statement on so many levels. Are you a human being or a computer?

Zillah wrote:

But none that are fundamentally unverifiable. As opposed to something like God. Its a crucial element in the scientific process; its called falsifiability. Something must have a reasonable method by which it can be proven false for it to be a scientific theory.

And everything in science is falsifable? Poppers criteria are very nice and in a perfect world maybe science could strictly stick to those criteria but it doesnt.

Zillah wrote:

Analysing the origins of human belief in the supernatural is part of the fascinating science of Anthropology. Philosophy doesn't do that.

And widespread belief in the soul is not evidence for its existence.

The philosophy of mind deals with questions about the soul, dualism, materialism etc. It does this becuase there is widespread belief in a soul. Widespread belief in something is criteria that warrants an investigation into it. Sometimes no conclusions can be drawn .. a metaphysical explanation is just as valid as materilaist explanation until the materialist explantion can be shown to be true. Which it hasnt.

Zillah

Playboy wrote:

Thats just plain stupid. If something could have achieved things better and faster then it would have.

Sigh.

A jet engine can make a plane go faster than a propeller. That doesn't mean that all planes ever automatically used jet engines.

Now imagine we're arguing about what we should use to make our planes go. You're arguing that propellers let the forces of the allies bomb Germany into submission, and we should therefore use them. I'm arguing that jet engines could do the same thing, but better, and just because they didn't have jets at their disposal then doesn't mean they wouldn't have been better off if they did.

Does that clear it up for you?

that doesnt make any sense.

To you, perhaps. Maybe I should have explained in more detail. Regardless, the nihilism issue is not important.

thats a ridiculous statement on so many levels. Are you a human being or a computer?

I fail to see the relevance of the question. You seem to be implying that the fact that we are human somehow makes sloppy, irrational paradigms justifiable, rather than a regrettable, but avoidable failure.

And the statement I made did make sense, but again I fear you've missed the point. The only reason one would seriously consider a claim that lacks falsifiability is if you feel like an exercise to flex your logical muscles. There can be nothing gained, as the claim is useless.

Try wiki-ing "falsifiability" and then come back.

And everything in science is falsifable?

Absolutely everything. If its not falsifiable then its no longer a scientific theory. They don't need to be immediately falsifiable, but they must, at least potentially be falsifiable.

The philosophy of mind deals with questions about the soul, dualism, materialism etc. It does this becuase there is widespread belief in a soul. Widespread belief in something is criteria that warrants an investigation into it. Sometimes no conclusions can be drawn .. a metaphysical explanation is just as valid as materilaist explanation until the materialist explantion can be shown to be true. Which it hasnt.

Most of this is specious silliness. Essentially its a load of baseless nonesense that encourages people to invent ridiculous, fanciful world views.

Every piece of actual hard evidence ever collected and verified has pointed towards the world existing as matter and energy and absolutely nothing beyond.

The only relevant investigation to be done based on widespread belief in a soul is psychological and anthropological. I'd suggest a paper entitled; "Willful Dellusion: An investigation into the mind's ability to decieve itself and to assemble a world view of fantasy and myth."

The philosophy of mind deals with questions about the soul, dualism, materialism etc.

It asks questions? Does it provide any answers? If not, then people are invited to simply invent answers?

Playboy

Zillah wrote:

Sigh.

A jet engine can make a plane go faster than a propeller. That doesn't mean that all planes ever automatically used jet engines.

Now imagine we're arguing about what we should use to make our planes go. You're arguing that propellers let the forces of the allies bomb Germany into submission, and we should therefore use them. I'm arguing that jet engines could do the same thing, but better, and just because they didn't have jets at their disposal then doesn't mean they wouldn't have been better off if they did.

Does that clear it up for you?

Are you for real? What would you replace philosophy with that would make it go faster or better? Philosophical thought is an essential part of humanity whether its done by philosophers or by joe soap. There is nothing to replace it .. we cant just view the world through a scientific paradigm. And I dont know what the sigh is for .. you are just being plain ridiculous.

Zillah wrote:

I fail to see the relevance of the question. You seem to be implying that the fact that we are human somehow makes sloppy, irrational paradigms justifiable, rather than a regrettable, but avoidable failure.

They may seem sloppy to a one dimensional person who never leaves their computer screen. All our expereinces cant be boxed neatly into a clear cut scientific paradigm. You would know this if u tried living a little. Life is sloppy and irrational .. we cant just dismiss everything out of hand becuase it doesnt fit into a certain criteria. The kind of hyper skepticism that you seem to potray is impossible to apply to all aspects of our experience of life.

Zillah wrote:

And the statement I made did make sense, but again I fear you've missed the point. The only reason one would seriously consider a claim that lacks falsifiability is if you feel like an exercise to flex your logical muscles. There can be nothing gained, as the claim is useless.

Try wiki-ing "falsifiability" and then come back.

I'm well aware what falsifiability means and i havent missed your point .. I'm afraid you are missing mine. You are trying to apply scientific criteria to all aspects of life. That doesnt work and you cant just call it pointless. Pointless is a perspective. What you would consider pointless, others do not.

Zillah wrote:

Absolutely everything. If its not falsifiable then its no longer a scientific theory. They don't need to be immediately falsifiable, but they must, at least potentially be falsifiable.

What does potentially falsifiable mean? Are memetics falsifiable? How do know we if they ever will be falsifiable?

Zillah wrote:

Most of this is specious silliness. Essentially its a load of baseless nonesense that encourages people to invent ridiculous, fanciful world views.

Every piece of actual hard evidence ever collected and verified has pointed towards the world existing as matter and energy and absolutely nothing beyond.

The only relevant investigation to be done based on widespread belief in a soul is psychological and anthropological. I'd suggest a paper entitled; "Willful Dellusion: An investigation into the mind's ability to decieve itself and to assemble a world view of fantasy and myth."

I've just realised that I'm wasting time that I dont have. You will find out for yourself at some stage.

Scofflaw

This discussion reminds me of the reason why I post on the Creationism thread.

I don't apply the scientific paradigm to everything, because it is a tool designed for studying specific forms of knowledge. It is inapplicable outside its field.

Mathematics, for example, is entirely respectable, but rationalist, not empiricist, and therefore not 'scientific' - some mathematics is susceptible of empirical proof, but most is not. Some of it doesn't even make empirical sense - what is the square root of minus one? Is it observable? No, it is not, yet mathematics has the credibility that many sceptics wish to deny to other rationalist fields (like, ooh, say theology) on the basis that they are not empirical fields.

I argue against Creationists not because belief in Genesis is unscientific, but purely because they claim it is scientific. In that claim is the whole reason for contending against Creationism, because in order to "prove" their claims they distort the perception of what science is. That distortion, which is merely a tool to them, is phenomenally dangerous - something that their claim itself is not. I would have no objection if they want to set up colleges that attempt to apply Creationism in interpreting the physical world - that is not a problem, because it simply cannot be made to actually work. It is the distortion of the perception of what real science is, and what real science offers, that is dangerous.

I have no brief for attacking unreason, except where it has empirical effects, or contradicts scientific findings. Other than that, live and let live, and accept that science cannot replace philosophy, any more than a hammer can replace a knife.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

Playboy wrote:

Are you for real? What would you replace philosophy with that would make it go faster or better?

You're either willfully misunderstanding me or you're never gonna get it. Your tone is becoming quite trying. How about you give a blanket "I don't respect other peoples opinions" comment and you can save time with all the little dismissive comments sprinkled through out. And if you don't stop I'll just start insulting right back, k?

I wasn't talking about improving philosophy, I was talking about bypassing it altogether. Things like human rights, legal systems, equality and all that, those kind of things can be done simply by sitting down and getting right to it. Arguably thats a form of "philosophy", in which case its a form I can live with. A lot of things about human rights and equality however came about because of nonesense about souls and God, that kind of stuff can be tackled much better outside a paradigm of illusions.

Medieval England believed that the king ruled by God's will, and hence he was treated with absurd levels of repects and people acted as if he had the authority of God. Thats the sort of insane silliness that abstract philosophical models can lead to. Burning jews, burning witches, burning heretics. Burning based on nonesense. That'd certainly be an awful way to go.

Philosophical thought is an essential part of humanity whether its done by philosophers or by joe soap. There is nothing to replace it .. we cant just view the world through a scientific paradigm. And I dont know what the sigh is for ..

Whats essential about it? You've consistently ignored my requests for any answer rather than questions. You just kind of pretended that question didn't happen above.

And I don't think you're in any position to talk about the scientific paradigm, you've already shown you don't understand falsifiability and you previously claimed that "in all likelyhood" your sentience would magically reform in a new self sustaining energy pattern free of the brain and body.*

*I think this was you a couple weeks ago. If not, disregard.

They may seem sloppy to a one dimensional person who never leaves their computer screen.

Oh yes, very mature. I have a life outside boards, its fun and full of stuff. I have no problem with sloppy behaviour, just sloppy belief. I do stupid irrational things all the time, because I want to. But I'm under no illusions as to whats underpinning it all.

All our expereinces cant be boxed neatly into a clear cut scientific paradigm.

Of course it can. Explain one scenario in your life that can't?

You would know this if u tried living a little. Life is sloppy and irrational .. we cant just dismiss everything out of hand becuase it doesnt fit into a certain criteria. The kind of hyper skepticism that you seem to potray is impossible to apply to all aspects of our experience of life.

I apply that sort of hyper-scepticism to my world view. It makes sure I understand, to the best of my ability, to the world around me. It doesn't mean that I constantly run every decision through a scientific framework, just that I'm under no illusions as so why I do something.

I'm well aware what falsifiability means and i havent missed your point .. I'm afraid you are missing mine. You are trying to apply scientific criteria to all aspects of life. That doesnt work and you cant just call it pointless. Pointless is a perspective. What you would consider pointless, others do not.

Ok. "If one man has a soul, then it is objectively wrong to kill him, because he is your spiritual equal." People could play around with that statement for days with philosophy, but what does it achieve?

In the long run people might work out a system of morality whereby killing someone is wrong. But wouldn't it be so much more expedient and accurate to realise that such morality is not based on magical extradimensional factors, but is in a fact a very tangible result of evolutionary psychology? Its the jet engine you see.

What does potentially falsifiable mean? Are memetics falsifiable? How do know we if they ever will be falsifiable?

Memetics are at least in theory falsifiable. Doesn't mean it will ever happen, its a very very delicate kind of topic to attack. The best way to demonstrate "potentially falsifiable" is with an example of whats not. God. Any statements about God are completely redundant because we can never ever in any way shape or form be sure that God doesn't exist. Until God appears in the sky and makes some proclamations then any discussion on the nature of God is futile, it achieves nothing that can't be achieved in better ways (like the above morality).

It doesn't mean that everyone who talks about memetics is being scientific about it, and to be honest I'm only passingly familiar with it. I havn't read Popper, although I'm planning to. Its possible he's indugled inphilosophy rather than science

I've just realised that I'm wasting time that I dont have. You will find out for yourself at some stage.

Ah, the old "I'm so much better than you and hence I'm running away" parting shot.

DublinEvents

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

I have always felt that the probability of a "god" was remarkably slim but lately I have been thinking about the nature of the universe(initiation of universe/big bang, space, time etc) and am puzzled by how the universe initiated. Does'nt the creation of the universe defy the laws of physics which we observe? (speed of light etc). Maybe the concept of a universe just poping into existence is beyond our minds , it seems such an amazing occurance and there is the chance that there was a creator of the universe, I just find it hard to accept that the universe just began out of nothing with nothing initiating the start. Even if a parallel universe or something outside of our universe created the universe what created the thing that created our universe?

Even if something consciously created the universe, it doesnt mean that something has any interaction with it now,maybe it created itself. What does science hypothesise about the creation of the universe?
I have been getting the feeling that everything in the universe is predestined right down to our thoughts and ability to change our destiny is an illusion, but this is probably just because of my anxiety.

Are we just animals? Are animals just self aware matter? What is matter? mmmmm
Wish i could find solace in theism. Can't accept that the universe emerged from a timeless spaceless void. Maybe universe has always existed but just constantly expanded then contracted.

My friend, it is really good and heartwarming to see that you are contemplating on the origin of the universe. This is what all humans are supposed to do. I sincerely believe that God exists. He has created us and put us on this planet in a virtually limitless universe and He has given us something unique that other organisms on our planet do not possess: an advanced brain. We are surrounded by clues that force us to think that all that we see around us could not have been the result of randomness that science seems to propose with such conviction. The birth of the universe was not a random event at all. God created us to test us and He has left ample signs around us so we can figure out our true purpose. Our purpose is to acknowledge God's existence, obey His commands and create peace and harmony in this world and put an end to bloodshed, suffering and injustice.

Zillah

DublinEvents wrote:

We are surrounded by clues that force us to think that all that we see around us could not have been the result of randomness that science seems to propose with such conviction.

Why do you think that science, which got everything else so right, go it wrong this time?

Dades

Scofflaw wrote:

I have no brief for attacking unreason, except where it has empirical effects, or contradicts scientific findings. Other than that, live and let live, and accept that science cannot replace philosophy, any more than a hammer can replace a knife.

I concur with this. Philosophy is definitely not my thing, but neither is tai-chi or meditation.

DublinEvents wrote:

God created us to test us and He has left ample signs around us so we can figure out our true purpose.

If earth is the Crystal Maze, does that mean God is Richard O'Brian?

Scofflaw

DublinEvents wrote:

Our purpose is to acknowledge God's existence, obey His commands and create peace and harmony in this world and put an end to bloodshed, suffering and injustice.

Well, we're amazingly bad at it. Very poor design, must try harder next time.

regards,
Scofflaw

aidan24326

Scofflaw wrote:

Well, we're amazingly bad at it. Very poor design, must try harder next time.

regards,
Scofflaw

Indeed. If that was god's plan then he really ought have been a bit clearer about it as up to now we've not been doing such a good job.

DublinEvents if god designed the universe (and us) to live in peace and harmony and all of that, then why do you think things have gone so spectacularly wrong, with a century of war and bloodshed behind us and this one starting off with more wars and killing? Why would a god have designed a world capable of such horrors at all, some of these horrors and atrocities committed in his name? Unless he's not a benevolent god after all but either an uncaring or downright malevelont entity? How do you reconcile the very obvious contradictions?

Playboy

Zillah wrote:

You're either willfully misunderstanding me or you're never gonna get it. Your tone is becoming quite trying. How about you give a blanket "I don't respect other peoples opinions" comment and you can save time with all the little dismissive comments sprinkled through out. And if you don't stop I'll just start insulting right back, k?

There is nothing to get .. you are talking out if your rear end. I dont really care if you find that insulting or not .. your posts are full of 'sighs' and sarcastic comments. How you can ever comment on a persons tone is beyond me. Work on your own posting style and you might not get what you give.

Zillah wrote:

I wasn't talking about improving philosophy, I was talking about bypassing it altogether. Things like human rights, legal systems, equality and all that, those kind of things can be done simply by sitting down and getting right to it. Arguably thats a form of "philosophy", in which case its a form I can live with. A lot of things about human rights and equality however came about because of nonesense about souls and God, that kind of stuff can be tackled much better outside a paradigm of illusions.

Of course its philosophy when people talk about these kind of things. Philosophy is done by everyone not just by professional philosophers and it is essential and cant be done better or faster or whatever other cracked notions you have.

Zillah wrote:

Medieval England believed that the king ruled by God's will, and hence he was treated with absurd levels of repects and people acted as if he had the authority of God. Thats the sort of insane silliness that abstract philosophical models can lead to. Burning jews, burning witches, burning heretics. Burning based on nonesense. That'd certainly be an awful way to go.

eh .. that is a daft assessment. Philosophical ideas can lead to trouble of course but they also lead to the solutions to these problems. Philosophy is about making sense of existence .. it covers all areas of knowledge. I think you are having problems understanding what it actually is.

Zillah wrote:

Whats essential about it? You've consistently ignored my requests for any answer rather than questions. You just kind of pretended that question didn't happen above.

see above or else do some basic reading. It should be self evident.

Zillah wrote:

And I don't think you're in any position to talk about the scientific paradigm, you've already shown you don't understand falsifiability and you previously claimed that "in all likelyhood" your sentience would magically reform in a new self sustaining energy pattern free of the brain and body.*

*I think this was you a couple weeks ago. If not, disregard.

yes thats nice .. just try and undermine me by misrepresenting me. Listen I know exactly what falsifiability is .. and unlike you I have read Popper. The comment you are refering to is not what I said. I never said in all likelyhood. What I did say is that nobody knows for sure what is gonna happen when we die. More than likely we are just dead but we can all hope .. most people do have an irrational hope that they will continue after they die. Its quite a human thing to have.

Zillah wrote:

Oh yes, very mature. I have a life outside boards, its fun and full of stuff. I have no problem with sloppy behaviour, just sloppy belief. I do stupid irrational things all the time, because I want to. But I'm under no illusions as to whats underpinning it all.

Let me guess .. you work with or study computing or IT. Your pastimes are #1 Gaming and #2 clocking up an enormous postcount on boards.ie That leaves loads of time for other sort of activities such as going on the piss once in a while. You need perspective that only life can provide.

Zillah wrote:

Of course it can. Explain one scenario in your life that can't?

Really lol! you can attempt to explain something .. maybe even everything .. in a scientific way but that doesnt mean that science can fully exlpain or account for it. Take love for instance .. you might try and use certain evolutionary, anthropological, psychological and neuroscientific arguments to explain what it is. That doesn mean that those sciences can fully account for the experience of love .. they are theories that try and explain different aspects of it, that is all.

Zillah wrote:

Ok. "If one man has a soul, then it is objectively wrong to kill him, because he is your spiritual equal." People could play around with that statement for days with philosophy, but what does it achieve?

Of course people could play around with that statemen for days .. it doesnt make it good or worthwhile philosophy.

Zillah wrote:

In the long run people might work out a system of morality whereby killing someone is wrong. But wouldn't it be so much more expedient and accurate to realise that such morality is not based on magical extradimensional factors, but is in a fact a very tangible result of evolutionary psychology? Its the jet engine you see.

Evolutionary psychology is far and away the most controversial part of psychology. Many psychologists dont think it even should be considered part of psychology because it is too 'unscientific' .. it has quite a lot of problems with that term you love so much .. falsifiability. Try actually understanding a discipline before you go basing a worldview on it.

Zillah wrote:

Memetics are at least in theory falsifiable. Doesn't mean it will ever happen, its a very very delicate kind of topic to attack. The best way to demonstrate "potentially falsifiable" is with an example of whats not. God. Any statements about God are completely redundant because we can never ever in any way shape or form be sure that God doesn't exist. Until God appears in the sky and makes some proclamations then any discussion on the nature of God is futile, it achieves nothing that can't be achieved in better ways (like the above morality).

Why is it a delicate topic? Either something is falsifiable or not .. potentially falsifiable is just sophistry. We cant tell the future just yet.

Zillah wrote:

It doesn't mean that everyone who talks about memetics is being scientific about it, and to be honest I'm only passingly familiar with it. I havn't read Popper, although I'm planning to. Its possible he's indugled inphilosophy rather than science

Well since you so obsessed with the scientific paradigm I would consider Popper essential reading and also Kuhn the guy who invented the word paradigm. You might get an idea of how important the philosophical underpinnings of science are.

Zillah wrote:

Ah, the old "I'm so much better than you and hence I'm running away" parting shot.

I'm afriad not Zillah .. What I did realize is that we are never going to agree so whats the point in arguing .. I have a full time job and i'm trying to do a masters .. I barely get half an hour to myself a day and I dont really like wasting it on you. So forgive me if it takes me some time to reply to you again.

Tar.Aldarion

I decided to read all this, to see who I think is right.
Not that Playboys posts are perfect, but I can't follow Zillah's at all. I'm sorry, but they seem to be nonsense.
I'll pick out my favourite. I don't have much time, I have more Electromagnetic theory to study.

Sigh.

A jet engine can make a plane go faster than a propeller. That doesn't mean that all planes ever automatically used jet engines.

Now imagine we're arguing about what we should use to make our planes go. You're arguing that propellers let the forces of the allies bomb Germany into submission, and we should therefore use them. I'm arguing that jet engines could do the same thing, but better, and just because they didn't have jets at their disposal then doesn't mean they wouldn't have been better off if they did.

Does that clear it up for you?

This, W.R.T. philosophy? Lol.
Not to be disrespectful, but what!?
Also, to say something could progress us faster than philosophy makes no sense.

Why do you think that science, which got everything else so right, go it wrong this time?

That's not true, science gets things wrong over and over and over, it's just becoming less wrong as time goes on(We hope.).
Also, all science is based on a single presumption, this comes under the realm of philosophy though.


Why do you think philosophy is taught at university Zillah? Do you think philosophy is totally pointless?
Philosphy has advanced science,reasoning, logic, mathematics, ethics, medical ethics etc.
Did you know that in other European countries you do Philosophy as a subject with physics?
Also,
http://www.admissions.ox.ac.uk/courses/phph.shtml
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ppox/teaching/badegree.html

Zombrex

DublinEvents wrote:

We are surrounded by clues that force us to think that all that we see around us could not have been the result of randomness that science seems to propose with such conviction.

Grown

Science does not propose that all around us (I assume you mean life) is a result of randomness. Please read up on the various scientific theories such as evolution before you misrepresent them.

DublinEvents wrote:

The birth of the universe was not a random event at all.

Who said it was? Science certainly never has.

DublinEvents wrote:

God created us to test us

That doesn't make much sense since God can see the future (I assume you accept this) and therefore it would not be impossible for Him to test us since He would already know the result before He created us.

If God created the universe, and God can see the future, we can never be or do something other than what God knew we would do when He created the universe, the universe that eventually lead to us.

Its a paradox.

DublinEvents wrote:

and He has left ample signs around us so we can figure out our true purpose.

Actually, if God exists, He has gone out of his way to make it look like He doesn't. Which seems a bit strange, does it not.

DublinEvents wrote:

Our purpose is to acknowledge God's existence, obey His commands and create peace and harmony in this world and put an end to bloodshed, suffering and injustice.

What are you talking about? God loves bloodshed and suffering. Read the Old Testament and find me a book that doesn't have God or Gods people the Israelites, butchering and raping across the land.

Tar.Aldarion

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Did you know that in other European countries you do Philosophy as a subject with physics?

Which is why science used to be called natural philosophy, I guess...

Zillah

Playboy wrote:

The comment you are refering to is not what I said. I never said in all likelyhood.

Lies! Don't make baby Jesus cry.

Playboy wrote:

Yes they are all types of energy to which I'm refering. If energies such as these can arrange themselves in such a way so that I can exist as a concious being then in all likliehood at my death these energies can be incorporated into a new system that forms a different type of experience.

Tut tut. Sounds fairly conclusive to me. That'd be the sloppy philospher's habits coming through...

Let me guess .. you work with or study computing

Nope.

or IT.

Nope.

Your pastimes are #1 Gaming

Gaming is among my pastimes, yes. Its quite common for my demographic you'll find.

and #2 clocking up an enormous postcount on boards.ie

Enormous is hardly the word for it. It averages to about 2 posts a day. Oh noes! Surely boards will die at my massive denial of service attack!

My part time job, which I am at now, provides me with an internet connection and a significiant period in which to use it.

Take love for instance .. you might try and use certain evolutionary, anthropological, psychological and neuroscientific arguments to explain what it is. That doesn mean that those sciences can fully account for the experience of love .. they are theories that try and explain different aspects of it, that is all.

All the things you mention explain love quite well. I don't need a philosopher to explain it any more. I can have the real world basis for it explained, and I can experience it. Or perhaps I could read some poetry about it.

Where does philosophy help with love?

Well since you so obsessed with the scientific paradigm I would consider Popper essential reading

I'm getting some Popper for Christmas

You might get an idea of how important the philosophical underpinnings of science are.

Like I said earlier, there are some elements of philosophy I can accept, like the kind of stuff that says "Why should we do science?", "What makes one thing scientific and something else not". Those things are more common sense than philosophy. Its when people start talking bollox about God or souls then I turn on my scoff-o-matic.

So forgive me if it takes me some time to reply to you again.

With baited breath!

Tar Aldarion wrote:

Why do you think philosophy is taught at university Zillah?

People like the ancient Greeks too much?

Not to be disrespectful, but what!?
Also, to say something could progress us faster than philosophy makes no sense.

A lot of modern understanding was formed by various orders of christian monks over the last millenia or so. Mendel, the father of genetics for example. These religious men had the time, and above all the education, to start us on the scientific road. Same thing with the Greeks and Romans. It was the rich educated classes that were able to do mathematics and science. They just all happened to do philosophy aswell and the whole lot got mixed up. If you boil God, souls and other baseless silliness out of the curriculum you're left with science, common sense and logic.

Tar.Aldarion

Tut tut. Sounds fairly conclusive to me. That'd be the sloppy philospher's habits coming through...

They look like different words to me.

Zillah

Saved by sloppy spelling

Playboy

Zillah wrote:

Lies! Don't make baby Jesus cry.



Tut tut. Sounds fairly conclusive to me. That'd be the sloppy philospher's habits coming through...

Haha ..well i'll concede the 'all likelihood' bit but its still taken out of context. Musings on what could happen after death and saying that something will happen after death are two very different things. I did not say that they would be incorporated like you indicated earlier but that in all likelihood they could be incorporated into a system that experiences again. If it happens once it is possible for it to happen again. Nothing too irrational about that and i did go on say either later in that post or that thread that that it was wishful thinking.

Scofflaw

Why not take a concrete example or two?

1. What does science tell us we should do if we are offered a bribe to allow a crime to take place?

2. What does science tell us we should do if our wife's cousin starts coming on to us?

Microscopes at the ready...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

Behave in a fashion that is most likely to result in reproduction of your genes.


I just know people that haven't read Dawkins are gonna take that up wrong.