If Our Models of the Universe...

angelica

...are just models, and if they are all so different, how can we know with any kind of certainty which ones are accurate?

Ahnimus

By predictions and observations. That's how science works.

It really doesn't matter to us immediately, unless we are at threat of being sucked into a black-hole. Otherwise, it's only important to please our desire to know truth.

Currently, our most accurate model with the best supporting observations and predictions to date, is the big bang model with an expanding universe.

Whether the universe will continute to expand indefinitely or if it will recollapse (big crunch), and what happened before the big bang, is still a blank page, there is nothing tipping the scales on that.

A Brief History of Time is actually pretty good at making these points clear. There are many ways our universe could be, but some things are pretty solid, like the space-time unity.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

By predictions and observations. That's how science works.

It really doesn't matter to us immediately, unless we are at threat of being sucked into a black-hole. Otherwise, it's only important to please our desire to know truth.

Currently, our most accurate model with the best supporting observations and predictions to date, is the big bang model with an expanding universe.

Whether the universe will continute to expand indefinitely or if it will recollapse (big crunch), and what happened before the big bang, is still a blank page, there is nothing tipping the scales on that.

A Brief History of Time is actually pretty good at making these points clear. There are many ways our universe could be, but some things are pretty solid, like the space-time unity.

Do you "know" that science models are more accurate than, say, spiritual models? And if so, how so?

For example, someone using a metaphysical or spiritual model for their sense of knowing universal truth, might say that the ten commandments are an accurate set of rules stemming from their spiritual model. And they might accurately predict that from past observation having an affair or lying, as are warned against in the ten commandments, will cause suffering. By that same token, one using an ethical model for their view of the universe might see the same thing, minus the tool of "the commandments" to live by.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Do you "know" that science models are more accurate than, say, spiritual models? And if so, how so?

For example, someone using a metaphysical or spiritual model for their sense of knowing universal truth, might say that the ten commandments are an accurate set of rules stemming from their spiritual model. And they might accurately predict that from past observation having an affair or lying, as are warned against in the ten commandments, will cause suffering. By that same token, one using an ethical model for their view of the universe might see the same thing, minus the tool of "the commandments" to live by.

I think the answer is pretty obvious. At every single argument between spiritual truths and scientific truths, science wins.

What is your sample size?

Spiritual: Me.

Science: Well, we cross studied 49 studies each with an average sample of 10,000 people, that would make our sample roughly 500,000 people.

There is just no contest, really. Spiritually held beliefs, like that of the ten commandments, may occasionally be true, they were probably determined by deep thought, but irrationally held truths might be more dangerous than well reasoned errors, it sets the precedent that irrationality is effective and well reasoned errors can be reasoned out.

gue_barium

Ahnimus wrote:

I think the answer is pretty obvious. At every single argument between spiritual truths and scientific truths, science wins.

What is your sample size?

Spiritual: Me.

Science: Well, we cross studied 49 studies each with an average sample of 10,000 people, that would make our sample roughly 500,000 people.

There is just no contest, really. Spiritually held beliefs, like that of the ten commandments, may occasionally be true, they were probably determined by deep thought, but irrationally held truths might be more dangerous than well reasoned errors, it sets the precedent that irrationality is effective and well reasoned errors can be reasoned out.

And this all comes from worrying about getting sucked into a black hole?

Sounds Freudian.

Bu2

I'm beginning to think that AMT needs to have its own offshoot thread called "Theory, and those who love it so".

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

I think the answer is pretty obvious. At every single argument between spiritual truths and scientific truths, science wins.

What is your sample size?

Spiritual: Me.

Science: Well, we cross studied 49 studies each with an average sample of 10,000 people, that would make our sample roughly 500,000 people.

There is just no contest, really. Spiritually held beliefs, like that of the ten commandments, may occasionally be true, they were probably determined by deep thought, but irrationally held truths might be more dangerous than well reasoned errors, it sets the precedent that irrationality is effective and well reasoned errors can be reasoned out.

To you and others, science wins. To millions, a predominantly religious/spiritual view wins. Some might see all that exists from a predominantly psychological or subjective model . For others a philosophical model is how they view the universe and reality. Essentially, there are as many models as there are humans on the planet, as no two science views of reality are exactly alike down to each minute detail. Ditto with religious views. Within Christianity alone, like science, each individual picks and chooses what rings true to them, and what matches their experiences, thusly making sense to them. There are many views/models withing quantum physics alone, with people adamantly differing with one another.

Who is "right"? How can we decide?

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

To you and others, science wins. To millions, a predominantly religious/spiritual view wins. Some might see all that exists from a predominantly psychological or subjective model . For others a philosophical model is how they view the universe and reality. Essentially, there are as many models as there are humans on the planet, as no two science views of reality are exactly alike down to each minute detail. Ditto with religious views. Within Christianity alone, like science, each individual picks and chooses what rings true to them, and what matches their experiences, thusly making sense to them. There are many views/models withing quantum physics alone, with people adamantly differing with one another.

Who is "right"? How can we decide?

Does it matter?

I go with the scientific model I think is the most predominant and seems the most solid. I don't particularly like the idea that time began at the big bang, but it's the best theory yet.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Does it matter?

I go with the scientific model I think is the most predominant and seems the most solid. I don't particularly like the idea that time began at the big bang, but it's the best theory yet.

Again, it seems that to some people it matters, and to others it does not.

I'm personally at peace that all models exist and overlap with one another.

Some people don't seem comfortable with that.

gue_barium

angelica wrote:

To you and others, science wins. To millions, a predominantly religious/spiritual view wins. Some might see all that exists from a predominantly psychological or subjective model . For others a philosophical model is how they view the universe and reality. Essentially, there are as many models as there are humans on the planet, as no two science views of reality are exactly alike down to each minute detail. Ditto with religious views. Within Christianity alone, like science, each individual picks and chooses what rings true to them, and what matches their experiences, thusly making sense to them. There are many views/models withing quantum physics alone, with people adamantly differing with one another.

Who is "right"? How can we decide?

A better question might be why the winning or losing in the first place?

angelica

gue_barium wrote:

A better question might be why the winning or losing in the first place?

That makes sense to me. Any ideas why people are so invested in ideas of winning or losing?

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Again, it seems that to some people it matters, and to others it does not.

I'm personally at peace that all models exist and overlap with one another.

Some people don't seem comfortable with that.

Depends what kind of effect the models have on others. As in determining public policy. If a person's model of the universe means that homosexuals should be executed, then I have a huge problem with that.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Depends what kind of effect the models have on others. As in determining public policy. If a person's model of the universe means that homosexuals should be executed, then I have a huge problem with that.

I agree with this--all is good and fine until we begin to infringe on one another, and we really do in so many ways.

angelica

Ahnimus, it sounds like you are saying you don't like when people use their "models" to infringe on others. Again, doesn't this stem from the idea that one model is "right" at the expense of the other model? What would you suggest?

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

I agree with this--all is good and fine until we begin to infringe on one another, and we really do in so many ways.

Right, which is why I fight against free-will and any model that includes it. It affects me and my fellow humans, especially those that don't have the capacity to fight for themselves.

If people insist on believing they have free-will, that's fine, but don't force it upon anyone else.

If all people have free-will, then the murderer or rapist is justifiably ostracized and persecuted, but if they don't, then that is unnecessary suffering.

If a young man steals to support himself or his habits, and has free-will, then justifiably he is imprisoned and ridiculed, but if he does not have free-will, then it may very well be milieu that causes his behavior. That is something we are all responsible for.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Ahnimus, it sounds like you are saying you don't like when people use their "models" to infringe on others. Again, doesn't this stem from the idea that one model is "right" at the expense of the other model? What would you suggest?

Well, they can't all be right if they are in conflict. There is a reality independent of our thoughts. Maybe we will figure out what it is, but it's unlikely we will ever agree on it.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Right, which is why I fight against free-will and any model that includes it. It affects me and my fellow humans, especially those that don't have the capacity to fight for themselves.

If people insist on believing they have free-will, that's fine, but don't force it upon anyone else.

If all people have free-will, then the murderer or rapist is justifiably ostracized and persecuted, but if they don't, then that is unnecessary suffering.

If a young man steals to support himself or his habits, and has free-will, then justifiably he is imprisoned and ridiculed, but if he does not have free-will, then it may very well be milieu that causes his behavior. That is something we are all responsible for.

So you are looking to have your model win over others? Does the same standard apply to you?: If you insist on believing you don't have free will, that's fine, but don't force it on others, with "fighting"?

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Well, they can't all be right if they are in conflict. There is a reality independent of our thoughts. Maybe we will figure out what it is, but it's unlikely we will ever agree on it.

In the absence of us all agreeing on an objective reality, what do we do with our conflicting views now?

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

So you are looking to have your model win over others? Does the same standard apply to you?: If you insist on believing you don't have free will, that's fine, but don't force it on others, with "fighting"?

Well, here lies the problem, we need a public policy. We can't just let murderers roam the street claiming that their model of the universe warrants their actions. But likewise, we can't hang homosexuals because some religious freaks think it's God's will.

What we need to do is determine the best method for determining reality. We have and it's called Science. Then we use the scientific method to determine the most plausible explanations and that is what we base public policy on, or should.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Well, here lies the problem, we need a public policy. We can't just let murderers roam the street claiming that their model of the universe warrants their actions. But likewise, we can't hang homosexuals because some religious freaks think it's God's will.

What we need to do is determine the best method for determining reality. We have and it's called Science. Then we use the scientific method to determine the most plausible explanations and that is what we base public policy on, or should.

lol...so, in other words, for the good of humanity...your model wins!

That would be great if everyone agreed with you. They don't.

Any other ideas? I like a majority rule system better than fighting to dominate with one person's model.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

lol...so, in other words, for the good of humanity...your model wins!

That would be great if everyone agreed with you. They don't.

Any other ideas? I like a majority rule system better than fighting to dominate with one person's model.

That model does win. Our school system and largely our public policies are based on science.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

That model does win. Our school system and largely our public policies are based on science.

Then why doesn't science win in public policy?

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Then why doesn't science win in public policy?

I think it usually does. Except when it infringes on religion and the science is too complex to explain with colourful pictures.

angelica

Direct perception exists in everyone at all times. We always directly perceive our environment (right-brain, sythesis and intuitive intelligences). "left-brain" knowing of science and math must be taught, as they are logic and detailed.

And yet, millions of western-world people, while ascribing to science beliefs still hold a predominant religious view, or otherwise.

angelica

And the bottom line is that people disagree all the time. And they continue to infringe on one another due to differing models of the universe or of reality. At sometimes great cost.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Direct perception exists in everyone at all times. We always directly perceive our environment (right-brain, sythesis and intuitive intelligences). "left-brain" knowing of science and math must be taught, as they are logic and detailed.

And yet, millions of western-world people, while ascribing to science beliefs still hold a predominant religious view, or otherwise.

I disagree.

angelica

According to the human developmental model that I've cited on the board before, 30% (50% of the power) of the population worldwide are at a scientific worldview. 40% of the world population (30% of the power) sees from the rigid worldview that includes fundamentalist religion/right-wrong-thinking, etc.

The other levels that split up the rest of the populations and the power are not at a science level, but rather have their own worldview characteristics, such as a human-bonding/communitarian level, or an animistic/tribal type of view, for example.

So, in many places and many times science does not "win".

It is immensely dynamic, from situation to situation, moment to moment. It would be easy if science won by default.

soulsinging

angelica wrote:

That makes sense to me. Any ideas why people are so invested in ideas of winning or losing?

winning gives me one up on my neighbor. gives me an advantage on them in terms of survival.

angelica

soulsinging wrote:

winning gives me one up on my neighbor. gives me an advantage on them in terms of survival.

That makes sense, to some degree at least.

At the same time, we have this:

"The more complex societies get and the more complex the networks of interdependence within and beyond community and national borders get, the more people are forced in their own interests to find non-zero-sum solutions. That is, win–win solutions instead of win–lose solutions.... Because we find as our interdependence increases that, on the whole, we do better when other people do better as well — so we have to find ways that we can all win, we have to accommodate each other" ~ Bill Clinton

It looks like while our need to win, on one level may be an advantage, and yet from another perspective, it can be a disadvantage in that we'll do even better when we learn to implement win/win solutions.

catefrances

angelica wrote:

To you and others, science wins. To millions, a predominantly religious/spiritual view wins. Some might see all that exists from a predominantly psychological or subjective model . For others a philosophical model is how they view the universe and reality. Essentially, there are as many models as there are humans on the planet, as no two science views of reality are exactly alike down to each minute detail. Ditto with religious views. Within Christianity alone, like science, each individual picks and chooses what rings true to them, and what matches their experiences, thusly making sense to them. There are many views/models withing quantum physics alone, with people adamantly differing with one another.

Who is "right"? How can we decide?

right off the bat angelica, your post appears biased. when you speak of science it is as if in your phrasing the perception is that only a 'few' rely on science for their grounding. when it comes to spirituality you try to give it more credence by coupling it with the word millions. it wouldn't be any stretch of my imagination to think that for millions of people, science was the word on which they rely to 'prove' a whole lot of things.

for me religion and spirituality is as far from verifiable reality as one can get. i can't often explain with much conviction what it is i feel within myself when talking about spirituality. i find it to be a very personal and unique thing. it can't be 'proved' with verifiable facts as science most often can be.

soulsinging

angelica wrote:

That makes sense, to some degree at least.

At the same time, we have this:

"The more complex societies get and the more complex the networks of interdependence within and beyond community and national borders get, the more people are forced in their own interests to find non-zero-sum solutions. That is, win–win solutions instead of win–lose solutions.... Because we find as our interdependence increases that, on the whole, we do better when other people do better as well — so we have to find ways that we can all win, we have to accommodate each other" ~ Bill Clinton

It looks like while our need to win, on one level may be an advantage, and yet from another perspective, it can be a disadvantage in that we'll do even better when we learn to implement win/win solutions.

i don't think there is such a thing. for someone to be winning, someone else has to be losing a little bit. you can't split a cookie by magically creating two. someone is going from a whole cookie to a half.