I get what Bohr is saying, but it doesn't sound like indeterminism to me. It sounds like he's speaking on context of subjectivity, which he should not be. The philosophical question of free-will, is not a question of wether we feel free-will, it's wether or not it actually exists. Anyone, including determinists as hard as Susan Blackmore or myself, will say "yes, I feel free-will, do I actually have it? no.".
It sounds like Bohr is saying the term "free-will" suits the experience of it, what he's not saying in that speech is what causes free-will. He actually says "Speaking very loosely, it is simply a problem of cause; it is not possible to say whether we have the feeling that we are going to do something because we have the feeling that we can, or whether we can only because we will."
Right, he is not invalidating determinism here. Just like I have not invalidated determinism. As you interpret, he is speaking on the context of subjectivity. He, I and others like farfromglorified delve into the experience of that free-will that rests on all the myriad determinents. The context of that experience is a world of it's own to us and that experience is real unto itself to us.
I understand that you see and experience it differently. That's my point: we all experience philsophy, science, religion, physical reality, etc differently as viewed through our own entirely one of a kind perspective. That is the sacredness we perceive of this individuality we each have. No two views are the same, and each one has the freedom of choice to answer the "why" questions regarding science and the universe in our own unique ways.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
im not confined to creation, and i do wonder. and i fully support any and all investigation into it. but at a certain point, you go back and the source seems to defy logical thought... big bang? what caused and where'd the matter come from before it exploded? etc etc. you get to a point where the scientific explanation is so mind-bendingly weird and abstract that it seems to defy the human capacity to properly grasp it... that is what i consider god, something beyond the reach of human understanding. yes, we constantly make progress and learn more and resolve things that previously seemed incomprehensible, but it seems every time we do, we end up with even more questions after. it's awe-inspiring.
No matter how unlikely the scientific explanation, it will still be more parsimonious then falling back onto a creator. You will still have to explain the creators existence- and because a creator has to be more complex then what it creates, the problem of where the creator came from has just got worse.
And if you are going to give the creator a get out of jail free card and say that the creator has always been, why not just simplify the problem and say that existence has always been, in some shape or form, and our current universe is simply the most recent reformation of that existence.
I feel like this whole idea of a universe being born out of 'nothing' is a poor human interpretation. 'Nothing' does not exist, it is only an idea- even the purest vacuum contains energy. Physical existence is the norm, and our universe, or many universes, are born out of it.
Right, he is not invalidating determinism here. Just like I have not invalidated determinism. As you interpret, he is speaking on the context of subjectivity. He, I and others like farfromglorified delve into the experience of that free-will that rests on all the myriad determinents. The context of that experience is a world of it's own to us and that experience is real unto itself to us.
I understand that you see and experience it differently. That's my point: we all experience philsophy, science, religion, physical reality, etc differently as viewed through our own entirely one of a kind perspective. That is the sacredness we perceive of this individuality we each have. No two views are the same, and each one has the freedom of choice to answer the "why" questions regarding science and the universe in our own unique ways.
Let me read you a section from Susan Blackmore's interview with Patricia and Paul Churchland
Sue: I would like to be clear how this relates to correlation, cause, and identity. There's a huge amount of work going on at the moment on the neural correlates of consciousness, and a lot of confusion about correlation, cause and identity. Where do you stand on this?
Paul: The easy way to cut through all that is, once again, to draw lessons from the history of science. Electromagnetic waves don't cause light; they're not correlated with light; they are light. That's what light is. Similarly with sound: a sound of middle C isn't correlated with a compression wave train of 263 Hz. It is a compression wave train with that frequency. And the feeling of warmth from a coffee cup isn't something that's correlated with mean molecular kinetic energy; it's identical with the mean molecular kinetic energy of the molecules in the cup.
Sue: But you can't say that for colour! If we come back to the bougainvillea, you can't say that that colour is equivalanet to so many nanometers or whatever. You need a particular sort of visual system interacting in a particular way with a particular mixture of wavelengths. Does that change the argument?
Paul: No. There is a problem in the case of objective colour, and it's the problem of metamers. There are too many different patterns of power spectra that will produce in us exactly the same sensation. They all look red, but they're interestingly different. However that's a problem that can be solved, too.
We're not talking here about an objective colour out there on objects. We're talking about the sensation of red. And I'm willing to make the suggestion that this case is going to turn out to be exactly parallel to all of these other cases. To have a sensation, a visual sensation, say in a little circle right in the centre of one's visual field where the fovea is, is to have all of your three kinds of opponent processing cells showing a certain pattern of relative stimulation. They are blue versus yellow, red versus green, and black versus white, and all of them have heightened activity or lowered activity. The pattern of activation for red will be, 50%, 90%, 50%, across the three kinds of cells.
Pat: I think the point is that in the early stages of a science you try to make correlations between likely events. When you're considering a phenomenon you use many different measuring instruments to get at it; so single cell recording is one, functional MRI is another, report by somebody is another. There are many different ways of getting at it. Then once we have a much richer and fuller understainding of the brain, not just with regard to consciousness but in all of it's dimensions, then there may be a fit. We'll be able to say, as we did in the case of light or temperature, 'Aha, this is it. This pattern of activation in this context when the brain stem is doing such and such, that just is a sensation of red.'
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Does it really matter if the majority of scientist believe in god or not. I remember a time, not too long ago, where your religious beliefs was something personal (between you and the god of your own understanding). It wasn't something that you wore on your sleeve for the rest of society to judge you by. Does it really matter what an individuals religious beliefs are. Does believing in a god or a certain god make you a better person, no it doesn't.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Does it really matter if the majority of scientist believe in god or not. I remember a time, not too long ago, where your religious beliefs was something personal (between you and the god of your own understanding). It wasn't something that you wore on your sleeve for the rest of society to judge you by. Does it really matter what an individuals religious beliefs are. Does believing in a god or a certain god make you a better person, no it doesn't.
It's always been a determining factor in society. Remember the Salem witch trials?
It's just been sort of reversed. It's now acceptable to deny god, where as before, you'd likely be deported or killed.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Let me read you a section from Susan Blackmore's interview with Patricia and Paul Churchland
Sue: I would like to be clear how this relates to correlation, cause, and identity. There's a huge amount of work going on at the moment on the neural correlates of consciousness, and a lot of confusion about correlation, cause and identity. Where do you stand on this?
Paul: The easy way to cut through all that is, once again, to draw lessons from the history of science. Electromagnetic waves don't cause light; they're not correlated with light; they are light. That's what light is. Similarly with sound: a sound of middle C isn't correlated with a compression wave train of 263 Hz. It is a compression wave train with that frequency. And the feeling of warmth from a coffee cup isn't something that's correlated with mean molecular kinetic energy; it's identical with the mean molecular kinetic energy of the molecules in the cup.
Sue: But you can't say that for colour! If we come back to the bougainvillea, you can't say that that colour is equivalanet to so many nanometers or whatever. You need a particular sort of visual system interacting in a particular way with a particular mixture of wavelengths. Does that change the argument?
Paul: No. There is a problem in the case of objective colour, and it's the problem of metamers. There are too many different patterns of power spectra that will produce in us exactly the same sensation. They all look red, but they're interestingly different. However that's a problem that can be solved, too.
We're not talking here about an objective colour out there on objects. We're talking about the sensation of red. And I'm willing to make the suggestion that this case is going to turn out to be exactly parallel to all of these other cases. To have a sensation, a visual sensation, say in a little circle right in the centre of one's visual field where the fovea is, is to have all of your three kinds of opponent processing cells showing a certain pattern of relative stimulation. They are blue versus yellow, red versus green, and black versus white, and all of them have heightened activity or lowered activity. The pattern of activation for red will be, 50%, 90%, 50%, across the three kinds of cells.
Pat: I think the point is that in the early stages of a science you try to make correlations between likely events. When you're considering a phenomenon you use many different measuring instruments to get at it; so single cell recording is one, functional MRI is another, report by somebody is another. There are many different ways of getting at it. Then once we have a much richer and fuller understainding of the brain, not just with regard to consciousness but in all of it's dimensions, then there may be a fit. We'll be able to say, as we did in the case of light or temperature, 'Aha, this is it. This pattern of activation in this context when the brain stem is doing such and such, that just is a sensation of red.''
I agree with everything said here. The issue you and I are debating is, surprise of all surprises, our different perspectives of the same thing yet again! If we are talking objectively, on the level of science regarding a phenomenon, we have the different facets of it: for example, a single cell recording, a functional MRI, and a report by someone--they are all parts of what is being objectively studied.
On the other hand, from my perspective, if I am talking about what I usually care about, it's the human experience aspect, because that is the way I bring my message to people. I'm then coming from the subjective place. And I use objective science to support it, including theoretically that MRI. I might include some quantum physics, etc. What is different between "Sue's" statements and mine is what we're hoping to show by our approach, and why.
You and I are super-focused on basically the same things, with our very similar and tenacious personality types. And we're both pursuing being masters at what we are doing. And still, we're slanted in distinctly different directions that don't naturally infringe on each other.
Niels Bohr, in his comments on free will in the 1957 lecture, seems pretty balanced between both objective and subjective. If you read my signature quote again, and realize how harmonious he is with diametrically opposed views, you can understand what I aspire to, myself. Balancing the objective and subjective, to be able to see multi-dimensionally. People who progress in healthy ways in their lives tend to balance their perspective out by being molded by natural forces and experiences. We evolve through our lifetimes, through developmental stages. Some aren't so lucky and do not balance out, because they get polaritized and stuck in patterns that work against them.
I no longer believe in the same absolutes that are commonly thought to underly reality. I'm with onelongsong on the "time" issue for one. I understand these subjects are valid within their theoretical frameworks. But the problem is people start to believing that they are true across the board. What works for me is to utilize these concepts when they suit my purposes in creating my life. Really, life does harmonize very nicely on all levels, independent of our opinions of it.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
No matter how unlikely the scientific explanation, it will still be more parsimonious then falling back onto a creator. You will still have to explain the creators existence- and because a creator has to be more complex then what it creates, the problem of where the creator came from has just got worse.
And if you are going to give the creator a get out of jail free card and say that the creator has always been, why not just simplify the problem and say that existence has always been, in some shape or form, and our current universe is simply the most recent reformation of that existence.
I feel like this whole idea of a universe being born out of 'nothing' is a poor human interpretation. 'Nothing' does not exist, it is only an idea- even the purest vacuum contains energy. Physical existence is the norm, and our universe, or many universes, are born out of it.
becos im human and the concept of infinity and eternity are pretty incomprehensible to me. science tells me something has to happen for something to happen after. a ball does not start rolling without some force to cause it to do so. the force that started things rolling and set their path is what i call god. maybe it's a limit of my human understanding that things have simply always existed, but i cannot comprehend it and the science i have seen does not seem to be able to explain it. they've put an age on the universe haven't they? so what was it before that?
becos im human and the concept of infinity and eternity are pretty incomprehensible to me. science tells me something has to happen for something to happen after. a ball does not start rolling without some force to cause it to do so. the force that started things rolling and set their path is what i call god. maybe it's a limit of my human understanding that things have simply always existed, but i cannot comprehend it and the science i have seen does not seem to be able to explain it. they've put an age on the universe haven't they? so what was it before that?
EEk! They didn't put an age on the universe, they simply said that it's 17.2 billion years according to the observable universe and the big bang theory. So it's been that long since the big bang, that's it.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
EEk! They didn't put an age on the universe, they simply said that it's 17.2 billion years according to the observable universe and the big bang theory. So it's been that long since the big bang, that's it.
and what happened before the big bang? what caused the big bang? what was going on with the universe before that? where was all the matter and what was it doing and why did it suddenly explode?
and what happened before the big bang? what caused the big bang? what was going on with the universe before that? where was all the matter and what was it doing and why did it suddenly explode?
where was god before he created the universe, what was he doing, where did he come from, and most importantly, where did he get either the matter to create the universe from, or the enregy to create the matter ???
it is undeniable that matter and energy are interchangeable forms according to the famous equation e=mcc (mass by the speed of light squared), as demonstrated by nuclear explosions, but the amount of energy we are talking about here is SO immense that for a creator to whip it up out nowhere may have given him one hell of a hangover. no wonder he needed a blow afterwards. so, the matter must have existed, and then the big bang theory becomes plausible again. i thnk the big bang theory explains the universe AS WE KNOW IT, rather than the sum total of all that the universe has ever been. so before it was what it is now, it was something else.
where was god before he created the universe, what was he doing, where did he come from, and most importantly, where did he get either the matter to create the universe from, or the enregy to create the matter ???
it is undeniable that matter and energy are interchangeable forms according to the famous equation e=mcc (mass by the speed of light squared), as demonstrated by nuclear explosions, but the amount of energy we are talking about here is SO immense that for a creator to whip it up out nowhere may have given him one hell of a hangover. no wonder he needed a blow afterwards. so, the matter must have existed, and then the big bang theory becomes plausible again. i thnk the big bang theory explains the universe AS WE KNOW IT, rather than the sum total of all that the universe has ever been. so before it was what it is now, it was something else.
what that was is ineffable !!
oh, i see... so before the universe as what it is now, it was something else. thanks. that's a HUGE improvement on someone DARING to hypothesize god as an explanation.
turn off your science blinders for one minute. the entire POINT of god is to accomplish the things science says cannot be done. god defies space and time, boundaries science has to work within. god exists outside of them, and thus CAN simply create a universe full of matter in an instant. it is something of a paradox, but it makes at least as much sense as saying there was absolutely nothing in the universe and then suddenly one day there was a spontaneous explosion and the universe was born.
to me, god is not a giant person sitting in the void. your thinking is as restricted as a christian... he's a giant human having human thoughts and doing human things out there somewhere. god is not a person, it is a descriptor, a name given to describe and encompass that which cannot be explained. like the paradox that a huge universe was born out of a nothing that existed forever.
oh, i see... so before the universe as what it is now, it was something else. thanks. that's a HUGE improvement on someone DARING to hypothesize god as an explanation.
turn off your science blinders for one minute. the entire POINT of god is to accomplish the things science says cannot be done. god defies space and time, boundaries science has to work within. god exists outside of them, and thus CAN simply create a universe full of matter in an instant. it is something of a paradox, but it makes at least as much sense as saying there was absolutely nothing in the universe and then suddenly one day there was a spontaneous explosion and the universe was born.
to me, god is not a giant person sitting in the void. your thinking is as restricted as a christian... he's a giant human having human thoughts and doing human things out there somewhere. god is not a person, it is a descriptor, a name given to describe and encompass that which cannot be explained. like the paradox that a huge universe was born out of a nothing that existed forever.
and yet he still cares if i have a wank today, this incomprehensible force that exists outside the boundaries of the known universe, cares enough to fry me for all eternity.
jeez, i'm more important than i thought !!!
and yet he still cares if i have a wank today, this incomprehensible force that exists outside the boundaries of the known universe, cares enough to fry me for all eternity.
jeez, i'm more important than i thought !!!
says who? again, you're talking about the christian god. im not christian. and the god i believe in doesn't give a flying fuck what you do with your life. cos you're NOT important. neither am i.
oh, i see... so before the universe as what it is now, it was something else. thanks. that's a HUGE improvement on someone DARING to hypothesize god as an explanation.
turn off your science blinders for one minute. the entire POINT of god is to accomplish the things science says cannot be done. god defies space and time, boundaries science has to work within. god exists outside of them, and thus CAN simply create a universe full of matter in an instant. it is something of a paradox, but it makes at least as much sense as saying there was absolutely nothing in the universe and then suddenly one day there was a spontaneous explosion and the universe was born.
to me, god is not a giant person sitting in the void. your thinking is as restricted as a christian... he's a giant human having human thoughts and doing human things out there somewhere. god is not a person, it is a descriptor, a name given to describe and encompass that which cannot be explained. like the paradox that a huge universe was born out of a nothing that existed forever.
I believe that is simply called ignorance, or the unknown. There is no reason to call it God. We have words to describe what we don't know.
Main Entry: 1god
Pronunciation: 'gäd also 'god
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German got god
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3 : a person or thing of supreme value
4 : a powerful ruler
Main Entry: ig·no·rant
Pronunciation: 'ig-n(&-)r&nt
Function: adjective
1 a : destitute of knowledge or education <an ignorant society>; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified <parents ignorant of modern mathematics> b : resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence <ignorant errors>
2 : UNAWARE, UNINFORMED
- ig·no·rant·ly adverb
- ig·no·rant·ness noun
synonyms IGNORANT, ILLITERATE, UNLETTERED, UNTUTORED, UNLEARNED mean not having knowledge. IGNORANT may imply a general condition or it may apply to lack of knowledge or awareness of a particular thing <an ignorant fool> <ignorant of nuclear physics>. ILLITERATE applies to either an absolute or a relative inability to read and write <much of the population is still illiterate>. UNLETTERED implies ignorance of the knowledge gained by reading <an allusion meaningless to the unlettered>. UNTUTORED may imply lack of schooling in the arts and ways of civilization <strange monuments built by an untutored people>. UNLEARNED suggests ignorance of advanced subjects <poetry not for academics but for the unlearned masses>.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Science doesn't have to work within time and space. It really doesn't have to work within anything. Except a particular method of discovery.
Take string theory which proposes 11 dimensions. That's not exactly within this universe. Or worm hole theories. I don't get this big bang theory. If we can only observe 17.2 billion light years, how do we know we are seeing everything? This expansion we are observing may just be localized to our quadrant, the result of a massive supernova. Einstein says time is like a fabric, in this weird U shape and planets cause dimples in time or some crap. Dude was smart, but some of his theories are a bit weird. Time and space are things which are fundamental and do not need to be explained. We have to make a solid distinction between what we know, what we don't know and what we don't know that we don't know. What is the point of thinking up something to place-hold that which we don't know? There are theories, but to put all faith in one, man, that just seems so absurd. Isn't it better just to say "I don't know". I don't know if the big bang really happened, and I don't know what happened before that, the origin of the universe or how non-organic matter becomes organic. It's not really applicable to our existence. There are a lot more important things to know than where we came from, like how we work.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
i get so tired of your dictionary meanings ahnimus. we know what these words mean. and we also know how words change their meaning through time.
Don't change the meaning and the meaning won't change.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Don't change the meaning and the meaning won't change.
how profound. perhaps you'd like to share that little pearl of wisdom with society in general. afterall it is they who construct these meaning changes.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
says who? again, you're talking about the christian god. im not christian. and the god i believe in doesn't give a flying fuck what you do with your life. cos you're NOT important. neither am i.
That's pretty interesting. Either you are a Christian who has decided to define God by your own terms, which kind of invalidates the whole idea, or you are a religion of one. Reading this board, that seems to be a pretty common theme though. A lot of people are saying that the nasty, bad history Christian "God" is not their God, their's is different.
I thought the point of religion was to band together to persecute the crap out of anyone who didn't believe the same things you did. And boy, are you so gonna be in trouble on Judgement Day !!
I am content to be totally insignificant without any gods. Looking at the Hubble photos, even stars and whole galaxies are just ephemeral grains of dust in the big picture.
Don't change the meaning and the meaning won't change.
That's pretty funny coming from a man whose posts are littered with words that did not exist only a couple of decades ago, even in your sig, or does "reboot" date from Elizabethan times ???
Like saying, don't grow old !!
oh, i see... so before the universe as what it is now, it was something else. thanks. that's a HUGE improvement on someone DARING to hypothesize god as an explanation.
But that is a huge improvement over a creator- no matter how personalised that creator is or is not. A creator must be more complex then what is created- because the creator contains all of the information of that which is created.
So you can have some form of physical existence being the infinite norm (ie- the universe right now... before that, who knows), or you can introduce another entire concept, which is more complicated then physical existence, to try and explain that physical existence.
And if you are willing to ignore the question of where did god come from by saying he exists outside of time, why not extend that courtesy to the pre-universe state of physical existence, and thus eliminate the need for god?
After all, Einstein has shown that time is in fact a dimension of the current universe, and that time was created with the universe. So perhaps our universe is born from a timeless base. This whole idea of a universe being born from nothing is incorrect- I am unaware of any scientific explanation of the origins of the universe that proposes a free universe- or a universe being created out of nothing.
how profound. perhaps you'd like to share that little pearl of wisdom with society in general. afterall it is they who construct these meaning changes.
Are you not a part of society?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
That's pretty funny coming from a man whose posts are littered with words that did not exist only a couple of decades ago, even in your sig, or does "reboot" date from Elizabethan times ???
Like saying, don't grow old !!
That's a good question. Depends how long people have been saying "boot it up" when referring to enabling a device.
Society as a collective, that includes all of us, especially in terms of us communicating, are responsible for the definition of words. So, while we are talking let's make the language clear and distinctive. God historically defines a supernatural being of great power. Ignorance historically means lack of knowledge, uninformed. So let's use those definitions, they are in the dictionary. Blurring the definitions together will make it difficult to decipher. What is the purpose of altering the definition of God to Ignorance? To maintain God as a concept? Seems like a bit of word trickery to me.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
not when i can help it ryan. i maintain minimal contact at all times.
lol, I know what you mean. But "people" always refer to "society" as a collective separate from them. I intend to mean everyone when I say "people" or "society" and that includes me. I am aware that it seems to mean "people" who are not me, because it's often used that way.
I used to say "That's gay", "omg man, that was totally gay" and stuff like that. Then I realized, what I was saying was gay. The way the word must have evolved, the intentions behind it. It originally meant happy, gay people tend to act flamboyant and appear gay, thus why they were called gay, but gay was considered negative, actually considered a mental disorder and people were lobotomized for it. Going back to the 50's it was considered contagious. So when people use gay to mean bad, that's where it came from, homosexuality being bad. Saying the words is contagious, it's hard not to give into new trends, but no wonder we have a hard time communicating with each other.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
That's a good question. Depends how long people have been saying "boot it up" when referring to enabling a device.
Society as a collective, that includes all of us, especially in terms of us communicating, are responsible for the definition of words. So, while we are talking let's make the language clear and distinctive. God historically defines a supernatural being of great power. Ignorance historically means lack of knowledge, uninformed. So let's use those definitions, they are in the dictionary. Blurring the definitions together will make it difficult to decipher. What is the purpose of altering the definition of God to Ignorance? To maintain God as a concept? Seems like a bit of word trickery to me.
Yeah, I counld't actaully find the post that triggered the comment, so I didn't know which definition you guys were arguing over, so my response may have been out of context.
I think I said something similar about God to onelongsong, when he was redefining God to be different from teh usually accepted bloke with teh beard and the bad attitude toward people having fun. It is a bit hard to have a meaningful discussion when definitions are totally absent or plastic.
Science doesn't have to work within time and space. It really doesn't have to work within anything. Except a particular method of discovery.
Take string theory which proposes 11 dimensions. That's not exactly within this universe. Or worm hole theories. I don't get this big bang theory. If we can only observe 17.2 billion light years, how do we know we are seeing everything? This expansion we are observing may just be localized to our quadrant, the result of a massive supernova. Einstein says time is like a fabric, in this weird U shape and planets cause dimples in time or some crap. Dude was smart, but some of his theories are a bit weird. Time and space are things which are fundamental and do not need to be explained. We have to make a solid distinction between what we know, what we don't know and what we don't know that we don't know. What is the point of thinking up something to place-hold that which we don't know? There are theories, but to put all faith in one, man, that just seems so absurd. Isn't it better just to say "I don't know". I don't know if the big bang really happened, and I don't know what happened before that, the origin of the universe or how non-organic matter becomes organic. It's not really applicable to our existence. There are a lot more important things to know than where we came from, like how we work.
Oh, man, I'm a little surprised to completely agree with you on this. Especially when people tend to think in terms of "right" or "wrong". It's perfectly okay to theorize about a possibility, like the big bang. The problem is then, that people want to make it right or wrong. They want to make it into a false absolute. Which becomes a preconception and a fallacy. I see there are so many false preconceptions we build our western society on. It's a little spooky, the illusions we think are real. Then we chastise "crazy" people when they begin to see through the illusions. We pathologize them when they see beyond what is generally mutually and falsely seen as real.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Science doesn't have to work within time and space. It really doesn't have to work within anything. Except a particular method of discovery.
Take string theory which proposes 11 dimensions. That's not exactly within this universe. Or worm hole theories. I don't get this big bang theory. If we can only observe 17.2 billion light years, how do we know we are seeing everything? This expansion we are observing may just be localized to our quadrant, the result of a massive supernova. Einstein says time is like a fabric, in this weird U shape and planets cause dimples in time or some crap. Dude was smart, but some of his theories are a bit weird. Time and space are things which are fundamental and do not need to be explained. We have to make a solid distinction between what we know, what we don't know and what we don't know that we don't know. What is the point of thinking up something to place-hold that which we don't know? There are theories, but to put all faith in one, man, that just seems so absurd. Isn't it better just to say "I don't know". I don't know if the big bang really happened, and I don't know what happened before that, the origin of the universe or how non-organic matter becomes organic. It's not really applicable to our existence. There are a lot more important things to know than where we came from, like how we work.
Another thing. I completely agree that science works within a particular method of discovery.
Most people think science tells us the truth. Science explains what we know about the truth. It maps the truth. Ultimately, a map is not the same as the thing it describes. If we can keep this in mind, we can be much more realistic.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
This whole idea of a universe being born from nothing is incorrect- I am unaware of any scientific explanation of the origins of the universe that proposes a free universe- or a universe being created out of nothing.
Actually, physicists have been intrigued by this question for years, the possibility that universe came from a quantum transition from nothing (pure space-time). This idea is actually an old one. One physicist pointed out that a star, by virtue of its mass, has energy, obviously. However, if the energy locked within its gravitational field is calculated, the total energy is, in fact, zero. This raises some interesting questions, such as, what would then prevent a quantum transition from the vacuum into a full blown star? SInce the star had zero energy, there is no violation of the conservation of energy when it was created out of nothing.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Actually, physicists have been intrigued by this question for years, the possibility that universe came from a quantum transition from nothing (pure space-time). This idea is actually an old one. One physicist pointed out that a star, by virtue of its mass, has energy, obviously. However, if the energy locked within its gravitational field is calculated, the total energy is, in fact, zero. This raises some interesting questions, such as, what would then prevent a quantum transition from the vacuum into a full blown star? SInce the star had zero energy, there is no violation of the conservation of energy when it was created out of nothing.
I'm not sure I follow that completely. It seems that looking at it this way would base origin on just one star, so that being the case the questions raised seem sort of silly. There is no "one" of anything, energy or God.
Comments
I understand that you see and experience it differently. That's my point: we all experience philsophy, science, religion, physical reality, etc differently as viewed through our own entirely one of a kind perspective. That is the sacredness we perceive of this individuality we each have. No two views are the same, and each one has the freedom of choice to answer the "why" questions regarding science and the universe in our own unique ways.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
No matter how unlikely the scientific explanation, it will still be more parsimonious then falling back onto a creator. You will still have to explain the creators existence- and because a creator has to be more complex then what it creates, the problem of where the creator came from has just got worse.
And if you are going to give the creator a get out of jail free card and say that the creator has always been, why not just simplify the problem and say that existence has always been, in some shape or form, and our current universe is simply the most recent reformation of that existence.
I feel like this whole idea of a universe being born out of 'nothing' is a poor human interpretation. 'Nothing' does not exist, it is only an idea- even the purest vacuum contains energy. Physical existence is the norm, and our universe, or many universes, are born out of it.
Let me read you a section from Susan Blackmore's interview with Patricia and Paul Churchland
Sue: I would like to be clear how this relates to correlation, cause, and identity. There's a huge amount of work going on at the moment on the neural correlates of consciousness, and a lot of confusion about correlation, cause and identity. Where do you stand on this?
Paul: The easy way to cut through all that is, once again, to draw lessons from the history of science. Electromagnetic waves don't cause light; they're not correlated with light; they are light. That's what light is. Similarly with sound: a sound of middle C isn't correlated with a compression wave train of 263 Hz. It is a compression wave train with that frequency. And the feeling of warmth from a coffee cup isn't something that's correlated with mean molecular kinetic energy; it's identical with the mean molecular kinetic energy of the molecules in the cup.
Sue: But you can't say that for colour! If we come back to the bougainvillea, you can't say that that colour is equivalanet to so many nanometers or whatever. You need a particular sort of visual system interacting in a particular way with a particular mixture of wavelengths. Does that change the argument?
Paul: No. There is a problem in the case of objective colour, and it's the problem of metamers. There are too many different patterns of power spectra that will produce in us exactly the same sensation. They all look red, but they're interestingly different. However that's a problem that can be solved, too.
We're not talking here about an objective colour out there on objects. We're talking about the sensation of red. And I'm willing to make the suggestion that this case is going to turn out to be exactly parallel to all of these other cases. To have a sensation, a visual sensation, say in a little circle right in the centre of one's visual field where the fovea is, is to have all of your three kinds of opponent processing cells showing a certain pattern of relative stimulation. They are blue versus yellow, red versus green, and black versus white, and all of them have heightened activity or lowered activity. The pattern of activation for red will be, 50%, 90%, 50%, across the three kinds of cells.
Pat: I think the point is that in the early stages of a science you try to make correlations between likely events. When you're considering a phenomenon you use many different measuring instruments to get at it; so single cell recording is one, functional MRI is another, report by somebody is another. There are many different ways of getting at it. Then once we have a much richer and fuller understainding of the brain, not just with regard to consciousness but in all of it's dimensions, then there may be a fit. We'll be able to say, as we did in the case of light or temperature, 'Aha, this is it. This pattern of activation in this context when the brain stem is doing such and such, that just is a sensation of red.'
It's always been a determining factor in society. Remember the Salem witch trials?
It's just been sort of reversed. It's now acceptable to deny god, where as before, you'd likely be deported or killed.
On the other hand, from my perspective, if I am talking about what I usually care about, it's the human experience aspect, because that is the way I bring my message to people. I'm then coming from the subjective place. And I use objective science to support it, including theoretically that MRI. I might include some quantum physics, etc. What is different between "Sue's" statements and mine is what we're hoping to show by our approach, and why.
You and I are super-focused on basically the same things, with our very similar and tenacious personality types. And we're both pursuing being masters at what we are doing. And still, we're slanted in distinctly different directions that don't naturally infringe on each other.
Niels Bohr, in his comments on free will in the 1957 lecture, seems pretty balanced between both objective and subjective. If you read my signature quote again, and realize how harmonious he is with diametrically opposed views, you can understand what I aspire to, myself. Balancing the objective and subjective, to be able to see multi-dimensionally. People who progress in healthy ways in their lives tend to balance their perspective out by being molded by natural forces and experiences. We evolve through our lifetimes, through developmental stages. Some aren't so lucky and do not balance out, because they get polaritized and stuck in patterns that work against them.
I no longer believe in the same absolutes that are commonly thought to underly reality. I'm with onelongsong on the "time" issue for one. I understand these subjects are valid within their theoretical frameworks. But the problem is people start to believing that they are true across the board. What works for me is to utilize these concepts when they suit my purposes in creating my life. Really, life does harmonize very nicely on all levels, independent of our opinions of it.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
becos im human and the concept of infinity and eternity are pretty incomprehensible to me. science tells me something has to happen for something to happen after. a ball does not start rolling without some force to cause it to do so. the force that started things rolling and set their path is what i call god. maybe it's a limit of my human understanding that things have simply always existed, but i cannot comprehend it and the science i have seen does not seem to be able to explain it. they've put an age on the universe haven't they? so what was it before that?
EEk! They didn't put an age on the universe, they simply said that it's 17.2 billion years according to the observable universe and the big bang theory. So it's been that long since the big bang, that's it.
and what happened before the big bang? what caused the big bang? what was going on with the universe before that? where was all the matter and what was it doing and why did it suddenly explode?
where was god before he created the universe, what was he doing, where did he come from, and most importantly, where did he get either the matter to create the universe from, or the enregy to create the matter ???
it is undeniable that matter and energy are interchangeable forms according to the famous equation e=mcc (mass by the speed of light squared), as demonstrated by nuclear explosions, but the amount of energy we are talking about here is SO immense that for a creator to whip it up out nowhere may have given him one hell of a hangover. no wonder he needed a blow afterwards. so, the matter must have existed, and then the big bang theory becomes plausible again. i thnk the big bang theory explains the universe AS WE KNOW IT, rather than the sum total of all that the universe has ever been. so before it was what it is now, it was something else.
what that was is ineffable !!
oh, i see... so before the universe as what it is now, it was something else. thanks. that's a HUGE improvement on someone DARING to hypothesize god as an explanation.
turn off your science blinders for one minute. the entire POINT of god is to accomplish the things science says cannot be done. god defies space and time, boundaries science has to work within. god exists outside of them, and thus CAN simply create a universe full of matter in an instant. it is something of a paradox, but it makes at least as much sense as saying there was absolutely nothing in the universe and then suddenly one day there was a spontaneous explosion and the universe was born.
to me, god is not a giant person sitting in the void. your thinking is as restricted as a christian... he's a giant human having human thoughts and doing human things out there somewhere. god is not a person, it is a descriptor, a name given to describe and encompass that which cannot be explained. like the paradox that a huge universe was born out of a nothing that existed forever.
and yet he still cares if i have a wank today, this incomprehensible force that exists outside the boundaries of the known universe, cares enough to fry me for all eternity.
jeez, i'm more important than i thought !!!
says who? again, you're talking about the christian god. im not christian. and the god i believe in doesn't give a flying fuck what you do with your life. cos you're NOT important. neither am i.
I believe that is simply called ignorance, or the unknown. There is no reason to call it God. We have words to describe what we don't know.
Main Entry: 1god
Pronunciation: 'gäd also 'god
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German got god
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3 : a person or thing of supreme value
4 : a powerful ruler
Main Entry: ig·no·rant
Pronunciation: 'ig-n(&-)r&nt
Function: adjective
1 a : destitute of knowledge or education <an ignorant society>; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified <parents ignorant of modern mathematics> b : resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence <ignorant errors>
2 : UNAWARE, UNINFORMED
- ig·no·rant·ly adverb
- ig·no·rant·ness noun
synonyms IGNORANT, ILLITERATE, UNLETTERED, UNTUTORED, UNLEARNED mean not having knowledge. IGNORANT may imply a general condition or it may apply to lack of knowledge or awareness of a particular thing <an ignorant fool> <ignorant of nuclear physics>. ILLITERATE applies to either an absolute or a relative inability to read and write <much of the population is still illiterate>. UNLETTERED implies ignorance of the knowledge gained by reading <an allusion meaningless to the unlettered>. UNTUTORED may imply lack of schooling in the arts and ways of civilization <strange monuments built by an untutored people>. UNLEARNED suggests ignorance of advanced subjects <poetry not for academics but for the unlearned masses>.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Take string theory which proposes 11 dimensions. That's not exactly within this universe. Or worm hole theories. I don't get this big bang theory. If we can only observe 17.2 billion light years, how do we know we are seeing everything? This expansion we are observing may just be localized to our quadrant, the result of a massive supernova. Einstein says time is like a fabric, in this weird U shape and planets cause dimples in time or some crap. Dude was smart, but some of his theories are a bit weird. Time and space are things which are fundamental and do not need to be explained. We have to make a solid distinction between what we know, what we don't know and what we don't know that we don't know. What is the point of thinking up something to place-hold that which we don't know? There are theories, but to put all faith in one, man, that just seems so absurd. Isn't it better just to say "I don't know". I don't know if the big bang really happened, and I don't know what happened before that, the origin of the universe or how non-organic matter becomes organic. It's not really applicable to our existence. There are a lot more important things to know than where we came from, like how we work.
Don't change the meaning and the meaning won't change.
how profound. perhaps you'd like to share that little pearl of wisdom with society in general. afterall it is they who construct these meaning changes.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
That's pretty interesting. Either you are a Christian who has decided to define God by your own terms, which kind of invalidates the whole idea, or you are a religion of one. Reading this board, that seems to be a pretty common theme though. A lot of people are saying that the nasty, bad history Christian "God" is not their God, their's is different.
I thought the point of religion was to band together to persecute the crap out of anyone who didn't believe the same things you did. And boy, are you so gonna be in trouble on Judgement Day !!
I am content to be totally insignificant without any gods. Looking at the Hubble photos, even stars and whole galaxies are just ephemeral grains of dust in the big picture.
That's pretty funny coming from a man whose posts are littered with words that did not exist only a couple of decades ago, even in your sig, or does "reboot" date from Elizabethan times ???
Like saying, don't grow old !!
But that is a huge improvement over a creator- no matter how personalised that creator is or is not. A creator must be more complex then what is created- because the creator contains all of the information of that which is created.
So you can have some form of physical existence being the infinite norm (ie- the universe right now... before that, who knows), or you can introduce another entire concept, which is more complicated then physical existence, to try and explain that physical existence.
And if you are willing to ignore the question of where did god come from by saying he exists outside of time, why not extend that courtesy to the pre-universe state of physical existence, and thus eliminate the need for god?
After all, Einstein has shown that time is in fact a dimension of the current universe, and that time was created with the universe. So perhaps our universe is born from a timeless base. This whole idea of a universe being born from nothing is incorrect- I am unaware of any scientific explanation of the origins of the universe that proposes a free universe- or a universe being created out of nothing.
Are you not a part of society?
not when i can help it ryan.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
That's a good question. Depends how long people have been saying "boot it up" when referring to enabling a device.
Society as a collective, that includes all of us, especially in terms of us communicating, are responsible for the definition of words. So, while we are talking let's make the language clear and distinctive. God historically defines a supernatural being of great power. Ignorance historically means lack of knowledge, uninformed. So let's use those definitions, they are in the dictionary. Blurring the definitions together will make it difficult to decipher. What is the purpose of altering the definition of God to Ignorance? To maintain God as a concept? Seems like a bit of word trickery to me.
lol, I know what you mean. But "people" always refer to "society" as a collective separate from them. I intend to mean everyone when I say "people" or "society" and that includes me. I am aware that it seems to mean "people" who are not me, because it's often used that way.
I used to say "That's gay", "omg man, that was totally gay" and stuff like that. Then I realized, what I was saying was gay. The way the word must have evolved, the intentions behind it. It originally meant happy, gay people tend to act flamboyant and appear gay, thus why they were called gay, but gay was considered negative, actually considered a mental disorder and people were lobotomized for it. Going back to the 50's it was considered contagious. So when people use gay to mean bad, that's where it came from, homosexuality being bad. Saying the words is contagious, it's hard not to give into new trends, but no wonder we have a hard time communicating with each other.
Yeah, I counld't actaully find the post that triggered the comment, so I didn't know which definition you guys were arguing over, so my response may have been out of context.
I think I said something similar about God to onelongsong, when he was redefining God to be different from teh usually accepted bloke with teh beard and the bad attitude toward people having fun. It is a bit hard to have a meaningful discussion when definitions are totally absent or plastic.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Most people think science tells us the truth. Science explains what we know about the truth. It maps the truth. Ultimately, a map is not the same as the thing it describes. If we can keep this in mind, we can be much more realistic.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Actually, physicists have been intrigued by this question for years, the possibility that universe came from a quantum transition from nothing (pure space-time). This idea is actually an old one. One physicist pointed out that a star, by virtue of its mass, has energy, obviously. However, if the energy locked within its gravitational field is calculated, the total energy is, in fact, zero. This raises some interesting questions, such as, what would then prevent a quantum transition from the vacuum into a full blown star? SInce the star had zero energy, there is no violation of the conservation of energy when it was created out of nothing.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I'm not sure I follow that completely. It seems that looking at it this way would base origin on just one star, so that being the case the questions raised seem sort of silly. There is no "one" of anything, energy or God.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.