Cosmos redux

[SteveRiley]

That's oversimplifying things, but these are actually valid philosophical questions, why is there randomness? and what is randomness?

Indeed. They are not scientific questions, though.

This is a belief and not a fact. There is no scientific evidence of this either way. While I personally share this belief, I have no knowledge that this is correct.

Nothing in science has ever proved that the universe has a purpose. So I would agree that those who maintain a purpose exists are exercising belief. Disproving that there is a purpose is a far more challenging thing. So far, nothing we've ever measured indicates that a purpose exists. So yeah, it may be a stretch to boldly claim the universe has no purpose. Sort of like how many atheists will hedge and say "There is probably no god."

For more, see this Templeton Foundation essays on the purpose of the universe. Now, I'm no fan of this organization generally, but the writings on this particular topic are interesting.

Continuing with the theme, maybe we are a part of a gigantic computer calculating the answer to the meaning of life, universe (and everything else), or we could all be a part of a neurosimulation in order to reduce us into batteries ...the purpose (if one would exist), doesn't necessarily have nothing to do with gods (as depicted in modern or ancient religions).

Wouldn't that be fun!

[vw72]

This is a belief and not a fact.

That is an interesting statement. Leaving religion out of the subject for a moment, from a philosophical perspective, almost everything we "know" we don't and instead we believe it to be true.

For instance, most people would say the earth is round and it orbits the sun, etc. A basic tenent of philosophy is that you can only know what you have experienced first hand. However, very few of us have been to space to see it with our own eyes or to do the calculations to prove either of those statements (the two ways to experience it). As such, for most of us, we don't "know" that the earth is round and orbits the sun, but instead, we believe it is round and orbits the sun. And how did we come to this believe? It was handed down to us by others.

Now, bringing religion back into the picture, for those who have a religious beleive, where did it come from? It, too, was handed down by others. Regardless of science or religion, the precepts of both are taught and handed down by the "priests" of their respective areas.

This is important because the modern implication is that science is right because it is based on fact and yet it has been wrong far more than it has been right. Just as our religious believe evolves as our experience of the world changes, so does our scientifc belief. And for both, there are leaders in their respective fields which codify the important aspects of the beliefs to be passed on to others.

People don't like to admit it, but science and religion, for the masses, are simply two belief systems. One significant difference, however, is that at least with science, if one has the aptituted and the resources, they can do the experiments, work the math, or even go to space to experience it for one's self.

Science tries to explain the universe around us in a certain way. So does religion. Neither has to be opposed to the other nor do they need to conflict. Likewise, regardless of whether one believes it to be inspired or not, the bible was not ever intended to be a scientific treatise. The bible is about the relationship between God and the people. Yes, it uses various forms of stories to convey ideas such as how we got here, but then so do we.

When a child asks where babies come from, we don't go into the details of sperms and eggs and dna and all of that. Why not? Because that isn't what the child is asking about. The same with things like the creation story. It wasn't ever meant as a scientific answer, but simply a way to say how we got here. So, for a Jew and most Christians, their faith says that God created the universe and the Big Bang is the scientific explanation of how he went about doing it. Their faith tells them that God made them and evolution is the scientific explanation of how he went about doing it.

Science and religion, for most people, are two belief systems that attempt to describe the universe and why they are here. Likewise, when the child who grows up being told that their mommy's and daddy's love created them finds out about sperms and eggs and dna and everything else, that scientific knowledge doesn't mean the other was wrong. It simply explains how that process actually occurred. Nobody would argue that the believe that their parents loved each other and produced them and the science behind it are in opposition to each other. Likewise, science and religion are only opposed to each other when we make them that way and usually that opposition comes from an incomplete understanding of either belief system.

In the end, philosophy tells us that most everything we think we know, we don't. We accept things on faith. That is true, whether talking about science or religion. The soone the world remembers that, the sooner it would be a more peaceful, progressive place. Well, I believe it would be.

[vw72]

Indeed. They are not scientific questions, though.

Likewise with most religious precepts. For the majority of the people of the Judeo-Christian belief systems, science and religion are not at odds. It is only a small religous minority and a scientific community majority that try to make it that way. For the vast majority of things, if we were to use a venn diagram there would be a tiny area that they overlap.

Nothing in science has ever proved that the universe has a purpose. So I would agree that those who maintain a purpose exists are exercising belief. Disproving that there is a purpose is a far more challenging thing. So far, nothing we've ever measured indicates that a purpose exists. So yeah, it may be a stretch to boldly claim the universe has no purpose. Sort of like how many atheists will hedge and say "There is probably no god."

It is beyond the realm of science to explain purpose or intent. Science can only describe the universe. It can only describe the "how" not the "why" and anytime somebody tries to use science to explain why something is the way it is, that is a misuse of science. Grammatically, How asks "In what way...". Why asks "For what purpose..."

As I stated previously, science is not capable of answer questions that begin with Why. One might ask "How come science cannot answer these questions?" (although most of us would improperly ask "Why can't science answer these questions?"), and the answer is that science can only deal with what is observable or predictable, it cannot determine intent or purpose.

As for the atheists, if you ever have one tell you there probably is no God, well, then they aren't an atheist. If there is the smallest possiblity of their being a God, then at best, they would be agnostic. Words are important and there would be a lot fewer problems in the world if we chose them as carefully as we do other things we value.

[SteveRiley]

People don't like to admit it, but science and religion, for the masses, are simply two belief systems. One significant difference, however, is that at least with science, if one has the aptituted and the resources, they can do the experiments, work the math, or even go to space to experience it for one's self.

I hope you realize that your acknowledgement of reproducibility demolishes any notion that science and religion are compatible. Science is not a belief system precisely because each and every one of us can test the claims for ourselves and reproduce results. This is impossible in religion.

[oshunluvr]

As Russell's Teapot tells us; if you make a claim that is unverifiable, the burden of proof lies on you not others.

[kubicle]

For instance, most people would say the earth is round and it orbits the sun, etc. A basic tenent of philosophy is that you can only know what you have experienced first hand. However, very few of us have been to space to see it with our own eyes or to do the calculations to prove either of those statements (the two ways to experience it). As such, for most of us, we don't "know" that the earth is round and orbits the sun, but instead, we believe it is round and orbits the sun. And how did we come to this believe? It was handed down to us by others.

You do realize that people "knew" that the earth was round and that the earth orbits the sun *before* anyone went to space? (for the earth being round, you only have to look at ships on the horizon, and how the solar system operates...you only need mathematics).

The difference between scientific and religious "beliefs" is that scientific theories can be proven wrong (that happens quite often), and if something can be proven wrong and no one has proven it wrong, your "beliefs" are on a much stronger ground than your beliefs on things that can't be proven wrong. This is an important distinction between scientific and religious "beliefs".

As far as experiencing things yourself, philosophically you cannot truly rely on your own experiences either...you have no way of telling your sensory perceptions are correct (or even real).

[vw72]

You do realize that people "knew" that the earth was round and that the earth orbits the sun *before* anyone went to space? (for the earth being round, you only have to look at ships on the horizon, and how the solar system operates...you only need mathematics).

Actually, no. Very few people, mainly scientists, "knew" it. The rest of people accepted it because those more learned said it was so. As such, they believed it. Again, one can only know what one experiences. With regards to the world being round or orbiting the sun, there are two ways to experience it, 1) go out into space and look or 2) do the experiments and calculations. (In my physics and astronomy classes, we did exactly that, so I do know, because I have first hand experience, that the earth is round and orbits the sun). OTOH, I believe in the Big Bang, because I have not done all of the math and observations to prove it.

This doesn't lessen science, it only points out that most people only think they know things when in reality what they have is a strongly held belief system.

The difference between scientific and religious "beliefs" is that scientific theories can be proven wrong (that happens quite often), and if something can be proven wrong and no one has proven it wrong, your "beliefs" are on a much stronger ground than your beliefs on things that can't be proven wrong. This is an important distinction between scientific and religious "beliefs".

All beliefs can be proven wrong, whether science, religious, political, economic, or whatever. There is no difference. Some people hold on more dearly to one system than another, but that is a personal choice. Ultimately, beliefs are changed in only two ways: 1) actual experience of the phenomena held by the belief or 2) by relying on more credible testimony from experts in the field or more volume of such testimony.

As far as experiencing things yourself, philosophically you cannot truly rely on your own experiences either...you have no way of telling your sensory perceptions are correct (or even real).

If that were true, then ultimately we cannot know anything, because even the data has to be viewed through the senses and if your position is that the senses are not reliable, then neither are the results of the research because we can not reliably evaluate them with faulty senses. It becomes the ultimate GIGO scenario.

However, many in the scientific community put forth that falsehood (about the senses not being reliable). There is an excellent book on the subject, written in layman's terms, called the Science Before Science that goes into the topic in much more depth than it could in an online forum. It does also talked about religion, but the early parts of the book are the important ones related to this topic.

I am not puting religion on the level of science. I have degrees in multiple scientific disciplines. However, science without philosophy is dangerous. Science asks and answers "Can we do this?" It doesn't, however, address the question "Should we do this?" Science is incapable of answering that, but it is exactly what philosophy does answer.

Just like science and religion don't have to be opposed to each other, neither does science and philosophy. However, we often find science at odds with both, which makes one wonder if the problem isn't with these other disciplines, but with our view of science. Of course, if the hadn't quit teaching basic philosophy as part of most college curriculums, people would realize that.

[Snowhog]

All beliefs can be proven wrong,

Not true.

One can neither prove nor disprove the exsistance of God.

[arist]

That is an interesting statement. Leaving religion out of the subject for a moment, from a philosophical perspective, almost everything we "know" we don't and instead we believe it to be true.

For instance, most people would say the earth is round and it orbits the sun, etc. A basic tenent of philosophy is that you can only know what you have experienced first hand. However, very few of us have been to space to see it with our own eyes or to do the calculations to prove either of those statements (the two ways to experience it). As such, for most of us, we don't "know" that the earth is round and orbits the sun, but instead, we believe it is round and orbits the sun. And how did we come to this believe? It was handed down to us by others.

Nonsense. Philosophy distinguishes between knowledge and belief: knowledge is typically regarded as justified true belief. There are all kinds of ways to have a justified true belief without having to experience something first-hand. We can know something if we have good evidence for it. Faith has nothing to do with it. We must always be prepared to have our knowledge challenged by new evidence, and admit that even the most obviously true belief could turn out to be false, but there is no reason to be so skeptical about our ability to know things.

If everything we believe is handed down to us, progress in what we know would be impossible. Yet that kind of progress is undeniable. The fact, if it is a fact, that science has been wrong so often demonstrates that science has made progress in what we know, since we can recognize the wrongness in retrospect.

[MoonRise]

"Perception"

[vw72]

Not true.

One can neither prove nor disprove the exsistance of God.

Yes, even God's existance can be proven or not although not by science, since science, by definition deals with the natural world and God, by definition is outside the natural world.

But that belief's becomes knowledge in the same way as any other 1) personal experience or 2) doing the calculations and experiments. But as I said before, science cannot speak to the existence of God, because God is outside the scope of science, which leaves only personal experience as proof.

[SteveRiley]

Knowledge -- a fact -- is true because it can stand alone, irrespective of individual discovery or experience. In this universe and in the realm of classical mechanics, 2 + 2 = 4 always. One does not need to experience holding two objects, adding two more objects, and counting the sum of four for this fact to become true.

By your definition, knowledge of god -- the fact that god exists -- can not be true or known until an individual experiences such; furthermore, this knowledge cannot be transferred or made to stand alone. I submit that you are abusing the definition of knowledge in this case.

I live in the natural, physical world. Anything that requires me to suspend natural, physical laws to know that thing is not worthy of my time or effort.

[SteveRiley]

Science...doesn't, however, address the question "Should we do this?" Science is incapable of answering that

Sam Harris would disagree with your assertion. In The Moral Landscape, he argues:

Morality and values depend on the existence of conscious minds -- and specifically on the fact that such minds can experience various forms of well-being and suffering in this universe. Conscious minds and their states are natural phenomena, fully constrained by the laws of the universe (whatever these turn out to be in the end). Therefore, questions of morality and values must have right and wrong answers that fall within the purview of science (in principle, if not in practice). Consequently, some people and cultures will be right (to a greater or lesser degree), and some will be wrong, with respect to what they deem important in life.

You may find the following similarly informative:

Sam's work, of course, is not without critics. He frequently publishes and responds to many of them, which is refreshing. However, if you employ pseudo-scientific methods in your criticism, he will take you down quite handily.

[kubicle]

With regards to the world being round or orbiting the sun, there are two ways to experience it, 1) go out into space and look or 2) do the experiments and calculations. (In my physics and astronomy classes, we did exactly that, so I do know, because I have first hand experience, that the earth is round and orbits the sun).

Again, if you look at ships on the horizon, they don't just vanish, you see the hulls disappear before the masts, because the roundedness of the earth hides the hull first...every sailor knew this (after the invention of the telescope)...that's also why there were crow's nests on the ships...so the look out could see farther...there is nothing blocking the line of sight on the sea...except the curvature of the earth. (you can picture the guy in the crow's nest shouting "Sail, ohoy" for dramatic effect)...this is not something "only a few scientists knew"

All beliefs can be proven wrong, whether science, religious, political, economic, or whatever.

That is a ridiculous claim. And not by the least supported by philosophy. I can believe that unicorns exist and you (or anyone else) cannot prove me wrong. Science, however, makes testable consistently accurate predictions (that could be proven wrong). If the predictions are accurate, the scientific theory is accepted, if not the theory is deemed wrong...even those that do not have the equipment to test a every particular prediction, can test science in their everyday lives..."hey, my cellphone works...maybe there is something to this science thing". Religions (or any non-scientific belief systems like astrology) either make no predictions, make predictions that cannot be tested ("if you live piously, you'll go to paradise after you die"), or make predictions that aren't consistently accurate ("when the moon is in the Gemini, you'll meet an interesting person"). A non-scientific belief system that consistently makes accurate, testable predictions, ceases to be non-scientific and is accepted as science. If, continuing with my unicorn example, I were to say that I believe unicorns exist and can be found grazing on the rings of saturn, but they do not reflect light on the visible spectrum (that is a prediction that can be tested...and proven right or wrong). And if anyone pointing their infra-red telescopes into saturn can see unicorns hopping about, my belief in the existence becomes a scientifically accepted fact (much to the dismay of the guy next door that was utterly convinced there were blue lemmings there).

If that were true, then ultimately we cannot know anything, because even the data has to be viewed through the senses and if your position is that the senses are not reliable, then neither are the results of the research because we can not reliably evaluate them with faulty senses.

Yet it is true. You keep insisting that seeing (or experiencing) first-hand is the only way to "know" something, and this is philosophically and logically not valid. When you say "seeing is believing", you: 1. have already accepted as a premise that your senses can give you accurate knowledge of the world outside your own mind. 2. Can't logically deduce that your senses are the *only* way you can gain knowledge of the world outside your own mind.

However, many in the scientific community put forth that falsehood (about the senses not being reliable).

The idea that senses aren't reliable does not come from "scientists" (scientist rely on their senses quite heavily), but from philosophers, most famous of them being Descartes (you know, the "Cogito ergo sum" -guy).

We rely on science (and take scientifically tested facts as facts) for practical reasons, because it works, not because we could logically be 100% sure it's accurate. Science is a tool.

[Qqmike]

.. Science can't prove or disprove the existence of God ...
... even God's existance can be proven or not although not by science, since science, by definition deals with the natural world and God, by definition is outside the natural world ...

And so on.


Those statements make little sense. How can you make statements about something that remains largely undefined or not understood? Doesn't it beg the question (re the existence of "God"?). About undefined terms, you can only postulate axioms.

What if "[G,g]od" is the master wave generator for the hologram we take as reality, and [G,g]od resides in the slice of the multiverse just a millimeter away (or as the lining of its own black hole; or the lining of a finite universe that contains "us"; et cetera).

As for science, what if it does achieve the point where it can explore/validate mathematical results about the nature of the universe(s)/cosmos? Comologists ARE trying, as we speak. Could they then reveal something about origins or a [G,g]od? Who knows. One point being, be careful postulating what science will or will not be able to discover.

What is God?
God is not to be known.
Why so?
Because we can not know God.
Why so?
Because 'he' is all-knowing, the creator, he has his ways, he is not to be known by that which he creates.
Why so?
Because I am saying so, right now.
...

As I said: 'and so on.'