Well, my claim was that this imprecision is inherent, so that suits it well. But make no mistake, many people do think that uncertainty is the result of observer-observed not being seperable (i.e.—measurement affects the system). Apart from that, there is also the hidden variables theory (which I’m not so sure is around or really supported anymore) which asserts that these values are there we just cannot measure them; i.e.—the HUP is an epistemological limitation, not an ontological assertion as your quote would have us believe. Apart from that, the ontological interpretation and the epistemological limitation yield the same results, so there is no empirical sense in which one interpretation is more correct than the other.
As for the gravity thing, do you recall the parable of the three blind men and the elephant?
I think that nothing is in the realm of “sensible experience” and simultaneously “independent of individual thought” because in order to internalize our sensory examinaton (that is, have it be the subject of our conscious thought) we must impose a framework upon it that itself is not, or cannot, be obtained through observation, or at least not through observation with respect to the phenomenon in question.
Long and short of it: there is no sense in which “objective” has empirical meaning without already agreeing on and internalizing some frame in which our observations have a sense. We may assert that someone who doesn’t know it is gravity still feels gravity, but I find that to be somewhat unsatisfying.
IMO the best we can hope to achieve is consensus, and only after we have agreed upon terms which are external to the phenomenon in question.
I love the way that people have a hard time agreeing on just what “The Copenhagen Interpretation” itself means.
QM is such a lovely mess. Eris must be proud.
A further thing to mention is that your quote relies on Hilbert Space to assert the ontological nature of the HUP. Do you feel that Hilbert Space is real? I mean, look at this revealing quote: “The uncertainty principle flows entirely from the geometry of the Hilbert space describing the quantum system.” Which was the theory and which was the data, again?
Why do they have to be different rules but rather different interpretations [shameful attmept to make my hijack meaningful to the discussion at hand]? Furthermore (as yet another hypothesis), since we can demonstrate that different societies lived differently, would it not be more intelligent for a single God to assume many forms, anyway, as that which is most suited to a society, and which we can see Judiasm, Christianity, and Muslim as the culmination of those efforts?
The next time God comes, she will speak to us all. Globalism brings forth paradise on earth! You heard it here, folks.
Of which, apparently, I was one. . . but no longer. Thanks for the clarification, I will have to read up on all these interesting links.
I don’t think you comments are entirely irrelevant to the points under discussion. In order to discuss the idea of evidence pertaining to topic such as the existent, nature and number of God(desse)s, it was almost inevitable that a discussion of what constitute “real evidence” – what constitutes reality – would ensue.
Helping to get back on primary topic, however. . . my own cosmological view seems to match eris’s: one supreme (creative force) which manifests itself in different ways to different peoples – and in some cases, in many different to one people, so that each culture has a familiar framework through which to view and experience the Universal. No single human framework – quantum mechanics or Neo-paganism – is going to be able to encompass all of it.
I would just like to say that if erislover is correct when he says:
I would still embrace science, because it can make predictions about observations even if they are not “reality”. Science makes progress (however you might define that), but philosophy I can not say the same of. That is not to say that philosophy is without merit, but science works despite any philosphical arguments.
I see the arguments against objective reality as similiar to George Berkeley’s.
Samual Johnson’s response…
Even if as erislover implies, there is no objective reality science makes predictions which can be useful. If there is an objective reality, all the better.
Nope, that’s not even close. YOU first claimed that predictability proves that “something” controls the universe. You then went on to conclude that God exists. I’m just pointing out that you can’t take the statement “something controls the universe” and then conclude that “God controls the universe”. There are an infinite number of theoretical mechanisms BESIDES God that we can construct to explain the behavior of the universe. Superstring theory is only one of them. It’s just an example. Even if there were no good theories, that would only prove that WE DON’T KNOW. It does not prove that it is God.
Once again, I will remind you that YOU said “So yes there is a God/gods.” I’m telling you that your argument does not warrant this conclusion - That’s all. Clear now?
Yeah - did you read the part where I said “I don’t know if superstring theory is correct”. What part of I don’t know didn’t you understand?
I suppose there could be god(s), but I have yet to encounter any believeable evidence or any logical reason to believe so.
Why are YOU so averse to there being an Invisible Pink Unicorn?
No, here’s the difference between you and me: I admit that I don’t know the answer (see my previous post where I clearly said “I don’t know”), whereas you insist that it is God (see YOUR previous post where you said “So yes there is a God/gods”), even though your reasoning is faulty. If you want to believe in God, that’s fine, but don’t pretend you have proven it.
My my, we’ve been all over the place haven’t we? Is there one god or many…or perhaps many perceptions of one? Then chaos vs. order, or was that order vs. predictability?
I think the answer, if there is one, depends upon what tradition you come from. I’ve never read any “holy” text except the Bible, and I’ve rejected that. But if you come from the Judeo-Christian tradition read Exodus 20 to see what the god of Moses (and later the Christians) said about it.
Beginning with Exodus 20:1 the I AM identifies himself: (Ex. 20:1) And God spake all these words, saying, (Ex. 20:2) I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. [He tells his people who he is relative to them, and lets them know who is laying down the law. He is very specific: he is the god of the fathers of the Hebrews. In Exodus 3:6 he is even more specific when he tells Moses that he is the god of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob.]
(Ex. 20:3 Commandment #1) Thou shalt have no other gods before me. [God is specific about who he is giving his law to, and at no time does he deny the existence of other gods. He just tells his people they must worship him first. So it sounds to me as if they could even worship other gods as long as the I AM was first.]
Guess that doesn’t answer your question, does it. It was suggested in another thread (a while back, and at 1 in the morning I am just too tired to look it up) that human beings are “hard wired” to believe in god. I think that may be so in some completely accidental sense, and it’s been a source of conflict for me for many years. I don’t believe you can find objective proof either of god’s existence or non-existence. That’s why I call myself an agnostic instead of an atheist. I just don’t know. I don’t believe one can know beyond a reasonable doubt, and for that reason, I don’t think we should worry about it one way or the other. If there is one god, there probably are many. The only monotheistic religions I know anything about seem to admit (sotto voce) that there are many, but their people are only supposed to observe one.
I’m rambling. Going to bed now. When I read this in the morning (well, much later in the morning) I’ll probably be embarrassed. Damned insomnia!
But it is important to remember that science is a branch of philsophy. In fact, modern science proudly claims its validity based upon work by the philosopher Karl Popper, whose Principle of Falsifiability is the foundation of the scientific method.
Philosophy includes the study of, not just metaphysics and ontology, but epistemology as well. A scientist who is not familiar with source of knowledge theories is a pale shadow of those who are. And philosophy is not some ancient practice that ended with Descartes and Kant. Modern philosophers, like Lofti Zadeh, work in fields like “fuzzy logic”, giving scientists and other philosophers new ways to look at the world around them and inside themselves as well.
Philosophy is alive, well, and thriving. Human thought and cognition continue to advance. If it ever stops, all progress will stop with it.
Back in my undergraduate days as a chemistry major, I took a tutorial course called “Philosophy of Science” – just four students and the professor. All but one of the students was a science major. In reading Descartes, we got into the kind of debate about the utility of science to which you are referring: from a scientific perspective, does it matter whether the physical Universe is “real” or an illusion, a perception (a grid)? One of us said, “No. As long as the Universe seems behave as if it were real, then it doesn’t matter to me.” Hers was the most absolute view among the four of us, but it did have its merits. You seem to be saying the same sort of thing, and in the course of everyday life this is a useful way of viewing the world.
However, I agree with Libertarian on the point about philosophy and science: science is a philosophy; in some ways it’s even a religion. It’s a way of looking at the world, organizing and interpreting what we perceive as “reality” and looking beyond what is immediately observable for underlying constructs. And the posts by, say, eris, in this thread ought to demonstrate that other philosophies have developed along with and in response to “science”. eris would not have the language and concepts to discuss and debate quantum theory if she were operating from some outmoded, 19th-century philosophical basis.
And yes, a scientist who does not have some understanding of how “scientific” philosophy developed over the centuries is a poor scientist indeed. Unfortunately, there seem to be a good many of them out there.
Oh shit, I was likened to Berkeley! :eek: I suppose it wasn’t to be avoided.
DesertGeezer, no, I think you make a fine point. It must also be remembered that at the time there were also many different religions out there that had strong traditions, all the way up to the time of Christ. Then there was some consolidation and we are left with the, oh, four major religions we have today. But I think it is interesting to read passages in a context that doesn’t assume a single God’s existence but multiple… I often liked, “I am a jealous God.” Jealous? Of little old Isis? 'Tis to laugh your mightiness.
Why do they have to be different rules but rather different interpretations [shameful attmept to make my hijack meaningful to the discussion at hand]? Furthermore (as yet another hypothesis), since we can demonstrate that different societies lived differently, would it not be more intelligent for a single God to assume many forms, anyway, as that which is most suited to a society, and which we can see Judiasm, Christianity, and Muslim as the culmination of those efforts?**
Alright, if they’re different interpretations, then can we point back to some original proclamation within various religions and show how different interepretations can be derived from it? Sure, that’s easy enough within the monotheisms of Judeism, Christianity and Islam but can you do the same with widely different religions? Say reconcile the proclamations between Christianity and the indigenous tribal religions of the Amazon basin, say the Yannomanni, or the Yurba of Africa? If your hypothesis is correct, then you can. Can you show us the evidence for that?
Why do they have to be different rules but rather different interpretations [shameful attmept to make my hijack meaningful to the discussion at hand]? Furthermore (as yet another hypothesis), since we can demonstrate that different societies lived differently, would it not be more intelligent for a single God to assume many forms, anyway, as that which is most suited to a society, and which we can see Judiasm, Christianity, and Muslim as the culmination of those efforts?**
Alright, if they’re different interpretations, then can we point back to some original proclamation within various religions and show how different interepretations can be derived from it? Sure, that’s easy enough within the monotheisms of Judeism, Christianity and Islam but can you do the same with widely different religions? Say reconcile the proclamations between Christianity and the indigenous tribal religions of the Amazon basin, say the Yannomanni, or the Yurba of Africa? If your hypothesis is correct, then you can. Can you show us the evidence for that?
Freyer, make you a deal: If you give me relatively definitive links to two seemingly disparate religions that claim to receive codes from a superior being I will definitely attempt it.
Of course, if they were incompatible I could always take the dodge that we mere mortals cannot reliably comprehend the wisdom of god. But I should try my very best to avoid that.
I just offered an opinion in another thread on absolutes. Now I’ll try again, this time in reference to Libertarian’s point about his favorite color, which I don’t think has anything to do with this discussion. So:
The answer to whether or not a god, or gods, exist(s) is an absolute. Either it’s yes or it’s no. You can’t have a god that partly exists and partly doesn’t, or that sometimes exists and sometimes doesn’t. (If you can, will someone please explain how?) Libertarian’s taste in colors isn’t absolute, unless he wants to claim, for example, that he thinks that his lawn, the water he drinks, and his teeth should all be brown. And I suppose he could wake up tomorrow and decide that now he likes purple better (probably not for his teeth). So the fact that there isn’t an objective way to find out about favorite colors hasn’t got a lot to do with whether we can find out somethng concrete about the existance of some sort of god, provided that we can agree on a definition, or at least a description, of what we’re arguing about. Which I don’t think anybody’s done yet.
Freyer, make you a deal: If you give me relatively definitive links to two seemingly disparate religions that claim to receive codes from a superior being I will definitely attempt it.
Of course, if they were incompatible I could always take the dodge that we mere mortals cannot reliably comprehend the wisdom of god. But I should try my very best to avoid that.**
Oh, c’mon now, erislover!! That’s not how the game is played. If you advance a hypothesis, it’s up to you to provide the evidence for it, not me.
Look, it says so, right here in the script:
*The dashing, yet volatile young scientist, Erislover, will confound the Science Academy with his radical new ideas. He’s challenged by the old and curmundgeonly Head of the Academy, Freyr, to prove his radical ideas. Erislover exit quickly and mounts a trip off to Africa. Within a few quick scene changes, Erislover returns and presents before the Academy absolute physical proof of his revolutionary new theories. The whole of the assembled Academy rise to their feet and cheer him on.
Freyr, confounded at all of this disappears but shortly reappears clutching Erislover’s lovely young daughter in by one arm whilst holding a sinister explosive device in the other. He threatens to blow up both the Academy and Erislover’s lovely young daughter unless Erislover recants his heretical notions.
Erislover’s faithful, young assistant pulls out his trusty pistol and dispatches Freyr. The sinister bomb is quicky disarmed and everyone lives happily ever after.*
See, it’s all in the script. So you have to go out and prove your hypothesis to us, not the other way around.
But Fryer, if I pick two religions and show how they could have been interpreted similarly, then you could just say, “Well, sure, for those two you can do it, but you can’t do it for all of them.” Dunno if you would do that or not, but you could. So I figured I’d cut to the chase and have you pick two religions. If you do that then I suppose I could even find the sites myself. sigh I just want to make sure I don’t hear you say, “Well OF COURSE Christianity and Satanism are similar” after I put together a devestating argument.
Okay, hold on a sec. Let me try this. We’re currently trying to prove or disprove that any two religions with similar backgrounds or views of god will have similar tenants on how to act in life?
Erislover, alright. I’ll try to find something for you.
**Fox_Moxin wrote:
Okay, hold on a sec. Let me try this. We’re currently trying to prove or disprove that any two religions with similar backgrounds or views of god will have similar tenants on how to act in life?**
Not exactly. Erislover maintains that there’s only one God and it’s because of different interpretations of His/Her/It’s proclaimations is why societies have such different religious practices, even on basic issues (like if there’s one god or many).
I maintain there are many Gods who gave different rules to different peoples. That’s why various religions are so different, even about the basic issues.
What it has to do with the discussion is that it points out that subjective experience is as valid a source of knowledge as any. It is clear to me that there exist as many ontological manifestations as people. God is perfectly capable of keeping straight your reality from mine. And no, I’m not a solipsist.
