It "smears" particles into a nebulous cloud of potential positions over time that don't manifest themselves as composite
-
Eva_Yojimbo — 9 years ago(January 20, 2017 02:02 PM)
Instead of this Omnislash War Im going to try to pare this down into three key parts:
Laws of Nature
Heres a full recap of the discussion before you entered into it:
Originally I was explaining how the origins of the universe can be explained through quantum vacuums. Miscella argued that since the laws of physics break down at quantum levels, then physics couldnt argue for there being no God (presumably, no laws would mean anything is possible.) I countered this by simply stating that there ARE laws for how quantum physics works even if theyre different from classical physics.
I assumed by laws of physics Miscella simply meant certain ways in which physics works, so my expanded point was in saying that if you can explain all phenomena, including the universes origins, with just known physical laws, then this is simpler than also adding God to explain the universes origin.
It certainly doesnt seem like Miscella was using laws of physics to mean God-degreed ways of how matter behaves, and I certainly wasnt. So all your history lesson has done is shown how the term used to be used, not how its used now or was being used in the discussion you responded to.
Occam
In the context of the above discussion, its obvious my argument was that using the LoP to explain the universes origins is simpler than invoking God. Your point is that philosophers proposed the LoP as a Divine decree to explain where the Laws came from. Even though your point is irrelevant and tangential to the one I was making, Ill address it anyway.
Occam is still applicable in that situation. Firstly, God doesnt really answer the question either (no more than any other proposed answer without evidence would), it simply moves the meta-question back a further step. Its an example of a semantic stop-sign:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/it/semantic_stopsigns/
Philosophers are good at asking hard questions. Theyre also notoriously bad at answering them. Asking why the laws of nature are how they are is a fine question. Proposing God to answer it is a bad answer; not because of some a priori atheistic metaphysic, but because its an example of a fake explanation or fake causality:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/ip/fake_explanations/
and
http://lesswrong.com/lw/is/fake_causality/
Science was conceived partly as an antidote for this kind of lazy thinking; it no longer mattered what you could argue, but what you could prove.
Secondly, lets just say for a moment you have two hypotheses that can explain those origins: one is God, and two is, as you suggested earlier, the LoP being brute facts. There is no doubt which of these two Occam would favor. The LoP already exist, and we actually know how/why they would/could create a universe, as well as account for pretty much all phenomena in the universe we inhabit. We dont know God exists, dont know how/why/if s/he/it could/would create a universe or decree such laws upon it. There is no rational reason to invent a being with magical powers (and I say magical because nobody could explain the mechanics of how God could create a universe) to explain why something exists when it just does is an available hypothesis. Further, as I said above, the invented being not only adds complexity, but it only serves to move all the questions back a step: why is God (rather than the LoP) allowed to just exist without a reason? Theres no answer to that question that: 1. Is anything other than a baseless claim; 2. There is any evidence for; and 3. Couldnt be equally claimed of the LoP.
So, just to recap:- Claiming God doesnt answer the question. Its just a semantic stop-sign, an example of a fake explanation/causality.
- Claiming God adds far more complexity than going with the brute fact hypothesis of the LoP.
- All the questions that can be asked about the LoP can be asked of God. All the answers that can be given for God will be nothing but baseless claims and could equally be claimed for the LoP.
So, yes, Occam is still applicable to the question Where did the LoP come from? It favors the brute fact hypothesis. This doesnt mean the hypothesis is right, but, again, Occam is about assigning probability among available hypotheses and favoring the one that is the least complex. Inventing a being (not JUST a being, but an entirely new realm of the supernatural) is undoubtedly more complex, and theres no way around this. Programming the LoP into a computer to output a universe would be pretty easy; trying to program a God that created those laws would not be. Its a shame most old, dead philosophers didnt grasp the basic concept of Solomonoff Induction as it wouldve prevented them from proposing dumb answers to hard questions (while allowing them to understand WHY the answers were dumb).
Teleology
This is really tangential and isnt really something I care about discussing, but my point is that all the innate teleology in nature you brought up were just examples of physical interactions and causes, no different than gravity hurling comets through
-
Superdude6090 — 9 years ago(January 10, 2017 04:23 PM)
it was just always there, end of discussion!" schtick just strikes me as intellectually lazy.
Actually you are engaging in intellectual laziness with your position,it is a logical fallacy known as "The God of gaps":
God of the gaps (or a divine fallacy) is logical fallacy that occurs when Goddidit (or a variant) is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument). This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting "we don't know yet" as an alternative that works better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]
The God of the Gaps is a didit fallacy and an ad hoc fallacy, as well as an argument from incredulity or an argument from ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy.
The ultimate "gap" that likely cannot be bridged is "well, God started everything", because even if something like the m-theory explaining how our universe could have "big banged" in the first place was proven to be true someone could always ask, "yes, but what created the membranes?" -
-
filmflaneur — 9 years ago(January 11, 2017 07:10 AM)
The argument that simply because science has found answers in the past means it will find any in the future is wishful thinking no matter how logically flawed.
It is better expressed as 'since science has always found explanations for a whole range of things and continues to do so, there is no reason to assume this will not be the case in the future'. That is, it is more reasonable to assume that a pattern will be continued rather than insisting it will abruptly stop.
I'm well aware that railing does no good
kurt2000 -
-
filmflaneur — 9 years ago(January 13, 2017 03:59 AM)
I was not "insisting" it would abruptly stop. It is however logical to assume that it will stop. Perhaps you already noticed that the periodic chart of the elements has in fact stopped.
Actually a new couple of elements were added last year lol
It is also disingenuous to equate the whole wide field of knowledge with just a single table. Has the whole of human understanding come to grinding halt you think - or just the bit you hope will find out no more?
I'm well aware that railing does no good
kurt2000 -
Miscella — 9 years ago(January 09, 2017 08:55 PM)
So what's preventing Christians from accepting that the Universe didn't have to come into being?
Dementia flaring up again?
http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000108/nest/264932739?d=264941020#264941020 -
filmflaneur — 9 years ago(January 10, 2017 03:57 AM)
So what's preventing Christians from accepting that the Universe didn't have to come into being?
Dementia flaring up again?
I don't think so. They can't all suffer from senility.
I'm well aware that railing does no good
kurt2000 -
AbsolutelyThoughtfulGoz — 9 years ago(January 10, 2017 04:20 PM)
The Creator of God thought it would be a good idea.
His Creator was in agreement so it was all systems go.
Fortunately Great Grandfather Creator was dead and in Heaven, so he couldn't have a say, and he was an ornery intelligent old man with a white beard, and really really smart about science and physics and stuff, so they were all relieved when he 'passed'! -
shaun3701 — 9 years ago(January 11, 2017 10:22 PM)
Unless that IS the correct answer, which isn't an "easy" answer at all. Timelessness is something beyond our comprehension. Everything we know and perceive has a beginning and an end, God has neither. God does not compute in our primitive brains. The fact that we don't understand Him does not negate His existence.
Those of us who are spiritually attuned can feel God, see Him, hear His voice, converse with Him. But be careful to use only Biblical scriptures as your guide when you navigate the spiritual realm, otherwise Satan and his demons can speak to you just as easily pretending to be God's voice. -
gladoscake — 9 years ago(January 12, 2017 01:32 AM)
Unless that IS the correct answer, which isn't an "easy" answer at all. Timelessness is something beyond our comprehension. Everything we know and perceive has a beginning and an end, God has neither. God does not compute in our primitive brains. The fact that we don't understand Him does not negate His existence.
Those of us who are spiritually attuned can feel God, see Him, hear His voice, converse with Him. But be careful to use only Biblical scriptures as your guide when you navigate the spiritual realm, otherwise Satan and his demons can speak to you just as easily pretending to be God's voice.
Wait a minute. So no one can understand nor hope to comprehend the transcending understanding and governing mind of Yaweh, yet there are people that are attuned and can understand him? you just destroyed your argument oh well, your Bible says that NDE's are false because apparently no one has seen god, yet many Christians like to use their holy "testimonies" to convince people to join into the delusion. -
worshipper_pa — 9 years ago(January 12, 2017 01:18 PM)
shaun3701:
Timelessness is something beyond our comprehension. Everything we know and perceive has a beginning and an end, God has neither. God does not compute in our primitive brains. The fact that we don't understand Him does not negate His existence.
What you wrote here demonstrates strongly why religion is so bad to human mind.
Religion makes people think they can't understand certain things. That some things are beyond our comprehension. We don't know if that is the case. When we think we can't understand something we stop asking questions and that's bad. We must keep asking questions and work hard to understand as much as possible. Every generation can take the understanding of the previous generations as their "starting point" and reach higher.
True, simpletons and ignorants can't understand much anything, but there are smart people out there. Really smart people. People who are well educated not ignorant. People with high IQ. The difference between an intellectual and a simpleton is staggering. Ignorant people don't seem to even know what it means to understand something. Understanding is complete strange to them. Unless you are the smartest person in the world, some people can understand more than you. Your limitations are not their limitations. You can't perhaps understand how an universe can appear out of nothing, but Lawrence M. Krauss can. Even I can understand it more or less and my understanding isn't even near mr. Krauss. Do you listen to people like mr. Krauss? Do you try to understand what they try to teach laymen about the universe?
Lawrence M. Krauss (2014) "Universe from NOTHING!" -
shaun3701 — 9 years ago(January 12, 2017 06:14 PM)
We don't know if that is the case.
Yes we do. The human mind will never fully understand the workings of the universe, that's a fact.
When we think we can't understand something we stop asking questions
No, we don't. Maybe you do.
You can't perhaps understand how an universe can appear out of nothing, but Lawrence M. Krauss can. Even I can understand it more or less and my understanding isn't even near mr. Krauss.
So this man is your god. I can assure you, he knows nothing. -
dozzy2003 — 9 years ago(January 12, 2017 07:38 PM)
The human mind will never fully understand the workings of the universe, that's a fact.
No, that isn't a fact. That's a statement that you're incapable of demonstrating. The word "fact" doesn't mean what you think it means.
So this man is your god.
How did you arrive at that conclusion? You sound like you have a things for gods, brah.
I can assure you, he knows nothing.
Do you have a thing for ridiculous hyperboles too?
Some experiences are so big they change your DNA