IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 4th October 2021, 05:07 AM   #81
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,022
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
So, you claim that if you don't currently understand anything, nobody can possibly understand it? That's rather arrogant of you.

Dave
I would explain to him that time is Limted to the work of energy expanding space time, but I haven't got the time.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2021, 09:35 AM   #82
LarryS
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,316
Originally Posted by MaartenVergu View Post
If there was an infinite amount of time in the past, then it would have taken infinite time for time to reach to our present moment. We would never meet the present moment. So, we can't postulate that there was an infinite amount of time before our present moment. But it's also hard to grasp that there was a fixed amount of time in our past and 'nothing before that'. How can we have an idea of what that means? We can't. Conclusion: not even a scientist can grasp 'time' and 'infinity'. Our minds can't grasp it. No math or science can discover this part of reality.
That's one of the mysteries of reality we can only meet with 'awe'.
You have it backwards, technically, we don't experience time, we experience a moment. Time, the past, the future, is simply a container we stitch together. Time is not a thing or event, there is nothing there to grasp or understand.
LarryS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2021, 02:20 AM   #83
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 32,942
No one can grasp 'length'; Not even a scientist

If there is an infinite amount of length to our left, then it would have taken infinite length for length to reach to our present location. We would never get to the present location. So, we can't postulate that there is an infinite amount of length to the left of our present location. But it's also hard to grasp that there is a fixed amount of length to our left and 'nothing beyond that'. How can we have an idea of what that means? We can't. And it's more complex even than that, because we have to ask whether there is also an infinite amount of length below us and behind us; in fact, it is triply more complex than time. Conclusion: not even a scientist can grasp 'length' and 'infinity'. Our minds can't grasp it. No math or science can discover this part of reality.
That's one of the mysteries of reality we can only meet with 'awe'.

And yet, I'm sitting on a chair that doesn't rock, because it was possible to measure the lengths of all four legs and make them the same.

Maybe maths and science are a bit better at discovering reality than vague, rambling musings about the nature of infinity.

Dave
__________________
There is truth and there are lies.

- President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2021, 06:39 PM   #84
Reformed Offlian
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: USA
Posts: 651
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
At least we know what comes after ....

BONG!
I think the bong may have come before in this case...
Reformed Offlian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2021, 08:17 PM   #85
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 74,417
Originally Posted by MaartenVergu View Post
Ok, I don't understand QM. Maybe scientists do understand it, but I doubt it that they understand it fundamentally.
What's the difference between understanding something and understanding it fundamentally?
__________________
We are all #KenBehrens
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2021, 04:01 AM   #86
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 14,960
Originally Posted by MaartenVergu View Post
Ok, I don't understand QM. Maybe scientists do understand it, but I doubt it that they understand it fundamentally.

F.e. Scientists talk about a singularity. But do they really grasp it? It's called 'undefined' in the mathematics of general relativity. The beginning of time and at the center of every black hole is a singularity. But do scientists really understand what the mathematics of a singularity is pointing to?
The "singularity" is just where the current theory breaks down. We don't actually know what the state of the universe was at t=0 because relativity can't deal with that singularity. Perhaps when we get a theory of quantum gravity we'll have something that can describe the state of the universe at t=0. Maybe it will turn out that there was a time before that, or maybe it won't. We don't actually know yet.

But while there may be some things we don't know yet, there's a lot that we do know. For instance, the state of the universe a nanosecond after t=0.

As for QM, while there's still work being done in quantum foundations, the Everett interpretation is pretty clear and mostly understood at the fundamental level, and it's consistent with everything we know. There's some question about where the probabilities arise in a deterministic theory (which Everett is, if you look at it from the entire wave function), but those questions seem to be mostly answered.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2021, 04:12 AM   #87
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 14,960
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
What's the difference between understanding something and understanding it fundamentally?
Here's a for instance that is I think what he was getting at:

Under the Copenhagen interpretation it's possible to do experimental physics and get clear answers to the questions you want to ask ("What is the outcome theory predicts for this experiment?") say. Because generally the apparatus doing the measurement are very large systems of trillions of particles and the things being measured are very small systems of a few particles. But there's some intermediate size where you might say "When these two systems interact, does the wave function collapse or not?" And whatever the answer is, make the system either larger or smaller and repeat the question. The Copenhagen interpretation won't tell you where the line is drawn between "macroscopic" and "microscopic", or really exactly when wave functions collapse (or what the mechanism is). It's just vague on that. Generally, that's okay because again the difference between the systems being studied and the systems doing the measurements are so large that there's no real need for that kind of specificity. But from a fundamental perspective there must be some mechanism, and collapse clearly doesn't occur when only a few particles are interacting (otherwise entanglement wouldn't exist).

The Everett interpretation makes this all clear: there's no such thing as collapse, there's just decoherence.

There are dynamical collapse models in which collapse does happen, which are specific about when it happens. So those also fulfill the "understood at a fundamental level" requirement that he seems to be asking for.

I don't think it's unreasonable to want to look for an understanding that makes sense at a fundamental level, though I do think we're much further along that he seems to think.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2021, 05:27 PM   #88
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 74,417
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
But while there may be some things we don't know yet, there's a lot that we do know. For instance, the state of the universe a nanosecond after t=0.
To my understanding, we actually know the state of the universe 10-43 second after t=0, which is a much smaller length of time than a nanosecond (10-9).
__________________
We are all #KenBehrens
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2021, 07:04 PM   #89
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 14,960
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
To my understanding, we actually know the state of the universe 10-43 second after t=0, which is a much smaller length of time than a nanosecond (10-9).
Yeah, thanks . Though I think we aren't really confident that far down, since there are still some ambiguities, for instance about the asymmetry between matter and antimatter. But yeah, definitely less a nanosecond. I was intentionally rounding up so I didn't have to look anything up
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2021, 02:35 PM   #90
LarryS
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,316
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Yeah, thanks . Though I think we aren't really confident that far down, since there are still some ambiguities, for instance about the asymmetry between matter and antimatter. But yeah, definitely less a nanosecond. I was intentionally rounding up so I didn't have to look anything up
do we really 'know' any of this, aren't we just walking Einstein's equations back in time . . . this alone is not a 'knowing'
LarryS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2021, 03:18 PM   #91
p0lka
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: near trees, houses and a lake.
Posts: 2,625
Originally Posted by MaartenVergu View Post
If there was an infinite amount of time in the past, then it would have taken infinite time for time to reach to our present moment. We would never meet the present moment. So, we can't postulate that there was an infinite amount of time before our present moment. But it's also hard to grasp that there was a fixed amount of time in our past and 'nothing before that'. How can we have an idea of what that means? We can't. Conclusion: not even a scientist can grasp 'time' and 'infinity'. Our minds can't grasp it. No math or science can discover this part of reality.
That's one of the mysteries of reality we can only meet with 'awe'.
R is quite big, yet I can still count to 1.
p0lka is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2021, 05:01 PM   #92
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 74,417
Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
do we really 'know' any of this, aren't we just walking Einstein's equations back in time . . . this alone is not a 'knowing'
First, it's as close as we know how to get. And second, we're way past just Einstein here.
__________________
We are all #KenBehrens
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2021, 11:20 PM   #93
erlando
Master Poster
 
erlando's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,055
Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
do we really 'know' any of this, aren't we just walking Einstein's equations back in time . . . this alone is not a 'knowing'
No of course we don't "know" this. None of us was around when it happened.

This is what the best models show to be the case. That's all we got. But time and time again that has been more than adequate for our purposes. Science don't really need to "know". All science needs is sufficiently predictive models that given real world inputs spits out what we can expect to observe.

But sure, if you want the literal interpretation then no, we don't "know" any of this. We can't. Does it matter?
__________________
"If it can grow, it can evolve" - Eugenie Scott, Ph.D Creationism disproved?
Evolution IS a blind watchmaker
erlando is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2021, 03:59 AM   #94
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 14,960
Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
do we really 'know' any of this, aren't we just walking Einstein's equations back in time . . . this alone is not a 'knowing'
For some of it, yes. When we can use the state of the universe to predict the abundances of various elements, for instance, and then look out the universe and see that those predictions are accurate, then I'd say that we do actually know these things.

What we know about the state of the early universe has lead to many falsifiable predictions, and they turned out to be correct.

But there's also still a lot that we don't know. Looking back at it, I think Arth's actually wrong about 10-43. We really have no idea about times scales close to the plank time, and won't until we get a theory of quantum gravity.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2021, 04:45 AM   #95
Steve
Penultimate Amazing
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sydney Nova Scotia
Posts: 10,191
Originally Posted by erlando View Post
No of course we don't "know" this. None of us was around when it happened.

This is what the best models show to be the case. That's all we got. But time and time again that has been more than adequate for our purposes. Science don't really need to "know". All science needs is sufficiently predictive models that given real world inputs spits out what we can expect to observe.

But sure, if you want the literal interpretation then no, we don't "know" any of this. We can't. Does it matter?
Matters to LarryS because he would love nothing more that to drag you, or anyone, into yet another "philosophy" debate.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2021, 05:42 AM   #96
Wudang
BOFH
 
Wudang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: People's Republic of South Yorkshire
Posts: 13,927
Yep as Dara O'Briain said
Quote:
Science knows it doesn't know everything; otherwise, it'd stop. But just because science doesn't know everything doesn't mean you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tale most appeals to you.
And to expand on Roborama: it's not just what science knows, it's the degree of certainty it can know things with.
__________________
"Your deepest pools, like your deepest politicians and philosophers, often turn out more shallow than expected." Walter Scott.
Wudang is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2021, 08:18 AM   #97
LarryS
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,316
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
Matters to LarryS because he would love nothing more that to drag you, or anyone, into yet another "philosophy" debate.
Well, if this were a science thread we could all accept what we know about the Big Bang and have fun with that; but this is a philosophy thread, and I think its acceptable to speak of degrees of certainty, sources of evidence, the models, etc.
LarryS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2021, 10:00 AM   #98
Jimbo07
Illuminator
 
Jimbo07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,789
The Unknown (we can/can't know?)--------------------------------------? is >
Things others can't know------------------------^ is >
Things others don't know---------------------^ is >
Things I don't know, but others do----^ is >
Things I know--^
Me

(lines are not to scale. The things I know should be a mere fraction of the things I don't, but others do. It should probably increase exponentially from there! but I don't know... )

It may be that the OP is right that there are things no one will never fully understand... but even a broken clock is right twice a day!
__________________
This post approved by your local jPac (Jimbo07 Political Action Committee), also registered with Jimbo07 as the Jimbo07 Equality Rights Knowledge Betterment Action Group.

Atoms in supernova explosion get huge business -- Pixie of key

Last edited by Jimbo07; 14th October 2021 at 10:10 AM.
Jimbo07 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2021, 06:49 PM   #99
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 74,417
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Looking back at it, I think Arth's actually wrong about 10-43.
I checked the exact number on Wikipedia, but it depends on how much you consider the time before quarks were formed to be "known".
__________________
We are all #KenBehrens
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2021, 07:04 PM   #100
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 12,326
I think Roborama is probably referring to the heading "The very early universe" near the top of your link.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2021, 07:19 PM   #101
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 74,417
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
I think Roborama is probably referring to the heading "The very early universe" near the top of your link.
Indeed, but it divides "the very early universe" (<10-12) into distinct phases, going back to the Planck time (<10-43), before which we're not even sure that the laws of physics as we know them apply. Although it is not currently possible to experimentally model these phases, we can "know" via other means.

So again, it depends on the precise definition of "know" and how exact the models need to be before you classify them as "known".

Regardless, the number is very, very, very small so quibbling further about details probably isn't necessary.
__________________
We are all #KenBehrens
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2021, 07:20 PM   #102
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 74,417
And I still don't have an answer to my question.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
What's the difference between understanding something and understanding it fundamentally?
__________________
We are all #KenBehrens
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2021, 07:27 PM   #103
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 12,326
Honestly, quibbling about the details that happened at about a picosecond is probably the interesting part of the discussion. The Planck era is definitely unknown at this point IMO. But that picosecond point has the exact amount of doubt and uncertainty that Magikthise was demanding.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2021, 09:27 PM   #104
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 14,960
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
And I still don't have an answer to my question.
I think my attempt was pretty decent: we can understand something in a way that works very well empirically, even to the point that no observation or experiment that we're currently capable of can contradict it, yet that understanding can be unclear or even contradictory at a fundamental level.

An example is gravity. GR works great on it's own, and it's also completely consistent with experiment. But we know the universe is quantum mechanical in nature, yet when we try to apply the principles of quantum mechanics to gravity, we get results that don't work (infinities that can't be got rid of through the normal methods of renormalization, for instance).

So we understand gravity very well, but on a fundamental level there's something we're missing.

Or to take it a step back, Newton also understood gravity pretty well, but not on a fundamental level. Einstein came much closer to a fundamental level, and if my above paragraphs were wrong we could say that Einstein understood it fundamentally, but that doesn't mean that Newton didn't understand it at all.

Anyway, that seems like a meaningful distinction to me.

But maybe you were complaining not that no one answered your question but that the person you asked didn't answer it...
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2021, 09:49 PM   #105
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 74,417
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
But maybe you were complaining not that no one answered your question but that the person you asked didn't answer it...
Yes, your answer was decent but I have the feeling MaartenVergu might have had something else in mind.
__________________
We are all #KenBehrens
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2021, 10:51 PM   #106
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 14,960
Fair enough and good point
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:09 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.