ISF Logo   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.
Tags atheism , stephen hawking

Reply
Old 23rd October 2018, 04:06 AM   #321
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,417
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Half of the search results on the first page all reference the same one guy. The other half ask the question, is strategy a science? The one exception is one result saying the scientific method is a good business strategy. Which is not the same as saying all strategy is scientific.

Von Clausewitz said military strategy isn't art, or science, but commerce. I'll take his opinion over your investigoogled "many people" any day.
theprestige 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 23rd October 2018, 04:09 AM   #322
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,417
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
As you are aware from the discussion of the subject from years ago, I disagree with your statement and many others do as well. Many years ago you could say that ethics and morals were philosophical because science hadn't gotten around to it yet. However, that can't be said anymore. Because philosophy moves so slowly scientists have been forced into aspects of it because of the swift advancement of scientific discoveries and they have begun assigning values. We also use a crude ethics/moral value system in our courts for sentencing.
Can you please name one of these modern moral values, that have been arrived at scientifically?

And none of this derived-from-assumptions crap. I want the base assumption itself.
theprestige 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 23rd October 2018, 04:15 AM   #323
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,640
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
"right" is nothing more than a human behaviour hidden behind everyday language, it has no meaning outside actual human behaviour. There is no "right" in the universe outside the context of how a human behaves (behaviour does not just mean external behaviour but also covers internal behaviour).

We like to think these folk-fictions are meaningful but they are no more an accurate description of reality than saying the sun rises every morning and sets every night. As we know the sun does not rise nor sets - yet we still use those words because they are useful, we just have to be careful to remember that as Didactylos wrote - the turtle moves no matter what we might want the world to be.
Are you claiming to have no ethical principles?
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey 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 23rd October 2018, 04:18 AM   #324
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,640
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Not at all. But I am now most intrigued, what part of philosophy gives me to tools/means/whatever to determine if something is right or not?
It's a branch of philosophy called --and stop me if I've mentioned it before-- ethics. The conclusions are not scientific, of course, but that's my point.

Quote:
ETA: Or just show me how you determine what is right or wrong via philosophy
How do I, personally, derive my ethics? I start with the proposition that compassion is the highest virtue, happiness is the highest good, and work down from there. I don't use science because, for the jillionth time, not everything is a matter for science.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey 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 23rd October 2018, 04:23 AM   #325
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 84,226
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
....snip...

How do I, personally, derive my ethics? I start with the proposition that compassion is the highest virtue, happiness is the highest good, and work down from there. I don't use science because, for the jillionth time, not everything is a matter for science.
No I meant (to use the wording you use) show me how you used philsosophy to give you the "right" proposition to start with.

That's what you are claiming that ethics/philosophy can inform us of what are the "right" proposition to start with.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 23rd October 2018, 04:27 AM   #326
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,640
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Not really, it's simple saying "show us the evidence ". If someone tells me they have a way of predicting the lottery I'll say "show me the evidence" before I believe them it's the same for the gods the religious folk believe in. Once the evidence is shown then we have something to discuss but until the evidence is presented we have nothing to discuss. Don't forget many of the religious do believe they have evidence and are usually more than willing to share that evidence.
No, it's not. I'm not claiming gods exist and purporting to have evidence. Hawking, per the OP, observed a phenomenon and didn't see evidence of gods in it, and people are therefore trying to extrapolate from that the nonexistence of gods. Hawking probably didn't (I didn't read the paper so correct me if I'm wrong) find evidence of goats in his research either. Does that mean goats do not exist? Science only speaks to what it finds, it cannot make rulings on what it doesn't find beyond "there is no evidence for X". That is not the same as saying "there is evidence X does not exist".

Consider, and I hate doing this, an analogy: Miss Scarlet shoots Mr Green in the ballroom. Colonel Mustard and Professor Plum are present and see her do it. Mrs White is nine thousand miles away in Indonesia at the time, purchasing goats for a cosmological experiment. On the witness stand, Mrs White is asked if she saw Miss Scarlet shoot Mr Green. She replies no. Can the lawyer then declare "there you have it, this testimony proves Miss Scarlet's innocence"? No, because he's inquiring in the wrong direction. Mrs White cannot answer that question. Plum and Mustard could, although they may lie or be mistaken. But at least they're the proper people to ask.

Whatever conclusions anyone reaches in physics doesn't prove anything outside of physics. "I don't see divine involvement in the Big Bang" is not the same as "there is nothing divine".
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey 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 23rd October 2018, 04:33 AM   #327
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,640
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
No I meant (to use the wording you use) show me how you used philsosophy to give you the "right" proposition to start with.

That's what you are claiming that ethics/philosophy can inform us of what are the "right" proposition to start with.
That's not what I'm claiming at all. You're still hung up on trying to use science where it isn't appropriate. There are no "right" (in the sense of "correct", "reflecting the absolute physical truth of reality") answers in ethics because it is not science. I wouldn't use the scientific method to determine ethical questions any more than you'd use a religious catechism to determine the mass of Jupiter.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey 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 23rd October 2018, 04:47 AM   #328
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 13,594
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
If he has so what? You and I are not Hawking.
That doesn't mean that we are both equally ignorant of quantum mechanics.

The difference is that you think you don't have to understand a word that Stephen Hawking wrote in order to talk authoritatively about the subject.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I was hoping for what's going on. I'm just saying that I'm a little tired of the same thing.

I don't think quantum mechanics has much to do with the existence of God.
"Quantum mechanics" was Stephen Hawking's argument (see the OP llnk).

Unfortunately few posters know anything about quantum mechanics which is why so many posts here don't DARE discuss Hawking's argument.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is online now   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 23rd October 2018, 04:57 AM   #329
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 84,226
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Are you claiming to have no ethical principles?
I am claiming there is nothing in principle that stops science being able to describe any ethical principles I or anyone else may have.

That there is nothing in principle means we couldn't come up with a black box I can use rather than having to do all the thinking for myself.

So I could say "Hey Alexa I want to have a thousand pounds shall I steal it from the local bank?" and it could reply with "Based on our model of your behaviour the answer is you would not think that was right".

Now surprisingly I may still steal that thousand pounds from the bank because we often do things that we say we know are wrong, in other words we behave in a way that is contrary to what our "ethical philosophy" statements might be.

It's almost as if ethics doesn't accurately describe how humans actually behave...
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you

Last edited by Darat; 23rd October 2018 at 04:58 AM. Reason: words meaning the opposite
Darat 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 23rd October 2018, 05:00 AM   #330
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 84,226
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
That doesn't mean that we are both equally ignorant of quantum mechanics.

The difference is that you think you don't have to understand a word that Stephen Hawking wrote in order to talk authoritatively about the subject.

...snip...
You do know your attempt at insulting me makes no sense whatsoever since I haven't been posting about what Hawking said?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 23rd October 2018, 05:06 AM   #331
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 84,226
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
No, it's not. I'm not claiming gods exist and purporting to have evidence....snip..
Never said you did, I said that the people who say they believe in their god often are more than willing to share their evidence with you if you ask them. And often if you don't ask them, they can be downright evangelical about this sharing!

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Hawking, per the OP, observed a phenomenon and didn't see evidence of gods in it, and people are therefore trying to extrapolate from that the nonexistence of gods. ...snip...
Some folk may be but we have really moved passed what Hawking said and I don't think SkepticGinger was referring to Hawkin's argument when she was talking about the need to have evidence of something before we can start to determine if something exists or not.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 23rd October 2018, 05:11 AM   #332
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 84,226
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
That's not what I'm claiming at all. You're still hung up on trying to use science where it isn't appropriate. There are no "right" (in the sense of "correct", "reflecting the absolute physical truth of reality") answers in ethics because it is not science. I wouldn't use the scientific method to determine ethical questions any more than you'd use a religious catechism to determine the mass of Jupiter.
And if I want to understand people I wouldn't use ethics because it does not describe how people actually behave. Why would I use a tool that doesn't do what it says on the tin?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 23rd October 2018, 05:29 AM   #333
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,640
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
And if I want to understand people I wouldn't use ethics because it does not describe how people actually behave. Why would I use a tool that doesn't do what it says on the tin?
Ethics isn't meant to describe how people do behave, it's meant to show them how they ought to behave.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey 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 23rd October 2018, 05:39 AM   #334
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 13,594
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
If he has so what? You and I are not Hawking.
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
You do know your attempt at insulting me makes no sense whatsoever since I haven't been posting about what Hawking said?
Being illogical doesn't help your cause.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is online now   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 23rd October 2018, 06:19 AM   #335
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 84,226
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Being illogical doesn't help your cause.
And trying for insults isn't the way to try and have an honest discussion....



(Irony included free of charge.)
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 23rd October 2018, 06:45 AM   #336
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 13,594
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
And trying for insults isn't the way to try and have an honest discussion....
I wasn't trying for insults (I have had worse thrown at me in these pages anyway).

As for "honest discussion", at first I suspected that you were being a little slippery. However, it seems from other posts that you have made that you want to move on from Hawking and discuss peripheral issues related to the non-existence of gods.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is online now   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 23rd October 2018, 07:15 AM   #337
Cheetah
Graduate Poster
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,077
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
"Quantum mechanics" was Stephen Hawking's argument (see the OP llnk)..

Unfortunately few posters know anything about quantum mechanics which is why so many posts here don't DARE discuss Hawking's argument.
Let's DARE.


As I understand it Hawking's argument is simply that quantum mechanics describes how the whole universe could be the result of a quantum fluctuation. Since quantum fluctuations happen spontaneously without any cause, no cause (apart from said fluctuation) is needed to explain the existence of the universe. Surly any god must be a much more complex explanation than that. Occam's razor.
In addition, since time and space itself is a result of the fluctuation, there is nowhere and no time for god to do anything.

Sure you can imagine a god that is outside the universe, snaps it's fingers and poof, a quantum fluctuation, if you reeeaaally want to.
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB
Cheetah 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 23rd October 2018, 07:21 AM   #338
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,487
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
"Quantum mechanics" was Stephen Hawking's argument (see the OP llnk).
The article doesn't say that the quantum mechanics proves that God doesn't exist.
The article says that, according Hawking, "the combined laws of gravity, relativity, quantum physics and a few other rules could explain everything that ever happened or ever will happen in our known universe".

Of course this is a philosophical and disputable opinion limited to an imprecise concept: "our known universe".
David Mo 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 23rd October 2018, 07:38 AM   #339
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 13,594
Originally Posted by Cheetah View Post
As I understand it Hawking's argument is simply that quantum mechanics describes how the whole universe could be the result of a quantum fluctuation. Since quantum fluctuations happen spontaneously without any cause, no cause (apart from said fluctuation) is needed to explain the existence of the universe.
Quantum mechanics isn't a cause of random fluctuations. It merely describes them. We can't identify the causes because we have currently reached a limit to how much farther we can break down the universe.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is online now   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 23rd October 2018, 07:59 AM   #340
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,860
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Is killing someone wrong? What is the scientific basis for your answer?
is 40 degrees Celcius warm? What is the scientific basis of your answer?
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."

Last edited by qayak; 23rd October 2018 at 08:00 AM.
qayak 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 23rd October 2018, 08:06 AM   #341
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,417
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
is 40 degrees Celcius warm? What is the scientific basis of your answer?
Please tell me you've given more thought to the ethical problem of murder than this half assed analogy.

If you don't understand the basis of your own ethics, what they are and why you chose them, how can you explain it?

If you can't explain your ethics even to yourself, how can you hope to explain them to anyone else?

If you can't even explain your ethics in their own terms, what makes you think you can explain them in terms of a temperature scale?
theprestige 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 23rd October 2018, 08:12 AM   #342
Cheetah
Graduate Poster
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,077
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Quantum mechanics isn't a cause of random fluctuations. It merely describes them. We can't identify the causes because we have currently reached a limit to how much farther we can break down the universe.

QM is entirely probabilistic, with individual events being entirely random. Quantum fluctuations happen randomly, they cannot be affected. They certainly don't appear to have a cause apart form being a property of existence.
Since (according to QM) a QF gave rise to the universe it must be a property of something more elemental.
You could say nature abhors a vacuum at the quantum level. Something is better than nothing. Existence better than non-existence. Even if there is literally nothing, no time, no space, NOTHING, a QF happens, from nowhere.
That's as good a reason as any for existence.
If the potential for something to exists wasn't there the universe would not be here, a QF creates/is the potential, from nothing.
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB

Last edited by Cheetah; 23rd October 2018 at 08:16 AM.
Cheetah 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 23rd October 2018, 08:14 AM   #343
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,860
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Can you please name one of these modern moral values, that have been arrived at scientifically?

And none of this derived-from-assumptions crap. I want the base assumption itself.
The moral values have not been arrived at scientifically, they are like the temperature of a spring day. It isn't warm or cold, it just is. The measure of the temperature is scientific and whether it is warm or cool is decided by the context. Same with certain moral values. All cultures believe killing is wrong. Science can put a value on the specific act and then each culture decides if it is good or bad based on the context.

Science doesn't need to be a deep study with microscopes, telescopes and Hadron colliders. It can be a simple set of numbers that must be put into context before they are of much value.

"Is the spring day warm or cool?"

"Well, it's colder than this day last year, warmer than this day two years ago, freaking sweltering compared to interstellar space, or frigid compared to the surface of the sun.

"Is that killing good or bad?"

You just need a system of measure and then the context to decide. Courts already try to do this. Accidental, premeditated, self defence, multiple murder, time to decide, events going on at the time, were you threatened, etc., all affect how long, or short, a sentence is. using the scientific method to put a value on morals would definitely make things more fair and would help in moving society along in the direction we want.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak 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 23rd October 2018, 08:16 AM   #344
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,860
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Please tell me you've given more thought to the ethical problem of murder than this half assed analogy.

If you don't understand the basis of your own ethics, what they are and why you chose them, how can you explain it?

If you can't explain your ethics even to yourself, how can you hope to explain them to anyone else?

If you can't even explain your ethics in their own terms, what makes you think you can explain them in terms of a temperature scale?
Please tell me you don't think we are talking about my personal ethics here? How can we hold a discussion when you can't even sort out the subject?
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak 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 23rd October 2018, 08:33 AM   #345
autumn1971
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,496
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Your fallacy is:

Appeal to False Authority

(also known as: appeal to unqualified authority, argument from false authority)

Description: Using an alleged authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument. As the audience, allowing an irrelevant authority to add credibility to the claim being made. Also see the appeal to authority.

/I did find it amusing that so many anti-theists who spit furious venom at religious believers are swooning that someone would dare to make the same type of jokes that Hawking made about himself.
Right? And why do the blacks get so upset when whites call them ******?
__________________
'A knave; a rascal; an eater of broken meats; a base, proud, shallow, beggardly, three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave; a lily-livered, action-taking knave, a whoreson, glass-gazing, superservicable, finical rogue;... the son and heir of a mongral bitch: one whom I will beat into clamorous whining, if thou deniest the least syllable of thy addition."'
-The Bard
autumn1971 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 23rd October 2018, 09:28 AM   #346
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 13,594
Originally Posted by Cheetah View Post
QM is entirely probabilistic, with individual events being entirely random. Quantum fluctuations happen randomly, they cannot be affected. They certainly don't appear to have a cause apart form being a property of existence.
Since (according to QM) a QF gave rise to the universe it must be a property of something more elemental.
You could say nature abhors a vacuum at the quantum level. Something is better than nothing. Existence better than non-existence. Even if there is literally nothing, no time, no space, NOTHING, a QF happens, from nowhere.
That's as good a reason as any for existence.
If the potential for something to exists wasn't there the universe would not be here, a QF creates/is the potential, from nothing.
You make it sound like nature/QF is a god or something. I do not subscribe to this theory of gaps.

Our current gravitational/relativistic/quantum formulas are useful for describing what is currently observable but they don't reveal anything that is hidden. They also have limits in what they can describe and hence the search for a "unifying" theory.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is online now   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 23rd October 2018, 09:51 AM   #347
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 17,501
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
You'd have a devil of a time proving or disproving the existence of a Gnostic-style god: a force without personality or will that exists outside the universe and never interacts with it. Fortunately for the tidy-minded there is no difference in impact if such a god exists or doesn't, the results are exactly the same, so nobody need bother with it.
You stated this so clearly at the front end of this argument that I just though maybe some people arguing with you must have missed it.

Have a blessed day.
__________________
I once proposed a fun ban.

Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa
Dr. Keith is online now   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 23rd October 2018, 10:03 AM   #348
Cheetah
Graduate Poster
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,077
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
You make it sound like nature/QF is a god or something. I do not subscribe to this theory of gaps.





None of that makes any sense to me, could you please elaborate.
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB
Cheetah 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 23rd October 2018, 10:09 AM   #349
Cheetah
Graduate Poster
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,077
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Our current gravitational/relativistic/quantum formulas are useful for describing what is currently observable but they don't reveal anything that is hidden. They also have limits in what they can describe and hence the search for a "unifying" theory.
Yes QM and GR need unification, but the unified theory will have to include the principles of both QM and GR, not replace them. QM and GR have been thoroughly tested. It will have to reduce to GR at GR scales and QM at quantum scales.

In QM, QFs happen randomly and spontaneously without cause, that is as likely to change with the discovery of a unified theory as the invariant speed of light.
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB

Last edited by Cheetah; 23rd October 2018 at 10:29 AM.
Cheetah 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 23rd October 2018, 10:12 AM   #350
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,860
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
You make it sound like nature/QF is a god or something. I do not subscribe to this theory of gaps.

Our current gravitational/relativistic/quantum formulas are useful for describing what is currently observable but they don't reveal anything that is hidden. They also have limits in what they can describe and hence the search for a "unifying" theory.
Holy Hannah! And what in your expert opinion is unobservable in our universe. Used to be germs and planets were unobservable. Then it was atoms and black holes. So what is unobservable now that will in theory remain unobservable?
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak 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 23rd October 2018, 10:50 AM   #351
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 13,594
Originally Posted by Cheetah View Post
None of that makes any sense to me, could you please elaborate.
You personified QF (and nature) although that is probably just a pattern of speech.

However, you also claim that a "random force" (QF) actually exists. That I don't subscribe to. A "random" event is one whose outcome can neither be predicted nor controlled. At best we can only calculate the relative probabilities of each outcome. These calculations do not identify any mechanism for determining the outcomes.

QM is just another way of calculating probabilities. It makes no assumption about how the outcomes come about (for example, we don't know the path that an electron will take in its travels). In particular, it doesn't prove that some "random" QF actually exists.

Originally Posted by Cheetah View Post
Yes QM and GR need unification, but the unified theory will have to include the principles of both QM and GR, not replace them. QM and GR have been thoroughly tested. It will have to reduce to GR at GR scales and QM at quantum scales.
Yes, the first test of any new theory is necessarily that it predicts the same outcome as the old theory in applications where the old theory is known to be correct. This is not sufficient though. String theory can be made to make the same predictions as existing theories but we have a long way to go before we can find out if any of the underpinning assumptions of String theory are true or not.

Originally Posted by Cheetah View Post
In QM, QFs happen randomly and spontaneously without cause, that is as likely to change with the discovery of a unified theory as the invariant speed of light.
Any new theory could completely replace the models that existing theories are based on. For example, the "action at a distance" model of gravity was replaced with "space/time distortion" in the theory of relativity.

Originally Posted by qayak View Post
Holy Hannah! And what in your expert opinion is unobservable in our universe. Used to be germs and planets were unobservable. Then it was atoms and black holes. So what is unobservable now that will in theory remain unobservable?
I would suggest that anything smaller than a quark would be difficult to observe. That doesn't mean that it will be unobservable for the foreseeable future but the next smaller thing will be even more difficult to observe.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

Last edited by psionl0; 23rd October 2018 at 10:53 AM.
psionl0 is online now   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 23rd October 2018, 11:13 AM   #352
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,883
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
Holy Hannah! And what in your expert opinion is unobservable in our universe. Used to be germs and planets were unobservable. Then it was atoms and black holes. So what is unobservable now that will in theory remain unobservable?

Everything that has receded over our local horizon, to name one class.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
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 23rd October 2018, 02:38 PM   #353
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,640
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
is 40 degrees Celcius warm? What is the scientific basis of your answer?
Warm compared to what? Warm for what purpose--for cooking it wouldn't be considered warm at all. For room temperate it would be quite warm indeed. For a blood temperature it would be extremely unhealthy. For melting tungsten it's totally inadequate. But that is not really the same kind of question as "is killing wrong?" Temperature isn't an ethical question. It's a science question if you're asking "what is the temperature?" I'm not sure what your question is. It seems to want a value judgment, but devoid of context it doesn't really have enough information to get one.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey 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 23rd October 2018, 03:17 PM   #354
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,940
Morals and ethics are the product of consideration of empirical causes, effects, consequences, intellectual and emotional concerns, etc (aka – a form of science). That philosophers endlessly brain-wank over morals and ethics doesn’t make them the exclusive product of philosophy (if even).

“Is killing wrong?” is neither a purely emotional nor philosophical question. Unless you define all questions and thoughts as being philosophical.
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.

Last edited by ynot; 23rd October 2018 at 03:24 PM.
ynot 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 23rd October 2018, 03:30 PM   #355
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,640
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Morals and ethics are the product of consideration of empirical causes, effects, consequences, intellectual and emotional concerns, etc (aka – a form of science). That philosophers endlessly brain-wank over morals and ethics doesn’t make them the product of philosophy.

“Is killing wrong?” is not a purely emotional question.
No, it's an ethical question. That you don't want to use the word "philosophy" doesn't make it science.

How about this? You are Archie. You have a choice before you: you can get with Betty, or with Veronica. First you consider the facts:

Sociology tells you that Veronica's wealth will make life easier for you as a couple and your future children. However, Veronica never worked for her money so she's quite spoiled. By contrast Betty's repressive Lutheran upbringing has instilled a strong work ethic and frugality: she will manage the household finances better, and pass those virtues to your children. Betty's also got wide, child-bearing hips, whereas Veronica is more delicate. DNA tests reveal that Betty has a small chance of passing a very severe disorder to her offspring, whereas Veronica has a large chance of passing a very minor disorder to hers. Veronica is far better in bed than Betty, but she only wishes to mate infrequently. Betty's appetites are more frequent but the sex is of a much lower quality with her. Veronica's family is very annoying to you personally. Betty will insist on keeping multiple cats. Veronica has a bad temper but when she's not yelling at you she's more fun to be with. Betty is more steady but you sometimes find her dull.

How will you choose? Science gave you access to several important facts to consider-- medicine, sociology, biology. But science isn't going to offer a conclusion to go with one or the other. You have to assign value to each of the points, what is more important to you? What are you willing to trade off? Which bad things overwhelm the good? Which are dealbreakers? Science will not answer those questions. Science will give you facts but it can't tell you what action to take based on them. You have to decide what's good, what's bad, and how they weigh against each other.

And then obviously you choose Veronica because duh, she's hotter.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey 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 23rd October 2018, 03:35 PM   #356
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,940
Unjustified killing is wrong.
Justified killing is not wrong.
“Wrong” and “justified” are defined by a particular, subjective set of moral principles. What’s “wrong” and “justified” for one set of subjective moral principles may not be wrong” and “justified” for another. There’s no universal/intrinsic set of moral principles.
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.

Last edited by ynot; 23rd October 2018 at 03:39 PM.
ynot 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 23rd October 2018, 03:38 PM   #357
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,640
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Unjustified killing is wrong.
Justified killing is not wrong.
“Wrong” and “justified” are defined by a subjective set of moral principles. What’s “wrong” and “justified” for one set of subjective moral principles may not be wrong” and “justified” for another.
Congratulations: you're participating in the branch of philosophy called "ethics".

Quote:
There’s no universal/intrinsic set of moral principles.
I don't recall claiming there were. It's not a requirement of ethical philosophy that there be anything universal or intrinsic. Did you assume it was?
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey 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 23rd October 2018, 03:42 PM   #358
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,940
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
No, it's an ethical question. That you don't want to use the word "philosophy" doesn't make it science.

How about this? You are Archie. You have a choice before you: you can get with Betty, or with Veronica. First you consider the facts:

Sociology tells you that Veronica's wealth will make life easier for you as a couple and your future children. However, Veronica never worked for her money so she's quite spoiled. By contrast Betty's repressive Lutheran upbringing has instilled a strong work ethic and frugality: she will manage the household finances better, and pass those virtues to your children. Betty's also got wide, child-bearing hips, whereas Veronica is more delicate. DNA tests reveal that Betty has a small chance of passing a very severe disorder to her offspring, whereas Veronica has a large chance of passing a very minor disorder to hers. Veronica is far better in bed than Betty, but she only wishes to mate infrequently. Betty's appetites are more frequent but the sex is of a much lower quality with her. Veronica's family is very annoying to you personally. Betty will insist on keeping multiple cats. Veronica has a bad temper but when she's not yelling at you she's more fun to be with. Betty is more steady but you sometimes find her dull.

How will you choose? Science gave you access to several important facts to consider-- medicine, sociology, biology. But science isn't going to offer a conclusion to go with one or the other. You have to assign value to each of the points, what is more important to you? What are you willing to trade off? Which bad things overwhelm the good? Which are dealbreakers? Science will not answer those questions. Science will give you facts but it can't tell you what action to take based on them. You have to decide what's good, what's bad, and how they weigh against each other.

And then obviously you choose Veronica because duh, she's hotter.
Neither will philosophy. Science however will give you a good base to work from.

You think whether "you get with Betty, or with Veronica" is an ethical or moral question?
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
ynot 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 23rd October 2018, 03:45 PM   #359
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,640
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Neither will philosophy. Science however will give you a good base to work from.

You think whether "you get with Betty, or with Veronica" is an ethical or moral question?
Assigning values to characteristics and deciding what course of action to take are not scientific questions. Your personal philosophy is what determines the values you assign, because it's your personal view of what is good and what is bad. Which course you pursue is based on your philosophy, whether you use the term or not.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey 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 23rd October 2018, 03:46 PM   #360
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,940
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Congratulations: you're participating in the branch of philosophy called "ethics".
Is there any brain actrivity that can't be defined as philosophy?

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I don't recall claiming there were. It's not a requirement of ethical philosophy that there be anything universal or intrinsic. Did you assume it was?
It wasn't addressed to you or anyone on particular.
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
ynot 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 01:46 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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.