On the Beginning of Everything

Here's a cool (if somewhat superficial) article from space.com:

The Beginning of the Universe?

With answers further away than ever, I'd like to say to both theists and atheists alike:

Boo-yah! Agnosticism RULES!!! YEeeaaaahhh! SUXXORS! PWNED!

...

aherm... seriously.

I'd like to make the case (without a vigorous pages-long defence), that there is still valid room in reasoned intellectual inquiry for philosophy (and perhaps theology). Much of this is to convince myself.

Cosmology, much like every other science, is cool! I suspect that a number of posters on this forum would agree. Much like every other science, it seems that every time Cosmology answers a question, it merely reveals a greater question, yet to be answered. This is the true wonder of mystery (as opposed to woo-woos who seem to like to leave things unsolved)! I'm curious, though, as to how we as a species (or perhaps just the subset of the scientific community) will know when we are converging on TRUTH^TM. Does truth even exist? Are we doomed to an endless cycle of making 'better' models? Even if truth doesn't exist, will there be a 'best' model?

So... are these valid philosophical questions, or just mental masturbation?

...

Whatever. Fun article.

****
ETA: Ooh! Now I remember why I bothered with this in the first place. With all the math in Cosmology, and expensive colliders in particle physics, is there even a philosophical place for the interested lay person? Do we need to simply accept what we read in Scientific American? Of course, we are free to disregard current thought in Cosmology, but are we really just wasting brain cycles if we do so?

There are significant areas of applied science where amateurs can be (and are) making contributions, like: observational astronomy, radio and electronics. Is the same true for philosophy?
****

I'll give you 2 to 1 odds on the Scientists over the Philosophers.

IXP

IXP said:

I'll give you 2 to 1 odds on the Scientists over the Philosophers.

IXP

Click to expand...

I wouldn't bet against you. The real angst is in that last part of my post. Is there great benefit to a person joining a philosophy club (at uni, say), or are classes/reading sufficient. Given the huge inroads that science is making (and mind-boggling questions it's revealing), do amateurs have much to add? For that matter, forget clubs, what can really be accomplished by philosophizing in this forum?

I realize this might be R&P, but I think the article in the OP belongs in science (for that matter, where should we stick threads re: philosophy of science?).

I think philosophy, as practiced by the professionals, is a highly refined, strictly disciplined way to say absolutely nothing new or worthwhile, in the most complicated way possible.

JoeEllison said:

I think philosophy, as practiced by the professionals, is a highly refined, strictly disciplined way to say absolutely nothing new or worthwhile, in the most complicated way possible.

Click to expand...

Nominated. I think that sums up philosophy pretty much perfectly.

I disagree passionately – indeed, was thinking about starting a thread on this, partially because of comments about philosophy arising in other threads, partially because I’ve been reading the atheist philosopher Simon Critchley’s excellent meditation on death ‘Very Little…Almost Nothing’.

So, a quote from the beginning of said book:

‘The great metaphysical comfort of religion, its existential balm, surely resides in its claim that the meaning of human life lies outside of life and outside humanity and, even if this outside is beyond our limited cognitive powers, we can still turn our faith in this direction. For me, philosophizing begins from the recognition of the literal incredibility of this claim, that the possibility of a belief in God or some God equivalent, whether vindicable through faith or reason, has broken down.’

Click to expand...

And a position statement from me, which is that mathematics and science can’t, for all their power (and I believe that they are the most powerful ways we have about understanding how the universe works) cross the fact/value boundary. Even if we have a complete model of the universe with consistent underlying maths and everything, it won’t tell us how or even why we should live. (NB I am, at this point, glaring at any ‘sociobiologists’ lurking in the shadows. Bring it on.)

To do that, you can either throw up your hands and decide that whatever ancient reference text your local culture prefers provides all the answers. Or you can apply deep critical and analytical thinking skills to the problem and come up with, if not answers, then at least plausible options. Which is what I think the best philosophy does.

Cuddles said:

Nominated. I think that sums up philosophy pretty much perfectly.

Click to expand...

*sniff*

I'm so proud... this is the first person nominated in one of my threads... it's almost like being nominated myself...

Matt the Poet said:

Even if we have a complete model of the universe with consistent underlying maths and everything, it won’t tell us how or even why we should live.

Click to expand...

Two thoughts:
i) Science might not be able to tell us why we ought to live, but it may help tell us what we ought not to live for (ex. the dream that unicorns might come and solve our financial problems)
ii) I have no qualms with using philosophy to discuss ethics or new forms of thinking (if such exist). However, I don't know whether philosophy has much to offer by way of Cosmology.^*
* to clarify:
I once took a sophomore philosophy course titled, The Nature of Material Reality, and participated in the local philosophy club. Much more productive than the club meetings (with fellow undergrads), were the beer sessions held between a couple of the profs and a few of us (alcoholics in training) at the local pub . I had the distinct priviledge of asking one (over beer, naturally), "with natural science making such huge intellectual strides, what areas do modern philosophy professionals practice in?" He took a swig of beer and suggested: ethics in general, environmental ethics and cosmology. I've wondered about this last...

What do others think?

Jimbo07;2866522i said:

Science might not be able to tell us why we ought to live, but it may help tell us what we ought not to live for (ex. the dream that unicorns might come and solve our financial problems)
...
"with natural science making such huge intellectual strides, what areas do modern philosophy professionals practice in?" He took a swig of beer and suggested: ethics in general, environmental ethics and cosmology. I've wondered about this last...

What do others think?

Click to expand...

I don’t think it can. It can only take us as far as –
‘Nobody has ever observed a unicorn’
and
‘No non-human species has been observed to solve financial problems, or to have the capacity or motiviation to do so.’

To get to ‘I should therefore not expect unicorns to solve my financial problems’ involves making statements that are purely philosophical in nature. Statements like

‘There is a external world of which I, and other things, are a part’
‘Things are defined as ‘existing’ if they have been percieved in this external world’
‘Concepts and images that I represent to myself do not ‘exist’ in this sense’
‘I should only expect things that ‘exist’ in this sense to solve my financial problems’
etc. etc.

These are not unproblematic assertions, especially for sceptics. The first is not rationally defensible – it’s a statement of faith. The second falls foul of the ‘black swan’ problem (there is no scientific way to get from ‘Nobody has ever seen X’ to ‘X doesn’t exist’). The third is a pretty bold denial of materialism. The fourth is very shaky – I use all sorts of concepts and images to help me manage my finances, why not unicorns?

Hence I would argue that your mate is question begging on a grand scale. Philosophy is no ‘God of the gaps’, and whatever strides ‘Natural Science’ has made have not encroached by a nanometre on to the territory of philosophy, which is still the only thing apart from blind, dogmatic belief that can provide us with ways to react to what science tells (and doesn’t tell) us about the world. I’d also argue that while philosphy can’t tell us about cosmology, cosmology does in its turn give philosophy something to work on. I’ve got a book by Robert Nozik called ‘Invariances’ that claims to argue that current cosmology strongly implies a real external world – although to be honest my brain always melts halfway through chapter one every time I have a crack at it. One day…

JoeEllison said:

I think philosophy, as practiced by the professionals, is a highly refined, strictly disciplined way to say absolutely nothing new or worthwhile, in the most complicated way possible.

Click to expand...

Lucky you put the caveat of "as practiced", lest that be an act of philosophy itself. Then again it might pass as naturalist philosophy.

‘There is a external world of which I, and other things, are a part’
‘Things are defined as ‘existing’ if they have been percieved in this external world’
‘Concepts and images that I represent to myself do not ‘exist’ in this sense’
‘I should only expect things that ‘exist’ in this sense to solve my financial problems’
etc. etc.

Click to expand...

Is it reasonable to hold our breath for new philosophical progress on these questions, or have some of them been followed to dead ends? My impression is that there is more room for the amateur to offer thoughts on these questions, than cosmology. What is incorrect about this impression?

These are not unproblematic assertions, especially for sceptics.

Click to expand...

It has been lamented that some scientists are woefully unfamiliar with the philosophy of science (as a body of writing). Some will definitely have taken answers to some of these questions for granted. Is that a good thing? I don't know, but science continues to rumble along, churning out useful theories. I can envision someone (me, for example) looking at those questions and asking, "so what?"

The first is not rationally defensible – it’s a statement of faith.

Click to expand...

Agreed, but it stands up well in practical application.

Hence I would argue that your mate is question begging on a grand scale.

Click to expand...

I don't follow... the prof I was drinking with? He was merely addressing professional pursuits. 'Why are we here?' and, 'is sollipsism valid?' do not seem to be very active areas of philosophical research... at least at our school, at that time.

Philosophy is no ‘God of the gaps’, and whatever strides ‘Natural Science’ has made have not encroached by a nanometre on to the territory of philosophy,

Click to expand...

If Cosmology has any connection to philosophy, then I'd say that the Natural Sciences have been encroaching on this territory severely.

which is still the only thing apart from blind, dogmatic belief that can provide us with ways to react to what science tells (and doesn’t tell) us about the world. I’d also argue that while philosphy can’t tell us about cosmology, cosmology does in its turn give philosophy something to work on.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Nowhere have I advocated, say, the abolishment of philosophy departments. I've asked, 'what place amateurs?' What is served by a bunch of amateurs speculating on the nature of the universe (see the quantized time thread for a great example)?

Well personally, I think that if everyone applied their minds to 'the nature of the universe' every now and then the world would be a better and more interesting place. Even if they aren't paid for it. So that's your advantage right there.

Paid or unpaid, however, if your thinking is based on a misunderstanding of some physical principle then its every bit as useful as any other argument with a false premise - i.e. not at all. Ditto if you haven't got the philosphical chops to construct an argument properly.

In passing, solipsism is alive and well as a philosophical standpoint. An old school friend (well, more of an acquaintance) has popped up at Exeter university in the UK as its foremost proponent.

Matt the Poet said:

Well personally, I think that if everyone applied their minds to 'the nature of the universe' every now and then the world would be a better and more interesting place. Even if they aren't paid for it. So that's your advantage right there.

Paid or unpaid, however, if your thinking is based on a misunderstanding of some physical principle then its every bit as useful as any other argument with a false premise - i.e. not at all. Ditto if you haven't got the philosphical chops to construct an argument properly.

Click to expand...

Since those attempting your first point will invariably be committing your second, I don't see the advantage. There are other ways to learn about the universe than impressing friends (club members) with how 'deep' you are.

I admit that even in my own mind it looks like I'm trying to fabricate an argument from impressions. However, I only have to look at these forums for examples of the sort of problem I'm talking about. See the Hyperdimensional Philosophizing thread here. Is it anything besides pointless? We got bogged down on technical details, but even if we hadn't, given that few of us are practicing cosmologists, could it have borne any fruit, or would we be running the risk of ultimately misleading each other?

Matt the Poet said:

Well personally, I think that if everyone applied their minds to 'the nature of the universe' every now and then the world would be a better and more interesting place. Even if they aren't paid for it. So that's your advantage right there.

Click to expand...

Wait, what's the advantage? That the world would be more...interesting? What does this entail, exactly? More exciting football commentary? Spinach flavored blowpops? What's more interesting look like?

Jimbo07 said:

I admit that even in my own mind it looks like I'm trying to fabricate an argument from impressions. However, I only have to look at these forums for examples of the sort of problem I'm talking about. See the Hyperdimensional Philosophizing thread here. Is it anything besides pointless? We got bogged down on technical details, but even if we hadn't, given that few of us are practicing cosmologists, could it have borne any fruit, or would we be running the risk of ultimately misleading each other?

Click to expand...

It sounds like what you're saying is that people require some sort of intermediary (cosmology, philosophy, etc) to interpret and integrate scientific discovery into their everyday lives.

If that is the case, then it stands to reason that the more specialized the science becomes, the more technical will be the demands on the intermediary, thus drawing it further and further from the hands of laypersons and amateurs.

Jimbo07 said:

Since those attempting your first point will invariably be committing your second, I don't see the advantage. There are other ways to learn about the universe than impressing friends (club members) with how 'deep' you are.

Click to expand...

Well, that would depend what you meant in your previous post by 'the nature of the universe'. Agreed that 'dude, what if we're all, like, living inside a giant atom' is never helpful, but 'is there such a thing as free will?' is a pretty urgent concern for many people which can be addressed from both a scientific and a philosophical dimension - indeed the two disciplines feed off each other nicely here.

Jimbo07 said:

See the Hyperdimensional Philosophizing thread here. Is it anything besides pointless? We got bogged down on technical details, but even if we hadn't, given that few of us are practicing cosmologists, could it have borne any fruit, or would we be running the risk of ultimately misleading each other?

Click to expand...

I think if you'd had all the practicing cosmologists in the world on that thread it wouldn't have helped. But that's a pretty extreme example - the guy didn't need the kind of help physicists could provide, and I hope he gets the help he does need at some point. Discussions like that don't invalidate work like that of Nozick (which I mentioned earlier) or 'quantum theists' like Polkinghorne.

Matt the Poet said:

Discussions like that don't invalidate work like that of Nozick (which I mentioned earlier) or 'quantum theists' like Polkinghorne.

Click to expand...

Again, unless I'm mistaken, I haven't taken too many pot shots at the practice of philosophy. JoeEllison, IXP and Cuddles went a little more strongly down that road than I did.

I actually like what Invidious had to say:

It sounds like what you're saying is that people require some sort of intermediary (cosmology, philosophy, etc) to interpret and integrate scientific discovery into their everyday lives.

If that is the case, then it stands to reason that the more specialized the science becomes, the more technical will be the demands on the intermediary, thus drawing it further and further from the hands of laypersons and amateurs.

Click to expand...

Can the interested lay person, especially in something so rarefied as cosmology, participate in a discussion in any meaningful way besides asking questions? I have to make room for the odd genius who may provide some insight into a problem, from the outside, but this is far less common than movies might have us believe.

My question, if I understand Invidious (and my own prior rantings) correctly is: do people, "require some sort of intermediary (cosmology, philosophy, etc) to interpret and integrate scientific discovery into their everyday lives?" The rest, I would agree, falls out from that.

Matt the Poet said:

I don’t think it can. It can only take us as far as –
‘Nobody has ever observed a unicorn’
and
‘No non-human species has been observed to solve financial problems, or to have the capacity or motiviation to do so.’

To get to ‘I should therefore not expect unicorns to solve my financial problems’ involves making statements that are purely philosophical in nature.

Click to expand...

Actually this is only a problem for Popperian falsifiability and not science in general. You recognise that the last statement about unicorns can not be couched in absolutes yourself(I bolded the relevant bit), and that is why we use probability theory to justify it instead.
Using it, you can assume that without a reason to be different, tomorrow will probably be the same as yesterday, and that it is safe to expect no unicorns.
No assumptions of an outside world are needed, it's enough to just note the apparent consistency of our sensations, and probability theory will carry you the rest of the way.
If you're interested in this, check out Laplace's rule of succession which explains how to make this particular justification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_succession#The_probability_that_the_sun_will_rise_tomorrow .
Or Jaynes' book:
PROBABILITY THEORY:THE LOGIC OF SCIENCE
for an overview of much more of the work that can be done with probability theory.

Jimbo07 said:

Again, unless I'm mistaken, I haven't taken too many pot shots at the practice of philosophy. JoeEllison, IXP and Cuddles went a little more strongly down that road than I did.

Click to expand...

I wasn't intending to defend philosophy as a whole. I was just trying to provide a couple of examples of what I thought you were looking for - Nozick isn't a cosmologist, but seems well versed enough in it (from what I can tell) to use it to bolster his materialist philosophy. Polkinghorne is a physicist but switched to Theology (which I am charitably calling a specialised branch of metaphysics) and believes you can combine the two.

Jimbo07 said:

My question, if I understand Invidious (and my own prior rantings) correctly is: do people, "require some sort of intermediary (cosmology, philosophy, etc) to interpret and integrate scientific discovery into their everyday lives?" The rest, I would agree, falls out from that.

Click to expand...

Gotcha - and it would depend what you (via Invidious) mean by "interpret and integrate". To have a meaningful philosophical conversation about the nature of reality that used aspects of cosmology as its premise - yes, I think you would need a professional in the field at the table to do that.

It occurs to me, though, that the availability of literary work that uses science as a driving metaphor (Michael Frayn's play 'Copenhagen' comes to mind) suggests to me that there are other ways to 'integrate scientific discovery' which may not be as rigorous, but have their own kind of cultural value.

Matt the Poet said:

It occurs to me, though, that the availability of literary work that uses science as a driving metaphor (Michael Frayn's play 'Copenhagen' comes to mind) suggests to me that there are other ways to 'integrate scientific discovery' which may not be as rigorous, but have their own kind of cultural value.

Click to expand...

Excellent point! Excellent, in the sense that I'm looking for ideas here, not a single definitive answer like: science good/philosophy bad. BTW, I saw the adaptation with Daniel Craig... we watched it as a Physics Students' Society event.

Saw it in Manchester, myself - can't remember who was in it, do remember being extremely moved.

I shall really have to go and get some kip now, but it's been fun...

T'ra

Jimbo07 said:

ETA: Ooh! Now I remember why I bothered with this in the first place. With all the math in Cosmology, and expensive colliders in particle physics, is there even a philosophical place for the interested lay person? Do we need to simply accept what we read in Scientific American? Of course, we are free to disregard current thought in Cosmology, but are we really just wasting brain cycles if we do so?

There are significant areas of applied science where amateurs can be (and are) making contributions, like: observational astronomy, radio and electronics. Is the same true for philosophy?
****

Click to expand...

Insufficient data for a meaningful answer.
Without total knowledge there is "room" for philosophizing, even it it leads no where. I prefer to skip the philosophy. It makes for entertaining academic discussions, but not much else.

The ekpyrotic model is intriguing, especially if higher dimensional physics are on the right path.

One of the reasons for immortality...to witness humans' increasing
understanding of reality. Ah, to dream.

Matt the Poet said:

Well, that would depend what you meant in your previous post by 'the nature of the universe'. Agreed that 'dude, what if we're all, like, living inside a giant atom' is never helpful, but 'is there such a thing as free will?' is a pretty urgent concern for many people which can be addressed from both a scientific and a philosophical dimension - indeed the two disciplines feed off each other nicely here.

Click to expand...

What percentage of humanity would you suppose gives twopence whether there is such a thing as free will?

The question is answerable at many levels, but by constantly moving the goalposts of definition, like any trivial question, it can be rendered unanswerable, which seems to be a primary aim of philosophy.

Does "free will " exist as a phrase? Yes. As a concept? Yes. As a precise concept? Define "precise ".
Do humans have free will? No, of course not. The conscious mind has severely limited data throughput. By definition, it cannot handle all possible data, so can only generate a subset of all possible solutions to all problems. We can't conceive of some courses of action, so can't take them, except by chance.
(Conversely, a mind capable of generating the optimum answer to any question has free will only insofar as it may choose a non-optimal solution. God is free to be wrong, but has no choice about being right.)

Of course, we are free to redefine several (up to infinity) different classes of "free will", so we have large numbers of "yes" answers as well as the clear "no" yielded by neurology. This is particularly favoured by philosophers who feel consciousness is not a product of neural activity.
Und so weiter.

I can generate this sort of nonsense all night. A whole library of it isn't worth one circuit diagram.

I'm a bit sad that this thread has devolved into another philosophy bashing thread. The original OP mentioned particularly cosmology. Soapy Sam, do you feel there are absolutely no merits in this topic? Essentially no place for cosmologists, professional or amateur?

Pure unadulterated science seems to me to be very literal and utilitarian. An analogy (probably a terrible one, but what the hell, right?) is the relationship between a Scientific Law to a Scientific Theory.
In this case, the Law (science) is saying what is being studied, what's being discovered. The Theory (cosmology, et al) is trying to explain WHY it's being studied and discovered (and no, it frequently is not obvious to a non-specialist).

I won't deny the seeming pointlessness of some discussions I see taking place in these non-utilitarian disciplines. But perhaps these pointless discussions are representative of the frequent and similar contests between competing scientific theories.

Invidious said:

I'm a bit sad that this thread has devolved into another philosophy bashing thread. The original OP mentioned particularly cosmology.

Click to expand...

We have to be careful. Using the terminology from your link, studies of Metaphysical, Religious or Esoteric are useless (to the point of being ridiculous), without some credible reference to Physical Cosmology. I trust that professional philosophers (as with any academic), to be well-read (to the limits of their understanding) in a subject before spouting off about it. The same cannot be said of amateurs...

This happens often on this forum. On the other hand, it is possible for a group of amateurs to have a productive discussion about Ham Radio, or artistic or theatrical styles (indeed, the amateur communities in these areas can be very robust).

Jimbo07 said:

Boo-yah! Agnosticism RULES!!! YEeeaaaahhh! SUXXORS! PWNED!

Click to expand...

Define Agnosticism.

DanishDynamite said:

Define Agnosticism.

Click to expand...

Why?

Jimbo07 said:

Why?

Click to expand...

Humor me. I do have a reason for asking.

DanishDynamite said:

Humor me. I do have a reason for asking.

Click to expand...

I think I was referring to comments like:

"The question is how much you're explaining and how much you're engineering a model. And we don't' know yet."

and

"Does the universe resemble any of the physical models we make of it? I'd like to hope that the effort society pours into scientific research is getting us closer to fundamental truths, and not just a way to make useful tools,"

...

I'm not sure about the relevance though, because I was being somewhat glib, and the thread is not really about agnosticism...

Jimbo07 said:

I think I was referring to comments like:

"The question is how much you're explaining and how much you're engineering a model. And we don't' know yet."

and

"Does the universe resemble any of the physical models we make of it? I'd like to hope that the effort society pours into scientific research is getting us closer to fundamental truths, and not just a way to make useful tools,"

...

I'm not sure about the relevance though, because I was being somewhat glib, and the thread is not really about agnosticism...

Click to expand...

OK.

I would have thought that "SUXXORS" and "PWNED" would have given me away, but I may have gotten lost in my own satire and forgotten that people really post this way!

DanishDynamite said:

Humor me. I do have a reason for asking.

Click to expand...

I, for one, can't wait to hear the reason for asking, though. Fire away, DD!