Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Tony Bird
climber
Northridge, CA
|
|
|
Oct 29, 2010 - 04:51pm PT
|
ah, jennie--you've been to barnes & noble.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Oct 29, 2010 - 04:58pm PT
|
"Science and religion are not mutually exclusive..."
Then again, if you want to be more precise...
(a) the "model" for how the world works according to science and (b) the "model" for how the world works according to Abrahamic religion... ARE mutually exclusive.
....
Regarding value, purpose, morality - regarding "what matters" - that's not the baliwick of science - so don't let the anti-science people get away with criticizing science because it doesn't have an answer to the question, e.g., of whether you should or shouldn't drop a bomb on Pakistan. Questions like that are up to us, our values, our value-based institutions of which we could use one or two new ones apart from "religion" as practiced traditionally.
|
|
Reggaemylitis
Sport climber
Sacramento, CA
|
|
|
Oct 29, 2010 - 05:13pm PT
|
Corn Spirit, I guess it makes me think of Arthur C. Clarke's musing that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Maybe god is a scientist.
I kinda like these two new quotes of Clarke's that I had never seen until just now.
1.When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is probably wrong.
2.The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
The second quote reminded me of some of our climbing legends, so as to keep this on topic! :)
|
|
nutjob
Trad climber
Berkeley, CA
|
|
|
Oct 29, 2010 - 05:17pm PT
|
Ron, at least I liked your joke. I think they canceled the final sequel, "Respirator Rocky: ICU In Hell"
Now Ed:
Ed, I perceive that your intellect is in conflict with your spiritual self, and your intellect is in the driver's seat (at least for the purposes of this discussion). Clearly you have spirit and a soul, as evidenced by your hair, T-shirts, vehicle, musical taste, and general awesome disposition. Religion means more than the pope. Religion is about recognizing the existence of our souls, and our deep yearning to have a connection with others and to be happy together. Organized religion is taking a spirit-based approach to creating societal rules and mutual benefit. And then because people implement it, it is contorted by human weaknesses for power and control.
You said:
In my way of thinking, something can't be right if it can't shown to be wrong... good luck with your religious/spiritual/mystical systems on that one... as far as I can see, none of those have a way of being shown to be wrong.
I'm stepping back for a philosophy check. You are implicitly assuming that that "being right" is the guiding value. For many things in life, especially the creation of new contraptions or solutions to problems, that is a good value and guiding principle. But it's not the only valid one. Sometimes just a different attitude toward a problem, or basic acceptance of something's right to exist or be that way, is a solution that is more effective than looking for a technical way to change it. One of the strong themes of my life in the last few years is this:
"do you want to be right or do you want to be happy?"
I think this is a rich and multi-faceted topic in itself, but I'll try to stay within this thread....
We should keep our individual and societal values and reasons for existence in mind, and let science remain a tool to further that. Science is a valuable tool, and religion is also a valuable tool. Both can be used to increase or decrease entropy, to build or destroy people and societies.
Hiroshima, Nagasaki, wars and weaponry in general.
Exodus, The Crusades, Badr & Uhud the Islamic conquest of Arabia and ongoing attempt to conquer the world, The Spanish Inquisition, Hindu/Sikh riots
Artificial hearts, kidney transplants, boats, bicycles, cars, planes, email, skype, BD Camalots, offset Aliens
Energy circles, charity, looking into another's eyes and being with them in their pain and telling them "it's ok"
For me love of myself, my family, you all, society in general, are all part of the same continuum, just a part of which is commonly labeled "religion."
These are all tools, options available to humans. What will we choose? What are we trying to achieve?
|
|
rrrADAM
Trad climber
LBMF
|
|
|
Oct 29, 2010 - 05:19pm PT
|
A friend of mine puts it well:
"Gravity in the racetrack, not the engine that drives the car."
As Ed stated, mass (and energy, [simplifying] remember energy equals mass times c^2, just as miles equals kilometers times 1.609344) causes what we gravity, which, as per GR is merely the curvature of spacetime. How mass (and energy) interacts and moves (spacially or temporally) through that space (and time) is what we percieve as the force of gravity. Unless something provides "work" on a mass, that mass moves in the straightest possible line through that curved space (a geodesic), which is also the quickest (time).
GR describes almost perfectly gravity in the form of the geometry of spacetime... The predictions it makes, are for the most part confirmed to high degree by experiment and observation.
Even the GPS satellites are an ongoing confirmation of both SR and GR, as they have to be "time corrected" to account for "time dilation" due to velocity and gravity... Point being, this shows that space and time are not two seperate things (x,y,z) and (t), but united into one: spacetime (x,y,z,-t). Lorentz provided the simple calculations to account for this "time (and length) contractions/dilations" long beofre it was confirmed through experiment.
Think about this... Nobody will deny the existance of electrons, or the ability for us to exploit our understanding of them (E.g., electricity, magnetism, quantum electrodynamics, chemistry, generating x-rays, spectroscopy, etc)... BUT, what EXACTLY is an electron? It isn't a hard little sphere with a negative sign on it. Does the fact that we cannot describe the exact physical nature of an electron mean that all we don't know sh#t? We do know its properties, well enough to exploit it, JUST like gravity.
The fact that the expanding universe was at one time infantesimally small extremly hot is pretty much beyond any "reasonable" doubt... We are fairly certain about what happened from ~10^-11 seconds on, and from ~10^-6 seconds on we are VERY certain, as that's when nucleosynthesis took place, which we have confirmed in particle colliders such as Ed has done much work with (I believe), and continue to do to higher degrees of presision with higher energies and newer colliders. Point is, we only speculate about times earlier in the BB than 10^-11 seconds. Think about that for a moment, as we only speculate about times before .00000000001 seconds after the BB. Even the CMB is a remarkable confirmation of our understanding of it, as it was predicted long before we had the technology to detect it, and that radiation is a remnant of when the universe was about 360,000 years old.
Seems the Pope is forgetting about this guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
He's the ordained Belgian Priest and astronomer who is pretty much the father of the BB Theory.
That our expanding universe has not always been as it is today, and especially evolution, are pretty much accepeted as an observed FACT, it's the processes that account for them that are the theories (which in science do NOT mean "wild ass guess", BTW)... Big bang, and natural selection respectively. Just as it is accepted as an observed fact that the Earth is round, and the theory for why it is round is hydrostatic equilibrium.
Again, as Ed stated... Science is open to all, but they must have the desire to do the work to learn and understand... ANYBODY with the desire and the means can perform the experiments and achieve the same results. It is open to revision when there is new data... Whereas ALL of the data on the side of religion is one sided, emotional, or on the supernatural side (read: magic)... Most often tired thousands of years old speculation that doesn't even fit with what we know for fact now a-days. Religion, unlike science, is very reluctant to revision and change... In fact, the reluctance is directly proportional to one's devotion, and openmindedness is inversely proportional.
|
|
rrrADAM
Trad climber
LBMF
|
|
|
Oct 29, 2010 - 07:09pm PT
|
Earth is not round; it is more of a prolate spheriod.
Ummm... Even and oval and elipse are "round". Round does not only equal perfect circle or perfect sphere, thus an oblate sphere with dimples and bumps, like the Earth, is "round".
Perhaps this may help:
Round
The shape of a closed curve with no sharp corners, such as an ellipse, circle, rounded rectangle, or sphere http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Round
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
|
Oct 29, 2010 - 07:53pm PT
|
These waters are way too deep for me.
Nevertheless, for those who wonder where gravity, or mass, or anything, "comes from", or what "explains them", perhaps consider the analogous though different question of where mathematics comes from or what explains it.
There is a well-remarked-on and constantly growing correspondence between mathematical and physical worlds. Could our physical world come from and be explained by math?
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Oct 29, 2010 - 08:18pm PT
|
You know, it is possible to love the sciences like you love the mountains.
So when those that do see them denigrated - e.g., by the Abrahamic religious institutions or their leadership which have a long history of doing so - they naturally rise up to defend them.
You defend what you love.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Oct 29, 2010 - 08:25pm PT
|
Could our physical world come from and be explained by math?
actually, it's the other way around...
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2010 - 04:27am PT
|
All respect to your physics prowess, Ed. Seriously. But you've got a bit of a priori/a posteriori conflation going on there.
If the physical world produced or logically grounded mathematics, then mathematics would be empirical (a posteriori) knowledge. But mathematics has the attributes of a priori knowledge rather than empirical knowledge, such as logical necessity, certainty, universality.
For example, if I go into a classroom and count up desks, arriving at a count of 38; and later I go into that same classroom and count again, arriving at a count of 37; what I DO NOT DO is question the principle of addition! What I DO NOT DO is say to myself, "Hmmm... sometimes 36+1=37, and sometimes 36+1=38. Strange! I see that mathematical principles really ARE derived from empirical evidence! Now I need to figure out the physical law that affects the principle of addition in this seemingly strange way! There has GOT to be some classroom/desk-law that grounds the principle of addition."
No, instead I come up with some sort of empirical explanation for the discrepancy (somebody removed a desk in my absence, etc.), and I hold the principle of addition as sacrosanct. I do NOT question the a priori principle! Instead I question the empirical facts! I take the discrepancy to be an empirical breakdown of some kind, and I do not even imagine to question the a priori principle of addition! The principle of addition is necessarily, certainly, and universally true; while any particular count employing it is subject to error, precisely BECAUSE it is empirical, with the knowledge attributes of the empirical: contingency, uncertainty, and relativity. So I do not even imagine the need to look for some empirical principle governing the principle of addition, because I recognize that such a search would be reversing the logical priority.
When science employs mathematics as a descriptive language, like employing the principle of addition in doing a particular count, because it is an empirical employment it loses the a priori attributes of pure mathematics. It does not glom onto those a priori attributes, BECAUSE it is no longer doing pure mathematics. It, like engineering, is then doing applied mathematics. The empirical application, like a particular count, is subject to error, while the underlying mathematical principles themselves are not subject to error.
Another example is the Pythagorean Theorem. The theorem was not discovered or proved by measuring bunches and bunches of right triangles. In fact, it is impossible in principle to measure ANY right triangles, because they are abstract objects not subject to our measurement. The Pythagorean Theorem applies PERFECTLY to two-dimensional, plane right triangles. However, ALL right triangles that we draw, sculpt, or in any way produce something MEASURABLE provides us with only a CRUDE representation of actual right triangles! Thus, the Pythagorean Theorem only applies crudely to empirical (rather than abstract) right triangles. ALL empirical right triangles are extremely crude representations of REAL abstract right triangles, and the proof of the Pythagorean Theorem is NOT merely "accurate to x decimal places," as it would be if it were derived and proved by application to empirical right triangles.
We recognize that our empirical right triangles are crude representations of abstract right triangles, so we take the theorem to be "accurate to within x decimal places" when the theorem is APPLIED to our empirical right triangles (for example, those formed when I lay out the foundation for my house). I employ the theorem expecting only the degree of accuracy needed for the task at hand, recognizing that the limiting factor is NOT the theorem itself but is instead in the crudeness of the REPRESENTATION to which the theorem is APPLIED.
Scientists commonly make the mistake you just made, Ed, and it always surprises me because the distinction between types of knowledge is SO BASIC. I think that the reason scientists so often make this mistake is because they NEED everything there IS to be physical. But, flatly, everything there IS is not physical. Mathematics describes an abstract realm of abstract objects, and mathematicians are REALISTS about the actual existence of these abstract objects (they are not merely ideas). In fact, it is beyond the scope of this brief posting, but mathematics cannot progress without a realistic foundation under-girding mathematical research.
I am aware of the history of science and mathematics, and I am aware that scientists commonly imagine that the needs of physics drive mathematical research and thus PRODUCE new mathematical principles. But this imagined relation is historical fantasy. Advances in mathematical knowledge are not PRODUCTIONS to satisfy the needs of science. Instead they are DISCOVERIES that science employs as a descriptive language. They are discoveries in a real but abstract realm. The fact that this abstract realm bears any relation to the physical realm is a mystery, the truth of which science presumes but cannot explain.
So, I repeat, mathematics is not produced by, derived from, or even ABOUT the empirical world. Somehow, amazingly, the empirical world does seemingly crudely map onto the abstract world (not the other way around), and this fact remains a mystery. The fact that theorems such as the Pythagorean Theorem describe the empirical world AT ALL cannot be explained by reversing the order of logical priority, as you have done, Ed. Instead, the coherence between the a priori and empirical realms remains something that science cannot in principle solve, locked as it is in empirical study.
The big bang did not produce the mathematical, geometrical, or logical principles that we employ to crudely describe the empirical world that the big bang DID supposedly produce. And the a priori/a posteriori divide is, thus, one that scientists will never bridge.
I do not denigrate science when I state that empirical knowledge has its limits. These limits are well known, well documented, and not reasonably deniable. Hume himself, the greatest of the empiricists, carefully documented the shortcomings of thoroughgoing empiricism, revealing how it devolves into hardcore skepticism about such basic scientific presumptions as causality, substance, continuity, and so on. Science has its place in human inquiry; but the tail wags the dog when science is taken to be the most fundamental, or worse, ONLY legitimate form of knowledge-seeking.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2010 - 05:10am PT
|
Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing.... Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to... set the Universe going.
Somehow when Hawking babbles this sort of just-so nonsense, because it is HAWKING saying it, much of the intellectual world just goes ga-ga and prostrates itself at his wheels.
But Tony Bird is absolutely correct when he notes that the VAST, VAST majority of that intellectual world has exactly zero capacity to evaluate Hawking's credibility to make such strident statements. They take on faith that he knows something about what he says, because they take on faith that the scientific community has a robust capacity to vet its "stars," and Hawking is surely one of its stars.
Ed claims that high-end theoretical physics is "accessible" to "anybody" that is willing to work hard enough to understand. That naive statement is ridiculous on so many levels that one scarcely knows where to start. Ed, what is the minimum IQ needed to HOPE to vet Hawking's credibility for oneself??? What percentage of the otherwise-properly-functioning and reasonable people have such an IQ? How many people get paid (or are willing to go so massively in debt) to do research at that level, and thus have the TIME needed to navigate the requisite course of study? And so on.... ACCESSIBLE is something that theoretical physics is NOT!
The FACT is that ALMOST EVERYBODY takes Hawking's credibility on faith, and theoretical physicists and cosmologists are the "priests" of this new order of faith. The articles of the faith are more inaccessible to the "faithful" today than ever were the articles of faith in the ancient mystery religions!
And the idea that the PRODUCTS of science PROVE that "science is onto something" and is thus reliable is pure hogwash that can be dismantled as such by any attendant to an INTRO to philosophy of science course. Scientists LOVE to refer to Karl Popper, the philosopher of science that invented the notion of falsifiability, and they use Popper as a club to beat on Christians, saying that Christianity is unfalsifiable. But these same scientists IGNORE what Popper's point WAS: Science CANNOT use "verifications" of its theories as ANY evidence that those theories are correct! Thus, Popper himself decimates the notion that the PRODUCTS of science tell us ANYTHING about the correctness of the pet theories.
Fortunately, the most strident claims of science, such as the one quoted above, are so ridiculous on the face of them that the average person CAN recognize them for the just-so stories that they really are. Hawking has a penchant for just-so stories in all of his books. A Brief History of Time, for example, was absolutely RIDDLED with bad philosophy of science, bad even by the standards of philosophers of science sympathetic to modern physics.
Let's be clear: Hawking's quoted passage above is no more falsifiable than are the creation stories of most of the world's religions. Appeals to "quantum gravity" and "bubbling quantum universes" and other such tripe are pure conjecture, with empirical verification impossible in principle. The idea that such conjectures are "reasonable, given what we do know about the universe" is just so much question-begging verificationism.
Given the choice between a designer-God and bubbling quantum universes, and given the mysterious coherence between the a priori and the a posteriori that is entirely beyond the ken of science, when both forks of explanation are pushed back to their furthest points, a reasonable person says, "I do not KNOW." Stridency should naturally give way to profound humility, but instead science pushes back humility and strives for ever greater stridency!
When pushed back to their limits of explanation, science has (and can have) NO account of the coherence between types of knowledge, yet a designer-God sort of explanation actually predicts such coherency. There is no more accounting for bubbling quantum universes than there is accounting for a designer-God. But the latter does explain knowledge-coherency in a way that the former simply cannot.
Oh, by the way, the claim that Biblical beliefs are unfalsifiable is an old saw that is flagrantly false. I for one would abandon my belief in the accuracy of the Bible if life were discovered on other planets. I don't mean tiny little crystalline (we think that they MIGHT be) "fossilized" remains of (what MIGHT be) ancient single-celled organisms. I don't mean "evidence" of some ancient PAST life on some dead world. I mean LIFE. Actual, active, teaming, reproducing LIFE. Show me THAT on some other planet, and I'll immediately abandon the Bible in toto!
I have many other such litmus tests, so don't even START to claim that "Christian beliefs are unfalsifiable." That statement is ridiculously naive and straw-man in nature.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2010 - 05:41am PT
|
In The Grand Design we explain why, according to quantum theory, the cosmos does not have just a single existence, or history, but rather that every possible history of the universe exists simultaneously. We question the conventional concept of reality, posing instead a "model-dependent" theory of reality.
Is this the "baffle them with BS" approach to the popularization of physics?
"Model-dependent?" Is Hawking here borrowing from "possible worlds" modal semantics of the sort touted by David Lewis, a possible worlds realist arguing that modal semantics can only be accounted for if all possible worlds are simultaneously actual? The correlation is impossible to overlook. I have GOT to read this book, even though Hawking is impossibly obtuse!
Has anybody here heard of Occam's Razor? There are better, non-realist accounts of modal semantics, and quantum theory does not "predict" the multi-verse as Hawking asserts! Even IF quantum theory is consistent with the idea of simultaneous multi-verses (a claim that probably less than a hundred people on Earth could reasonably discuss), that is NOT the same thing as "predicting" them or rendering them "necessary." NO "laws" or "findings" of science are NECESSARY!!! ALL are contingent, a simple fact that Hawking constantly confuses.
So, Christians are "nutty" to believe in a designer God, but the notion of "all possible universes REALLY existing simultaneously" floats by without so much as a critical hmmph?
THE KING HAS NO CLOTHES! THE KING HAS NO CLOTHES!
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2010 - 06:39am PT
|
Lest the absurdity of Hawking's above quoted passage pass unnoticed, what Hawking is saying is that there IS a REAL but alternate universe in which I also exist (really, ME!), and that universe is IDENTICAL in EVERY respect to this one, except that in THAT alternate universe I have failed to end this sentence with a period. There is ALSO another universe that is IDENTICAL to this one in EVERY respect except that I end this sentence with two periods. Another REALLY existing universe has ME ending this sentence with three periods. And so on. And I (that's ME, mind you) REALLY exist in all of these universes! (Let's set aside for now the problems inherent in this notion of personal identity, because we have bigger fish to fry.)
In some universes, the highest number I will ever imagine is 124,245,242,228, while in other universes the highest number I (remember, this is REALLY ME in those other REAL universes) will ever imagine is 124,245,242,229. And, the variations are infinite! In fact, just my own contemplation of mathematics requires an INFINITE number of alternate REAL universes, and I'm just ONE person among an infinite number of possible persons.
On Hawking's model, however, in fact, there REALLY ARE an infinite number of possible persons imagining an infinite number of mathematical relations. Some imagine only integer-relations, while others imagine whole-number-relations. The whole-number set is a larger infinite set than the infinite set of integers. So, there are infinite sets of REAL universes inside of infinite sets of other REAL universes. And ALL of these infinite sets of universes REALLY exist just so that ONE person (among an infinite number of POSSIBLE people) can imagine SOME of the POSSIBLE mathematical relations.
In some of these universes, the way mathematics itself works is vastly different (remember that according to Ed mathematics derives from the physical laws). So, in some universes, 1+1=2, while in others, 1+1=3, and in others, 1+1=3,223,521,545,243,299. And so on. Of course, from OUR perspective, it is ABSURD to think that the mathematical laws can come so wildly apart from what we KNOW is TRUE about mathematics, but Hawking's theory tells us to EMBRACE the absurdity and just accept that the mathematics we KNOW are actually entirely relative to the universe in which the principles are discovered. Thus, the coherency between the a priori and the a posteriori is "explained" by appeal to absurd relativism. But this approach fails because, not only is it absurd, it again conflates the two sorts of knowledge. Here is how.
A priori knowledge is necessarily true. That's logical necessity, friends. But the semantics of necessity and possibility (the modal semantics, the modal theories that attempt to account for what makes statements of necessity and possibility true) are themselves based upon SOME theory of how the universe really is. These philosophical accounts cannot be limited to purely empirical theories of the universe, because purely empirical theories conflate the difference between necessity and possibility.
What I mean is this: on a any possible-worlds semantics (including non-empirical ones), "x is possible" means that state of affairs x obtains in at least one possible world, while "x is necessary" means that state of affairs x obtains in ALL possible worlds. Yet, on an empirical possible-worlds model like Hawking's, there can be no such thing as "necessity" semantics in THIS our present universe, because ALL of "necessity" is relativized BY the theory. The very LOGIC of necessity itself could vary universe by universe, derived as it is from physical states of affairs. Thus, if this theory is correct, in our PRESENT universe, there can be NO distinction between necessity and possibility, because the term "necessity" has been relativized by the theory. Yet, we DO meaningfully distinguish between necessity and possibility in THIS universe; so the EMPIRICAL possible-worlds semantics CANNOT be the correct account of THIS universe! This is why empirical accounts of possible-worlds modal semantics are not sustainable.
This empirical/realistic approach to possible-worlds semantics fell on hard times philosophically BECAUSE it so quickly became apparently absurd and so utterly divorced from ANYTHING we know of THIS empirical universe! Yet, Hawking, ever the bad philosopher, yet determined to act in the role of philosopher, just because he is HAWKING, thinks that he can dismiss the absurdity with a wave of his hand, embrace the absurd, and honestly thinks that he can float this as a PLAUSIBLE alternative to a designer-God. HOW MUCH absurd machinery must scientists employ to CLAIM "being able to answer those deepest of questions," as Hawking asserts he does?
Scientists have only two choices here: bite the bullet and embrace the absurdity, or admit that this makes no sense whatsoever and acknowledge that they have been put to their last trumps in their attempts to "explain" existence!
Let's take the second horn of the dilemma for a moment. Could scientists REALLY ever admit that scientific knowledge must necessarily reach certain limits??? NEVER! That would be to admit that there are forms of knowledge that are not empirical; and the thoroughgoing empiricism, the SCIENTISM, of scientists is much too arrogant to EVER admit that!
So, scientists are compelled to impale themselves on the first horn of the dilemma. The arrogance here is absolutely beyond belief! Scientist will now claim that on pain of "irrationality" people "must believe" these obviously ridiculous claims, that, to quote Dawkins, we are "stupid, ignorant, or wicked" to even QUESTION the absurd nature of this latest "theory of everything." So, because my RATIONAL mind absolutely rebels at the layers and layers of absurdity here, I am stupid, ignorant, or wicked? THE KING HAS NO CLOTHES! THE KING HAS NO CLOTHES!
Because, since the "Enlightenment," empirical knowledge has been conflated with "rationality," we are supposedly "irrational" to refuse to accept the absurdity of this latest theory. We're in a real bind here now! The theory IS absurd. So, we're TOLD that to be "rational" we must embrace the absurd. So, the "Enlightenment" leads to this: to be "enlightened" we must embrace the absurd.
Eastern religions claim the same sort of thing. However, there is a HUGE difference. When Eastern religionists are confronted with the absurdity of their claims, they answer: "Exactly! Now you are getting it! TRUTH is ineffable!" Science, however, has no such retreat to the haven of the "ineffable!" Science is fundamentally propositional/testable in nature! So, when science embraces the absurd, it is NOTHING but, well, ABSURD!
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2010 - 06:53am PT
|
Finally, lest anybody assume that the corollary to my attacks on Hawking is that I support the pope, let me hasten to clarify that neither the pope nor Catholicism speak for "Christianity," and they certainly don't speak for me!
I always cringe when I hear that "Christians believe" or "Christians think" some garbage floated by the Catholic church. I believe in almost nothing of the Catholic interpretation of the Bible.
So don't conflate "Christians" and Catholics. There are MANY of us that are appalled by such a comparison, much more such a conflation.
In my opinion, both Hawking AND the pope are wildly confused about the way things actually work. So any attempted dichotomy between the two will be a false one. I am not "in the middle;" I reject them both.
|
|
rrrADAM
Trad climber
LBMF
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2010 - 08:01am PT
|
Ed claims that high-end theoretical physics is "accessible" to "anybody" that is willing to work hard enough to understand. That naive statement is ridiculous on so many levels that one scarcely knows where to start. Ed, what is the minimum IQ needed to HOPE to vet Hawking's credibility for oneself??? What percentage of the otherwise-properly-functioning and reasonable people have such an IQ? How many people get paid (or are willing to go so massively in debt) to do research at that level, and thus have the TIME needed to navigate the requisite course of study? And so on.... ACCESSIBLE is something that theoretical physics is NOT! I am not even a high school grad, yet I find it quite accessible... Granted, I have spent the past 6-7 years emersimg myself in it, looking at many different views, following footnotes and citations/sources, and bouncing questions and ideas off of those with graduate degrees in said fields to better understand. But the fact still remains, it IS accessible to anyone with the desire and commitment to understand. Hawking, who I'm not particularly 'awed' by (I prefer Smolin, Penrose, Herbert, Susskind [although I am not stringy], and especially Feynman to name a few), doesn't just state things as "just so", and that we have to take him on his word as an athourity, as again, ANYBODY can check his work if they so choose. ANYBODY can see, step by step, how one arives at a certain conclusion, if they so choose. This is the transparencey of science... That regardless of religious belief, nationality, political affiliation, etc., all will get the same results if they perform the tests or look at the process 'objectively'. And, remember, it is much easier to poke holes in detailed theories than to confirm them if they are not sound, and this is what peers do... Attempt to falsify - To, as a group, self check. Remember, in order to be a "theory", it MUST have within it the means to falsify it. Try to poke holes to see how sound the theory may be. One test is worth a thousand expert opinions, and quite often, there are thousands of tests that only serve to confirm a theory. It only takes 1 test to falsify a flawed theory.
Conversely, religion is very resistant to anyone trying to "poke holes" in it's long held beliefs. In fact, many take great offense to it. There are thousands of differing expert oppinions, that has not passed any of the tests (observation, explanatory, and/or prediction) for thousands of years... Yet after flunking all of these tests over all this time, it is still taken on faith... In fact, it is "just so".
Later, you seem to imply that many take on "faith alone" what scientists say, that they are the "new priests"... This is merely an attempt to dismiss outright what cannot be reasonable refuted. So, where do the religious draw the line on what is taken on "faith"? That the Earth is round? That each star is a sun, many like our ouwn? That the universe is expanding? That the CMB is a remnant of the universe at ~360,000 years? That at the quantum level, particles pop into and out of existance? (This is part of why Hawking makes his suggestion, BTW)
(Note - Think for a moment how a person of faith would have answered any of those questions 700 years ago... Then consider why they would be answered differently now: Science)
Let's take an example of where this attempt to dismiss outright with your argument is used... 46% of Americans believe that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. (46%!!!!!) There is OVERWHELMING evidence that this is wrong. Yet, 46% still believe it, because they dismiss outright, all of the evidence with no real understanding of it. They take on "faith", that it is wrong. And THAT particular science (geology / radiometric dating) is very accessible, but only to those with a desire to understand... But why would they want to understand ANYTHING that shows that their religious beliefs are wrong?
(Note - Anticipating the replies of "radiometric dating isn't perfect"... It doesn't need to be, as there is a HUGE difference between 4.5 billion and 10 thousand... And again, the vast majority of those who would make that claoim cannot even articulate how radiometric dating is done, and why they think it is flawed... They take on "faith" that it's flawed so they can dismiss it)
So, it seems that even the religious have the utmost faith in science UNTIL it infringes upon or competes with their "faith", and how they want to see the world. THAT is where the line is drawn... They are OK with it, UNTIL it infringes with their religiously based views. Even among the faithful (excluding Fundies, of course), using the example above, many accept that the world is ~4.5 billion years old, but there are still many who reject this merely because it infringes on their beliefs... So they are faced with a dilema: Either accept that their religious faith is wrong, or the science is wrong. The are forced to choose the latter... It's "just so".
"In situations that matter, mythologies are immensely powerful things, and sometimes we humans go to enormous lengths to see the world as we think it should be, even when the evidence says we are mistaken."
~Robert Laughlin
"...the truth emerges only when all ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside."
~Johannes Kepler
"...a careful reading of older texts, particularly those concerned with the universe itself, shows that the authors invoke divinity only when they reach the boundaries of their understanding. They appeal to a higher power only when staring into the ocean of their own ignorance."
~Neil deGrasse Tyson
"The less one knows about the universe, the easier it is to explain."
~Leon Brunschvicg
"For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
~Carl Sagan
"Even Newton and Einstein were profoundly wrong about things they felt strongly about."
~Lee Smolin
"Faith is antithetical to reason."
~Ayn Rand
And, since this thread is a bout Hawking:
"There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works."
~Stephen Hawking
And, regarding using philosophy of science to dismiss it...
"Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds."
~Richard Feynman
"Science is what you know. Philosophy is what you don't know."
~Bertrand Russel
You seem keen on trying to throw the baby out with the bath water in attempting to dismiss, discredit, or lesson the importance of some science, so this may be of interest to you, as I can't say it any better than Isaac Asimov does in this essay:
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
Lastly...
I for one would abandon my belief in the accuracy of the Bible... Now we're getting somewhere, as you made a statement (in bold above that CAN be explored and tested)
So, did Jesus ride into Bethleham on 1 or 2 animals?
Or, since his crucifiction is such a key event, what were his last words?
Please, refer to your "accurate" Bible and answer these two very simple questions... It has words describing bOTH.
Thing is... I'll bet you absolutely will not answer. Why? Because I know enough about your belief system to make accurate predictions, and I predict you will not answer. Care to falsify it? Nope, you will confirm it, won't you.
You know, even Jesus made a prediction that has been falsified, as he said, when asked about the 2nd coming:
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled." (See Matthew, Mark, and Luke)
How many generations have passed now since he said that? So, even Jesus' own words should change the color of your litmus paper. But it doesn't, as you just refuse to consider this in the light of reason and logic... You sweep it under the rug, and/or just move the goal post.
I believe in almost nothing of the Catholic interpretation of the Bible. You seem to forget, or are ignorant of, that the Catholic Church was pretty much the only game in town up until 'bout 500 years ago. AND, that ALL of the New Testament, as it is today, was cannonized by the Catholic Church, as they chose what was going to be in it... Even the epistles, most of which were written by Paul (founder of what became the Catholic Church, as James had other ideas about the direction Christianity should take, but Paul won out), are Catholic. So the first 75% of Christian history is almost purely Catholic, and 100% of the scripture is Catholic in origin.
Careful with throwing the baby out with the bath water there, as the baby in this case is the Bible.
Curious... Do you alse dismiss how the Jews interpret the OT, since that is THEIR text? I'll bet you do in areas that infringe upon your beliefs. How convenient, to just pick your own interpretation... Kinda absurd like the many worlds interpretation of quantum theory, huh? (Which I don't share, BTW)
Speaking of which... You wrote:
I always cringe when I hear that "Christians believe" or "Christians think"... You do realize that you are attempting to do the same regarding scientists' views of quantum theory, right? You are implying that all or most believe in the many worlds interpretation of quantum theory, where I for one don't, and I believe the majority do not as well. In fact, I doubt Hawking believes that either, but was rather giving one of many possible interpretations (E.e., Copenhagen, Many Worlds, Consistant Histories, Objective Collapse, de Broglie–Bohm, etc) [Nick Herbert has a great book on just this subject, BTW]
So, guess that kinda shoots your whole rant down, that "everybody takes on faith what Hawking says" and "don't challenge it".
So, personally, after being a devout born again Christian for years, then looking outside that box of dogma, I prefer to look for natural explanations ofr things rather than just have "faith" that this guy did it all...
PS... I'm not the best writer, remember, high school drop out, so bear with my run on sentences, mispelling/fat fingers, and often disjointed points that can get off on a tangent.
|
|
Damn this looks high
Trad climber
Temecula, CA
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2010 - 09:47am PT
|
No one will ever be able to state with absolute certainty that there is no Supreme being--it is logically impossible to prove a negative. Still in the realm of scientists versus priests: When was that last time you heard about a scientist molesting a child? Does MIT have a 'hush fund' to buy off the parents of abused children?
There may or may not be a God but religion is a joke--and a bad one at that.
|
|
the kid
Trad climber
fayetteville, wv
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2010 - 09:52am PT
|
I'll take Hawking for a $1000 Alex..
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2010 - 10:04am PT
|
Hawking, definitely.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2010 - 12:27pm PT
|
I should have imagined this topic would be irresistible to madbolter1 as it touches on a topic near and dear to his heart....
first off, I have not read all of his words... he imagines a large audience and is given to performance when the opportunity presents itself... e.g. above...
But at the bottom, he argues about "absolutes" which he would say imply the existence of something which establishes them. Especially mathematics (and its ancillary, logic) which appear to be quite a part from what is empirical, that is, "absolute."
I wouldn't try to steer dear madbolter1 away from his firm belief in this, certainly he has the preponderance of "common wisdom" to back him, but I would only offer the possibility that mathematics is actually just as much a part of the physical universe as anything else, that it is fundamentally derived from how the universe is put together.
Now when I offered some thoughts on this around a campfire at Vedauwoo, a very dear friend wondered at the hubris of considering such things... but this is just an idea, and not a very original one. And mathematics is only a part of the whole picture.
But consider, if you will madbolter Chapter XII of Birkhoff's Lattice Theory (which is certainly written in a style which makes it a considerably difficult read, but certainly one worth the effort). Birkhoff considers the algebraic aspects of logic and probability, and ties these things together with the physical principle, both classical and quantum. What caught my fancy in this discussion was "quantum logic" and in particular, turning it around, if we take the view point that space-time "becomes" because the algebraic properties of quantum mechanics, then it is not too far a step to say that those properties also "create" mathematics as we know it...
...I'm not yet prepared to "prove" in any reasonable way the inverse of the normal way of thinking of things, as you say, I've got my a priori mixed up with my post priori, but that is not a lapse of thinking on my part, but an intention to be provocative.
While you grapple with "Truth" I am just playing on the sands of the beach at the sea shore and admiring the vast ocean beyond.
And I reject the claim that most people cannot understand the musings of "Theoretical Physics" but it is possible they do not have the interest to spend the time. It is accessible to them, and requires no guide to the "true path" of faith, or the understanding of "the word."
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2010 - 12:30pm PT
|
I am not even a high school grad, yet I find it quite accessible.
rrrADAM, as your entire "rant" responds to my supposed "rant," you fail to address a single point I actually made. IF, in fact, you actually DO understand quantum physics at the level necessary to really vet men like Hawking, then you obviously have a higher IQ than the vast majority of Americans. Formal education is not the issue here, and I did not bring formal education into play. So you argue past me with your attempt to make your formal education the issue. My questions remain. Even IF you really understand quantum physics at the needed level (which, btw, I highly doubt, as you undoubtedly have a sort of "lay familiarity" with it, as IS "accessible" to many), the fact that YOU do says absolutely nothing in response to my questions.
Then you proceed to argue past me on every other point. I was talking about Hawking and science, yet you start trying to drag me into debate about Christianity. Thus, you attempt to set up the ever-bogus false dichotomy between science and "Christianity." You are actually going to trot out the hoary old "inconsistencies" in the Bible as some sort of indication that science is more reliable? I don't have to accept either "horn" of the dilemma.
I do not believe that every word of the Bible was inspired, and my Christianity does not depend on the idea that the accuracy of the Bible is "word for word." It is FAR beyond the scope of a thread like this to explicate a nuanced theory of Biblical interpretation, but suffice it to say that the typical "word for word accuracy" of the Bible is not something I espouse. So, the verbal inconsistencies you mention are simply not troubling, because I don't believe in an inspirational model that would lead me to expect "accuracy" at the level you suggest.
But I won't get dragged into a further discussion of that issue, because it sidetracks us from the more fundamental issues that I was raising and that you refuse to deal with.
You can quote as many SCIENTISTS as you like dismissing philosophy of science, and the Feynman quotation is laughably superficial. But dismissals won't change the facts. Science is a purely empirical enterprise, and that fact gives science BOTH strengths AND weaknesses. You have addressed nothing I said about the nature of the Enlightenment, about the fundamental absurdity of Hawking's claims and theory, or about the limitations of empiricism.
You are determined to argue past me and spin off tangential arguments. Such an approach cannot produce fruitful dialog, because we can never actually argue through particular issues. If you want to actually dialog, then you can start by explaining the nature of necessity and how that word can have any meaning under Hawking's new theory. Let's stick to just that one, single point and see if we can make any progress with it. My personal religious beliefs, the age of the Earth, and snap-shot quotations by scientists have nothing whatsoever to do with that question. We could debate many, many points that both you and I have raised, but let's cut to the chase. So, can we focus on a single issue here?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!