The mother of all backahnded compliments for the Dalai Lama

True. This is the basic problem with trying to apply the razor in any shape or form: it doesn't actually simplify things (yet).

M theory still doesn't explain why there is matter or energy in the first place. M theory is great at explaining how the universe came to be as it is, in the same way the Goldilocks zone is great for explaining why we came to inhabit Earth and not Venus. But then the question remains "how did M-verse" come into being? Where did that stuff come from?

Then again neither does any theology deign to explain where their first thingies/beings/causes come from. For instance Christianity is pretty good at explaining how the universe came into being, in principle: "because God made it". Unfortunately it doesn't explain why there is a God, how God came into being, what God is made of, what the universe was made of/how God made the stuff he needed to make the universe, or even how God made the universe with that stuff.

So in the one case you rephrase the question in a "higher order", more general form (M-theory); in the other you simply add yet another inexplicable "term" to the "equation" and the equation still does not answer the key question of "why". That is, working backwards, you cannot explain why creation ended up the way it is, purely because you cannot explain yet why the universe is how it is. M theory can at least do that, but it adds the big presumption that other universes are likely to exist and also does not explain why any universe should exist at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

True. This is the basic problem with trying to apply the razor in any shape or form: it doesn't actually simplify things (yet).

M theory still doesn't explain why there is matter or energy in the first place. M theory is great at explaining how the universe came to be as it is, in the same way the Goldilocks zone is great for explaining why we came to inhabit Earth and not Venus. But then the question remains "how did M-verse" come into being? Where did that stuff come from?

Then again neither does any theology deign to explain where their first thingies/beings/causes come from. For instance Christianity is pretty good at explaining how the universe came into being, in principle: "because God made it". Unfortunately it doesn't explain why there is a God, how God came into being, what God is made of, what the universe was made of/how God made the stuff he needed to make the universe, or even how God made the universe with that stuff.

So in the one case you rephrase the question in a "higher order", more general form (M-theory); in the other you simply add yet another inexplicable "term" to the "equation" and the equation still does not answer the key question of "why". That is, working backwards, you cannot explain why creation ended up the way it is, purely because you cannot explain yet why the universe is how it is. M theory can at least do that, but it adds the big presumption that other universes are likely to exist and also does not explain why any universe should exist at all.

---

I think my main gripe with Bibleboys are these on this topic:

* If the church throughout the ages had supported science and urged it on, then the church would be more believable. As it is, the church has fought hard to push science down. It is hard for me to understand why that would be the case, if the church are in fact sure they are right. If they were, they if ANY would urge science to go further, fund it, so that we can find God when science reaches it's highest peak. But that is not how the church work, now is it?

* True, M-theory doesn't explain where branes come from or anything. I'm not even sure I believe in it myself, all those dimensions are messing with my mind. However, the smartest minds of today put their vote there, or on theories much similar. I trust the sharpest minds of today more than a dusty old book. I am not saying they are RIGHT, I am saying they are, from my perspective, more likely to be right. Same goes with a lot of stuff, the sun might orbit the sun for all I know, I haven't done any testing on my own. However, enough intelligent people say it is so for me to believe it.

TL;DR - I prefer to go with the sharpest minds of today, basing their observations standing on the shoulders of the sharpest minds throughout the ages, to adhering to an old book written by a people lost in the desert for 40 years. The desert ain't even that big.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

I think my main gripe with Bibleboys are these on this topic:

* If the church throughout the ages had supported science and urged it on, then the church would be more believable. As it is, the church has fought hard to push science down. It is hard for me to understand why that would be the case, if the church are in fact sure they are right. If they were, they if ANY would urge science to go further, fund it, so that we can find God when science reaches it's highest peak. But that is not how the church work, now is it?

* True, M-theory doesn't explain where branes come from or anything. I'm not even sure I believe in it myself, all those dimensions are messing with my mind. However, the smartest minds of today put their vote there, or on theories much similar. I trust the sharpest minds of today more than a dusty old book. I am not saying they are RIGHT, I am saying they are, from my perspective, more likely to be right. Same goes with a lot of stuff, the sun might orbit the sun for all I know, I haven't done any testing on my own. However, enough intelligent people say it is so for me to believe it.

TL;DR - I prefer to go with the sharpest minds of today, basing their observations standing on the shoulders of the sharpest minds throughout the ages, to adhering to an old book written by a people lost in the desert for 40 years. The desert ain't even that big.

---

I think we need to take a step back here and look at what the razor is, and what it isn't:

The razor is not proof, merely an indication of likelyhood.

The razor does not prefer the simplest explanation, but the simplest explanation when all explanations are equally plausible.

What this means is that in order to apply the razor to a Divinely ordained universe you first have to have some measure of how plausible that is compared to a universe that ordered itself, "just because".

M-theory may explain the mechanics of how the universe came to be, but that isn't a "why" explanation, so it isn't in competition with any God hypothesis. The biggest problem with M-theory is like many theories of the last 10-15 years is that it tries to use multiple universes to get around the problem of unlikleyness.

There's really no reason to posit more than one universe in the beginning even if you believe that multiple possibilities create new universes, and the model is actually less likely than a single-universe one because it requires more​ happenstance, not less.

I think you misread me somewhat.

My point is, that what is good enough for the best brains we have is good enough for me. I am not educated enough in either theology or abstract physics to have a clue.

My observation is based on the characters supporting the various theories, not on the theories themselves.

I also base my observation on my main choice of study - history. And throughout history, whenever science has come to grips with the church, science has won. History also shows that science does not seek political advantages or have agendas, whereas the same can not be said about the church, That makes me skeptical towards the church.

I hope that cleared up my viewpoint :book2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

There's really no reason to posit more than one universe in the beginning even if you believe that multiple possibilities create new universes, and the model is actually less likely than a single-universe one because it requires more​ happenstance, not less.

---

To the best of my understanding, you have that rather the wrong way round. What M theory allows for is that there is more than one configuration which leads to a universe (not necessarily the same as ours). In fact, 100s of thousands of possible configurations. Thus the odds of a universe "happening" improve, by many orders of magnitudes.

Which is to say that while our universe may be considered to be the result of pure chance, a lucky draw in M theory, the existence of at least one universe is less so. The key here is that if you believe in one universe then you must assume numerous "constants" in physics to be axioms rather than part of our good fortune (we would not exist if they were not "just so"). With M theory you no longer require such values to be axioms, much like how carbon based lifeforms dependent on liquid water is not a given on every planet but pretty much the defining characteristic of Earth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

To the best of my understanding, you have that rather the wrong way round. What M theory allows for is that there is more than one configuration which leads to a universe (not necessarily the same as ours). In fact, 100s of thousands of possible configurations. Thus the odds of a universe "happening" improve, by many orders of magnitudes.

Which is to say that while our universe may be considered to be the result of pure chance, a lucky draw in M theory, the existence of at least one universe is less so. The key here is that if you believe in one universe then you must assume numerous "constants" in physics to be axioms rather than part of our good fortune (we would not exist if they were not "just so"). With M theory you no longer require such values to be axioms, much like how carbon based lifeforms dependent on liquid water is not a given on every planet but pretty much the defining characteristic of Earth.

---

Ah, no - I do not have it backwards.

The spontaneous creation of one universe seems unlikely, two is therfore even less likely, and 100 even less likely.

So the idea that our universe is the "lucky" one among an infinite number is actually no more likely than it being the only one. In fact, it is probably less likely because we knowthis universe exists, but we have no evidence for other universes except for a piece of pseudo-science that claims they are necessary for the "anthropomorthic" universe.

Let's look at that concept for a moment - a universe ideally fitted to us? Odd? No, not at all because we were created for and by it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

I think you misread me somewhat.

My point is, that what is good enough for the best brains we have is good enough for me. I am not educated enough in either theology or abstract physics to have a clue.

My observation is based on the characters supporting the various theories, not on the theories themselves.

I also base my observation on my main choice of study - history. And throughout history, whenever science has come to grips with the church, science has won. History also shows that science does not seek political advantages or have agendas, whereas the same can not be said about the church, That makes me skeptical towards the church.

I hope that cleared up my viewpoint :book2:

---

I get it - I picked you to quote because I didn't want to just repeat myself for everyone else.

The difficulty is in knowing who the "best" minds are.

Scientists are no better at theology than theologians are at science (except Newton).

In fact, science is politicised all the time - look at the Big Bang, Fred Hoyle refused to accept it because he was an atheist and the Jesuits loved it because it brought God back into the creation game in a BIG way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Ah, no - I do not have it backwards.

The spontaneous creation of one universe seems unlikely, two is therfore even less likely, and 100 even less likely.

---

No you are looking at a specific number of universes, whereas M theory posits any (unknown) number of universes such that there is at least one.

For example, you falling in love when you look at someone at first sight may not seem terribly likely, right now. However it could happen. But the odds of such a crush happening exactly once in your lifetime are stacked against you even more than the odds of this happening at least once. That is not to say you are more likely to fall in love at first sight 5 times rather than just one, instead you are more likely to do so either one, two, three, four or five times than just the one time.

Assuming we are unique has a trend if being wrong.

We are not in a system where the sun rotates around the Earth and the stars set on crystal shells around us.

We are not the centre of the universe, Or galaxy, or solar system. Our sun is an ordinary main sequence star.

Everytime we find out that we aren't that unique.

So I would be wary to state we are the only universe as probably will go the same way as heliocentrism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

No you are looking at a specific number of universes, whereas M theory posits any (unknown) number of universes such that there is at least one.

For example, you falling in love when you look at someone at first sight may not seem terribly likely, right now. However it could happen. But the odds of such a crush happening exactly once in your lifetime are stacked against you even more than the odds of this happening at least once. That is not to say you are more likely to fall in love at first sight 5 times rather than just one, instead you are more likely to do so either one, two, three, four or five times than just the one time.

---

Yes, but it's more likely I will fall in love once than five times - by introducing multiple universes you are asking two questions instead of one and needlessly complicating the issue. More universes are not more liely than fewere - therefore more univeres do not make this one more likely.

Tellos, Pape, awesome answers, thank you :)

Tellos example is actually kind of spot on.


However, to return to you PVC, do you seriously claim that the people going into theology is as brilliant as those going into science? You are of course correct that we can't apply the razor to the ideas, and what I mean with that is that WE can't, other more suited people probably can.

What we, as somewhat intelligent beings can do, is look at what people are defending what ideas, and then use the razor on that observation.

We had a guy back when I was in school who was sooo brilliant, not just in math, he just... got stuff... I never thought myself stupid, or even on par intelligence, but I can tell you I openly admit his intellect brushed mine away.

Now, the people HE will listen to and learn from, are the people I will sign of under.


Then there was this other quirky guy, you know the type, the one you want to be nice to but just find it so hard - when he continues to shower in his underwear and gets all sweaty during sexual education... Well he went on to be a priest.


Don't get me wrong, I met this absolutely wonderful priest the other week, I know that type also exists. Just... Oh well, I think you get my point already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Assuming we are unique has a trend if being wrong.

We are not in a system where the sun rotates around the Earth and the stars set on crystal shells around us.

We are not the centre of the universe, Or galaxy, or solar system. Our sun is an ordinary main sequence star.

Everytime we find out that we aren't that unique.

So I would be wary to state we are the only universe as probably will go the same way as heliocentrism.

---

I did not say that were were the only universe, I said that we have evidence for no others. The addition of multiple universe is used as a "crane" to explain away or own universe.

As a theory that makes it suspect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I did not say that were were the only universe, I said that we have evidence for no others. The addition of multiple universe is used as a "crane" to explain away or own universe.

As a theory that makes it suspect.

---

"... and yet it moves."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

However, to return to you PVC, do you seriously claim that the people going into theology is as brilliant as those going into science? You are of course correct that we can't apply the razor to the ideas, and what I mean with that is that WE can't, other more suited people probably can.

...

Don't get me wrong, I met this absolutely wonderful priest the other week, I know that type also exists. Just... Oh well, I think you get my point already.

---

Richard Dawkins can't grasp basic theological concepts, he just can't, Christopher Hitches struggled (not a scientist, but extremely clever) to understand the mindset and the cecepts - he declared them totally absurd despite the testimony of his own brother to the contrary.

Scientists are mechanically brilliant - that doesn't mean they have anything to say about any other field.

Socrates described the delusion, that because the doctor can treat illness he believes he can tell the shipwright his trade.

Tellos is extremely clever, but he and others here including yourself, and I say this with great respect, often fail to grasp what are to myself and others in my field consider basic concepts. Do not mistake me, I do mean "fail to grasp" and not simply "dissagree".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

"... and yet it moves."

---

He never said it, and he was wrong.

Making the look an idiot Pope when he gives you a commission to investigate heliocentrism will not go well.

Compare with Keppler, the Protestant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Richard Dawkins can't grasp basic theological concepts, he just can't, Christopher Hitches struggled (not a scientist, but extremely clever) to understand the mindset and the cecepts - he declared them totally absurd despite the testimony of his own brother to the contrary.

Scientists are mechanically brilliant - that doesn't mean they have anything to say about any other field.

Socrates described the delusion, that because the doctor can treat illness he believes he can tell the shipwright his trade.

Tellos is extremely clever, but he and others here including yourself, and I say this with great respect, often fail to grasp what are to myself and others in my field consider basic concepts. Do not mistake me, I do mean "fail to grasp" and not simply "dissagree".

---

It's because there is no "basic" theological concept except: "I have a belief that what someone or something told me is true". Then from that basic concept, people build new concepts. Then they borrow concepts from each other, strengthening each others views, from that union springs a more advanced concept - and so on.... To the extent of there not only being a hell, but there are theological discussions about different circles of this said hell. The debate in the mind of the christian has turned to understanding the different finer variations rather than questioning the very fundamental facts.

Richard Dawkin's can't grasp your basic theological concept, because he, just like I, question the VERY basic basic theological concept, and if you do that, you per automatic brush away every concept springing from it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

It's because there is no "basic" theological concept except: "I have a belief that what someone or something told me is true". Then from that basic concept, people build new concepts. Then they borrow concepts from each other, strengthening each others views, from that union springs a more advanced concept - and so on.... To the extent of there not only being a hell, but there are theological discussions about different circles of this said hell. The debate in the mind of the christian has turned to understanding the different finer variations rather than questioning the very fundamental facts.

---

Science proceeds from a similar belief - that we live in an ordered universe, a belief borrowed from Christian theologians.

The Greeks, not even the Jews, concieved of the linear progression of time in the West before the Christians. Christianity arguably invented out concept of time, that the world had a beginning and an end.

Quote:

---

Richard Dawkin's can't grasp your basic theological concept, because he, just like I, question the VERY basic basic theological concept, and if you do that, you per automatic brush away every concept springing from it.

---

This is not true - I know atheist theologians who are able to function very well. Belief is not a prerequisite to understanding. I have a working understanding of Islam, but I don't believe a word of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Science proceeds from a similar belief - that we live in an ordered universe, a belief borrowed from Christian theologians.

The Greeks, not even the Jews, concieved of the linear progression of time in the West before the Christians. Christianity arguably invented out concept of time, that the world had a beginning and an end.



This is not true - I know atheist theologians who are able to function very well. Belief is not a prerequisite to understanding. I have a working understanding of Islam, but I don't believe a word of it.

---

That is just plain wrong. We see evidence for a ordered universe, but we have no belief in it. Heck, we can't even make our physicist macro theories fit with our micro theories. Even though both theories seem to work on their own, they also seem more or less mutually exclusive. M-theory is our best shot at it, but it is a very young theory, and still takes a lot of work and even more importantly TESTING (you know? No you don't, testing has never been very important in faith, has it?).

And what say's time is linear? From what I know time = space, no? And we by now KNOW that things can move in a set space in no time... Again, hence M-theory.

So if we can change space we can change time, or maybe the other way around, or maybe a third way around I don't get.



As to your second argument, I have a working understanding of Christianity, but I don't believe a word of it. You however seem to lack a working understanding for science at large, and most definitively for the m-theory in particular. For the latter I dont' blame you, I can appreciate it but I don't get it either, i do however get enough of the stuff leading up to it to think it's worth giving a shot.

And your example had nothing to do with what I said. Again, I and dawkin's question the very very very principle of christianity, that there is a god. Thus we also brush away any concept springing from it. isn't that kind of natural?

Just like YOU yourself question the basic principle of, say, the Nordic religion, thus you also question anything sprung from it.

You don't believe in Yggdrasil, thus you don't care what is on what branch and how that supposedly should affect our daily choices. You brush THAT off just as I brush you off. There are a plethora of basic theological concepts just like that, that you choose to brush off.

The ONLY thing all religions can have in common is a belief in science, that science, as it is based on what we observe and can test, hopefully one day will agree with them. I for one think that is very unlikely, but hey, Might be that the Branes from the M-theory are just carpets and science eventually do find out that the universe came to be because Jesus sitting on his fathers shoulder one day did spring cleaning and gave them a good old shrug, thus they rippled, collided, and we got the big bang creating the universe and later us with some dinosaurs and stuff in between. And jesus were like "opsie, my bad" and came down to clear up his mess (through a virgin birth) only to then be killed.

It COULD happen, it just isn't very likely.

Quote:

---

The spontaneous creation of one universe seems unlikely

---

On what grounds do you state this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

M-theory is our best shot at it, but it is a very young theory, and still takes a lot of work and even more importantly TESTING (you know? No you don't, testing has never been very important in faith, has it?).

---

You do realize that M-Theory is not a theory per say? That it is just a collection of ideas, hopes and aspirations.
Hawkins never intended this to be more than that. And its hardly science. How would you go about testing something that is not observable? I am calling reverse Aquinas fallacy on this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

That is just plain wrong. We see evidence for a ordered universe, but we have no belief in it. Heck, we can't even make our physicist macro theories fit with our micro theories. Even though both theories seem to work on their own, they also seem more or less mutually exclusive. M-theory is our best shot at it, but it is a very young theory, and still takes a lot of work and even more importantly TESTING (you know? No you don't, testing has never been very important in faith, has it?).

---

OK, look - from a formal logical point of view the belief that the universe is ordered is of the same value as the belief that God exists.

WE INFER - from our observations that the universe proceeds in an orderly fashion under the governing principle of cause and effect - this is the "governing assumption".

BECAUSE - the universe proceeds according to cause and effect you can investigate it using scientific experiments.

HOWEVER - because cause and effect is the governing assumption you cannot actually prove that what we are observing is a causal relationship and not merely a correlative one.

BECAUSE - if cause and effect did not operate you could not construct any experiments.

Now, this has all sorts of reprecussions - it's the same as with Newtonian Physics, just because it appears to fit the facts doesn't mean it does. That applies to the entire body of scienfic knowledge, including the "governing assumption".

Just because the body of Natural Philosophy known as "Science" has become so incredibly complex does not prove it to be correct any more than the massive complexity and elegence of Roman Catholic theology proves the Pope is God's Vicar on Earth.

The Uncertainty Principle adds another layer of probability to cause and effect.

BTW You can still create experiments in a universe that is probabilistic or even cause and not effect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

OK, look - from a formal logical point of view the belief that the universe is ordered is of the same value as the belief that God exists.

---

Nothing says the universe is ordered. There are theories in that direction, but they are far from being proved.

Quote:

---

WE INFER - from our observations that the universe proceeds in an orderly fashion under the governing principle of cause and effect - this is the "governing assumption".

---

No, the effect may be the cause. You seriously have not read up. Anything can be anything, more or less. We just have to test it and eventually maybe prove it.

Quote:

---

BECAUSE - the universe proceeds according to cause and effect you can investigate it using scientific experiments.

---

What came first, the hen or the egg? Scientific experiments are just that, experiments. We are working our way towards explaining the mystery of the universe and life at large. It's quite some fascinating stuff once you go deep into it.

Quote:

---

HOWEVER - because cause and effect is the governing assumption you cannot actually prove that what we are observing is a causal relationship and not merely a correlative one.

---

Science always allows for relationships might be correlative. Otherwise we would have a society with, say, way more state sanctioned pirates, as there are sure to be factors of worse things on the rise as piracy went down. But that isn't the case, is it? Science try to look at all factors, heck, ever factors you and I can't even begin to understand.

Quote:

---

BECAUSE - if cause and effect did not operate you could not construct any experiments.

---

Why?

Quote:

---

Now, this has all sorts of reprecussions - it's the same as with Newtonian Physics, just because it appears to fit the facts doesn't mean it does. That applies to the entire body of scienfic knowledge, including the "governing assumption".

Just because the body of Natural Philosophy known as "Science" has become so incredibly complex does not prove it to be correct any more than the massive complexity and elegence of Roman Catholic theology proves the Pope is God's Vicar on Earth.

---

Agreed. Science has become so complex that you and I don't get it. It has even takes on "god-like" qualities if you so will.

And that bring me back to my original statement, that people like you and I can only put or belief in the PERSONS holding different beliefs.

You go with the priests, I go with the sharpest brains of humanity. Which one of us is right will take countless years to find out from my perspective. From your perspective you will find out when you die. I just think it's rubbish that you won't be able to go back and gloat once that happens, but that is the basics of your belief, isn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Nothing says the universe is ordered. There are theories in that direction, but they are far from being proved.

---

You are climbing out on a limb here and sawing on the wrong side.
Order is needed to make predictions in science. Order is needed to formulate scientific laws. A ordered universe is a priori in science.
Even tests as you say... Empirical research demands order. If you get a different result every time you tested - you wouldn't be able to formulate scientific knowledge.
More or less every scientific discovery needs order for it to be falsifiable - that whomever can pick up the theory/thesis and repeat the process and be given the same result. In a chaotic universe - this wouldn't be possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd

You are climbing out on a limb here and sawing on the wrong side.
Order is needed to make predictions in science. Order is needed to formulate scientific laws. A ordered universe is a priori in science.
Even tests as you say... Empirical research demands order. If you get a different result every time you tested - you wouldn't be able to formulate scientific knowledge.
More or less every scientific discovery needs order for it to be falsifiable - that whomever can pick up the theory/thesis and repeat the process and be given the same result. In a chaotic universe - this wouldn't be possible.

---

I'm sorry Kadagar - but Sigurd has nailed your theoretical coffin closed.

You say you put your faith in "the sharpest brains" but these brains never look at questions of Epistomology (how we know what we know), I have - it was one of the first things I studied at university.

So, here I am the expert and I am telling you that in order for you to conduct a scientific experiment you need an ordered universe which operates according to cause and effect.

Sigurd is telling you the same - given that we have spent time studying such questions we deserve at least to have our assertions taken seriously and not rejected out of hand.

Order is the "governing assumption" or the "philosophical primative" which underlies all scientific experiments.

My last post began with a formal proof that Order (that you atomised, and therfore apparently missed) is required to conduct a Scientific experiment, I cannot see how I can expand upon that other than to re-state the basic scientific principle, "observe, predict, test, theorise". If the universe is not ordered then, as Sigurd says, you could conduct no experiments.

That is not to say that the Universe is ordered, or that it is not. It is merely that you must assume that it is before you can "do" science, in the same way that you must assume God exists before you can "do" theology.

The point is this - in epistomological terms the two fields are ultimately equal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I'm sorry Kadagar - but Sigurd has nailed your theoretical coffin closed.

You say you put your faith in "the sharpest brains" but these brains never look at questions of Epistomology (how we know what we know), I have - it was one of the first things I studied at university.

So, here I am the expert and I am telling you that in order for you to conduct a scientific experiment you need an ordered universe which operates according to cause and effect.

Sigurd is telling you the same - given that we have spent time studying such questions we deserve at least to have our assertions taken seriously and not rejected out of hand.

Order is the "governing assumption" or the "philosophical primative" which underlies all scientific experiments.

My last post began with a formal proof that Order (that you atomised, and therfore apparently missed) is required to conduct a Scientific experiment, I cannot see how I can expand upon that other than to re-state the basic scientific principle, "observe, predict, test, theorise". If the universe is not ordered then, as Sigurd says, you could conduct no experiments.

That is not to say that the Universe is ordered, or that it is not. It is merely that you must assume that it is before you can "do" science, in the same way that you must assume God exists before you can "do" theology.

The point is this - in epistomological terms the two fields are ultimately equal.

---

Nope.

Science has found that a CAUSE generally speaking leads to an EFFECT. Science is in no way depending on it.

If science had found that a cause has no alteration on the effect, science would change their experiments to adhere to it.

Granted, we live in a universe where we typically see a cause and effect. We even see the cause and effect often enough to base theories around it. Thus generally speaking scientific experiments are based on this cause and effect theory.

However, only a very limited mind would stretch the general assumption that a cause leads to an effect to the degree of saying science is dependent on it. It's not.

YES, we often enough see apples falling from trees, hitting the ground. We based the theory of gravitation around this.

HOWEVER, if suddenly an apple fell from the ground to the tree, or even better, if an apple suddenly disappears and then re-appears on the other side of the world, science would NOT suddenly just give up, throw it's arms in the air and state that its work is over.

Again, free your mind a little...

And again, all of us posting in this thread is too stupid to get what the heck the sharpest are talking about. And yet again, I go with the sharpest brains, not with the priests.

You can still experiment in a chaotic environment. What you wouldn't be able to do is make accurate predictions wih ease.

Also order may be not necessarily be the foundational property of our universe, order might be an emergent property.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Nope.

Science has found that a CAUSE generally speaking leads to an EFFECT. Science is in no way depending on it.

If science had found that a cause has no alteration on the effect, science would change their experiments to adhere to it.

---

How are you going to construct an experiment without cause and effect?

Really, how?

Quote:

---

However, only a very limited mind would stretch the general assumption that a cause leads to an effect to the degree of saying science is dependent on it. It's not.

---

Epistomology dissagrees. Science operates according to cause and effect - Science constructs experiments by initiating causes and studying the effects.

Without an ordered universe Science and the Scientific Method collapse and cease to exist.

Quote:

---

HOWEVER, if suddenly an apple fell from the ground to the tree, or even better, if an apple suddenly disappears and then re-appears on the other side of the world, science would NOT suddenly just give up, throw it's arms in the air and state that its work is over.

---

Yes, it would look for an ORDERED explanation - not random happenstance. Science can never accept the inexplicable, it would seek the cause for the effect and posit something like a wormhole.

In fact, you may wish to look into the reaction some of Stephen Hawking's work on black holes around ten years ago caused. Hawking claimed that when matter entered a black hole it was destroyed - a claim now retracted in favour of a multiverse explanation - and this caused widespread consternation because the idea that data could be destroyed violates the principle of ORDER.

Quote:

---

Again, free your mind a little...

And again, all of us posting in this thread is too stupid to get what the heck the sharpest are talking about. And yet again, I go with the sharpest brains, not with the priests.

---

How clever do I need to be to be one of your "sharpest minds", or does my field dissqualify me?

I am an expert - I have a degree which includes foundational Greek philosophy

Epistemology is a widely recognised philosophical field: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

You roll a six side dice and in a non ordered universe it rolls a swan.

Now you roll another dice and it rolls a seven, third a bireme etc

Each throw is an experiment. Each result is unpredictable

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

You roll a six side dice and in a non ordered universe it rolls a swan.

Now you roll another dice and it rolls a seven, third a bireme etc

Each throw is an experiment. Each result is unpredictable

---

Ergo you cannot construct a Scientific Experiment.

Any such attempt to do so would be utterly useless because prediction would be impossible.

Arguing you could still "do" Science in such a universe is either idiotic or intellectually dishonest.

I refer you to poor Rincewind in the famous Atheist Terry Pratchett's The Colour of Magic.

Rincewind is a man with an analytical scientific mind in a universe which is not scientific - and is thus a pathetic wizard.

All "what if's" aside, cause generally lead to an effect, so what is the fuss about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Ergo you cannot construct a Scientific Experiment.

Any such attempt to do so would be utterly useless because prediction would be impossible.

Arguing you could still "do" Science in such a universe is either idiotic or intellectually dishonest.

I refer you to poor Rincewind in the famous Atheist Terry Pratchett's The Colour of Magic.

Rincewind is a man with an analytical scientific mind in a universe which is not scientific - and is thus a pathetic wizard.

---

Who is the idiot? The one who infers science when all that is mentioned is the tool of experimentation.

Re read my statements and you will see that all I said was you can still experiment in a chaotic universe. Those experiments would validate that one is in a chaotic universe. The consequences would be to make predictions not possible, hence science would not be particularly useful much like theology in an ordered universe :laugh4:

I prayed to god that Lebron would never get a championship ring on his fingers. So far it seems like God is ignoring me. Ergo, there is no God. No loving God would give Lebron a ring.

/thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

The Uncertainty Principle adds another layer of probability to cause and effect.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

HOWEVER, if suddenly an apple fell from the ground to the tree, or even better, if an apple suddenly disappears and then re-appears on the other side of the world, science would NOT suddenly just give up, throw it's arms in the air and state that its work is over.

---

With statements like these, one could infer that you want to bring Quantum Mechanics/Quantum Theory to the table as examples of a chaotic universe.

Yes it is true that the thesis of ordered universe doesn’t quite fit with the results when experimenting with quantums. But when you really look into this stuff, you will notably realise that the quantum scientists do presuppose an ordered universe.
They conduct an experiment and the results vary. Somehow the quantums exhibits different traits in iterations of the same experiment. Do they just give up? No they try to make sense of it.. Or in other words they try to make it fit with the presupposed ordered universe. They postulate that the observer affects the experiment. That the tools you measure with directly affects the quantums being experimented on. Well what do they do? They build a large hadron collider that perhaps can remove the observer effect.
In fact all the theories around quantums try to explain the apparent chaotic nature of quantums in an ordered universe. The Copenhagen theory, the many worlds theory are both using the presupposition of an ordered universe to explain the erratic behaviour of quantum particles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

All "what if's" aside, cause generally lead to an effect, so what is the fuss about?

---

Understanding that all knowledge is based on assumptions you accept and reject.

Just because you and I both accept and ordered universe, but you reject the existence of "God", does not make the one true and the other not.

One should approach all claims to knowledge, therefore, with a certain amount of credulity and a touch of humility - which is not to say that we should not argue forcefully, but we should never assume that because we dissagree with someone they are therefore intellectually deficient in some way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Who is the idiot? The one who infers science when all that is mentioned is the tool of experimentation.

Re read my statements and you will see that all I said was you can still experiment in a chaotic universe. Those experiments would validate that one is in a chaotic universe. The consequences would be to make predictions not possible, hence science would not be particularly useful much like theology in an ordered universe :laugh4:

---

"Science" is the tool of experimentation, that's why it's called the "Scientific Method" - the fact that the Method has come to dominate "Natural Philosophy" does not ultimately make the Method trancendant and a seperate catagory of study, despite common parlance.

In a chaotic universe you would not even be able to say if the result of the experiment was a chaotic universe or merely a highly complex interation that produced an apparently chaotic result. As Sigurd has already pointed out Quantum Theory is exactly that - the attempt to explain apparent chaos in a non-chaotic universe.

As regards your glib jab at Theology - you may wish to consider that it was the philosophers and later theologians who postulated an ordered universe that proceeded according to discoverable and explicable Laws - which would mean that not only is Theology "useful" but that it has been useful to Natural Philosophy and those using the Scientific Method to explain the workings of the universe by providing them with an intellectual framework.

A probability =/= chaos.

In a probabilistic universe I roll a six sided die and get an integer number from 1 to 6

Now in a chaotic universe (not Mandelbrot Chaos but say Discworld or more so) you roll the dice. Instead of a 16.6% chance of a number from 1 to 6 you get a non predictive set. Perform enough types of experiments and you'd find ha you have no predictive abilities. Now whilst you can still experiment you cannot predict, make models or explain your environment. Cause and effect would be disentangled. Not only would science be useless, but geometry wouldn't work as every time you go to measure a triangle the angles would change. Mathematics, logic would also evaporate as sets of axioms would be subject to chaos. New age quackery would be a valid alternative as it would have all the same predictive powers as medical science in a chaotic universe.

Of course this would assume that an observer lived long enough and by some fluke was inclined to experimentation. Because a universe that was chaotic enough would be unstable.

=][=

Quantum physics along with other things predicts the probable placement of quantum objects. Essentially it is a complex version of predicting the results of rolling a bunch of dice together. Yes the results can vary but the more dice together the more bell like the curve of the overall results. Sure you might have a harder time predicting the exact result of he next throw but the average is more predictable.

Also as you stick more quantum objects together you get interesting things begin to happen. Solid state physics band theory shows how by lumping metals together the quantum states form continous bands. The system becomes less probabilistic and more continous when viewed from a larger scale. Going from quantum to analog.

Each of the metal atoms electrons can occupy any space within a particular band. But no 2 electrons can be in the same space. So imagine an empty 12 egg carton. With one egg you could find it in any of the egg slots. So 1/12 chance of finding it. Now as you add eggs you fill it up and with 12 eggs you can predict 100% of the time that each slot is full. Now with metal atoms the electrons have many more slots to fill. But now just like eggs only 1 electrons will be in each slot. However just like the egg carton, only one electron can be in a space at a time. So push enough atoms together and you fill up the metal electron bands and they become a continium instead of digital steps. You go from a quantum probabilities to a more deterministic situation. So order forms out of probabilities.

Of course it's true that it is more complex then that and someone else could explain it more simply. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

A probability =/= chaos.

In a probabilistic universe I roll a six sided die and get an integer number from 1 to 6

Now in a chaotic universe (not Mandelbrot Chaos but say Discworld or more so) you roll the dice. Instead of a 16.6% chance of a number from 1 to 6 you get a non predictive set. Perform enough types of experiments and you'd find ha you have no predictive abilities. Now whilst you can still experiment you cannot predict, make models or explain your environment. Cause and effect would be disentangled. Not only would science be useless, but geometry wouldn't work as every time you go to measure a triangle the angles would change. Mathematics, logic would also evaporate as sets of axioms would be subject to chaos. New age quackery would be a valid alternative as it would have all the same predictive powers as medical science in a chaotic universe.

Of course this would assume that an observer lived long enough and by some fluke was inclined to experimentation. Because a universe that was chaotic enough would be unstable.

=][=

Quantum physics along with other things predicts the probable placement of quantum objects. Essentially it is a complex version of predicting the results of rolling a bunch of dice together. Yes the results can vary but the more dice together the more bell like the curve of the overall results. Sure you might have a harder time predicting the exact result of he next throw but the average is more predictable.

Also as you stick more quantum objects together you get interesting things begin to happen. Solid state physics band theory shows how by lumping metals together the quantum states form continous bands. The system becomes less probabilistic and more continous when viewed from a larger scale. Going from quantum to analog.

Each of the metal atoms electrons can occupy any space within a particular band. But no 2 electrons can be in the same space. So imagine an empty 12 egg carton. With one egg you could find it in any of the egg slots. So 1/12 chance of finding it. Now as you add eggs you fill it up and with 12 eggs you can predict 100% of the time that each slot is full. Now with metal atoms the electrons have many more slots to fill. But now just like eggs only 1 electrons will be in each slot. However just like the egg carton, only one electron can be in a space at a time. So push enough atoms together and you fill up the metal electron bands and they become a continium instead of digital steps. You go from a quantum probabilities to a more deterministic situation. So order forms out of probabilities.

Of course it's true that it is more complex then that and someone else could explain it more simply. :)

---

So you agree with me?

We must assume we live in an ordered universe.

Assume is the key word though - whilst we might not live in a Discworld-esque univers, which is not actually chaotic but narativistic, we could live in a world directly controlled by a deity who gives us the appearence of order when really all He is doing is responding to our attempts to experiment.

Quantom physics would then be God's little joke - he simply alters the rules as soon as you try to test the theory.

I agree with most of what you say otherwise I wouldn't needle you.

I would add a few caveats.
1) We assume that we live in an ordered world based on experimentation... So if experiments show otherwise we should be prepared to change our understanding.
2) Ordered is related to cause and effect. However you could have a static universe where there is no change, so ordered but due to having no change there is no effects or causes. So one cannot assume that order is a result of cause and effect. You could have order independent of cause and effect. Therefore you could have an ordered universe where cause and effect is a property because it is an ordered universe. It might also be a requirement that you have to have both Order and Cause & Effect to exist or neither.
3) There may in fact be a deity. But why add an axiom if not needed? Additionally if a Diety is deemed good and honest and teaching it's followers it seems a breach of all three of these attributes to falsify the understanding of a universe just to get kicks.

[QUOTE=Papewaio;2053459700]I agree with most of what you say otherwise I wouldn't needle you.

I'll bear that in mind in future.

Quote:

---

1) We assume that we live in an ordered world based on experimentation... So if experiments show otherwise we should be prepared to change our understanding.

---

The problem I have with this claim is that we have already invented Quantom theory to explain disorder - as human being we make sense using ordered thought processes, so we constructed a theory, then another theory, then another. Currently we are so wedded to our current theories we are trying to patch them together with a "super theory".

Just because we pretend to be rational, doesn't mean we are. I am not sure what we would make of a disordered universe, but I suspect we would try to explain it with a logical theory (i.e. attempt to impose Order).

Quote:

---

2) Ordered is related to cause and effect. However you could have a static universe where there is no change, so ordered but due to having no change there is no effects or causes. So one cannot assume that order is a result of cause and effect. You could have order independent of cause and effect. Therefore you could have an ordered universe where cause and effect is a property because it is an ordered universe. It might also be a requirement that you have to have both Order and Cause & Effect to exist or neither.

---

Turn it on its head - Cause and Effect is a result of an ordered structure. Even so, what we are doing here is philosophising, not testing.

Quote:

---

3) There may in fact be a deity. But why add an axiom if not needed? Additionally if a Diety is deemed good and honest and teaching it's followers it seems a breach of all three of these attributes to falsify the understanding of a universe just to get kicks.

---

Oh - we haven't even got there yet.

Sorry, I still don't get it...

PVC, are you claiming that we live in an universe without order, or that only God can have made this order, or that science is faulty for looking for cause and effect, or what?

From my point of view, you dwell on very technical mumbo-jumbo to hide the fact that you don't have a claim.


In my world, cause and effect can be seen as an effective way to do science under the natural laws we seemingly observe. If we suddenly start observing data that goes against expected data we revise our theories to accommodate this new data. It is an on-going process, heck, I am amazed at how much we have done in so little time.

That is far from saying we are DONE though. Science keep chasing the God of the gaps, and we narrow in on him by the day :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Sorry, I still don't get it...

PVC, are you claiming that we live in an universe without order, or that only God can have made this order, or that science is faulty for looking for cause and effect, or what?

---

None of the above.

Quote:

---

From my point of view, you dwell on very technical mumbo-jumbo to hide the fact that you don't have a claim.

---

That's a little presumtuous given that you just admitted you don't get it? Don't you think?

Quote:

---

In my world, cause and effect can be seen as an effective way to do science under the natural laws we seemingly observe. If we suddenly start observing data that goes against expected data we revise our theories to accommodate this new data. It is an on-going process, heck, I am amazed at how much we have done in so little time.

---

Yes, you revise because you assume Cause and Effect. Nowhere in the Scientific model or Method is there any room for disorder.

Let me try to explain it again.

"Science" is the performing of experiments, it is a method used to investigate the Natural World and only that world. This used to be called "Natural Philosophy" but in the last hundred years or so it has become known as "Science" because all investigation is carried out through experimentation. Science is above all thing logical - it therefore requires and ordered universe or experimentation is simply impossible.

The problem, then, is that our perception or an Ordered universe could just be an illusion, just as you claimed our perception of God is.

Knowledge is an inverse Pyramid, everything always rests on a single assumption - in the case of Science that assumption is that a Cause will lead to an Effect, and that by initiating a Certain Cause you can (and this is crucial) reliably measure the resulting Effect. Without that essential relationship there is no Science.

What you need to understand is that the "Scientific Method" cannot work without Order, and therefore it cannot investigate a God who operates outside the Universe and controls it because he is personally unconstrained by any Laws he creates and he can abrogate or suspend them at will.

You can try to test for God as much as you want, but if he doesn't want to oblige you you can't make him.

This is why God of the Gaps is such a stupid idea, and why Atheists like to bring it up, because it seemingly brings "God" within their sphere of knowledge.