The mother of all backahnded compliments for the Dalai Lama

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[Papewaio]

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.

[Kadagar_AV]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Why?

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?

[Sigurd]

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[Kadagar_AV]

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.

[Papewaio]

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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?

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.

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.

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

[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

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[Kadagar_AV]

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

[Papewaio]

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

[a completely inoffensive name]

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

[Sigurd]

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

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

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

"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.

[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. :)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[Papewaio]

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

[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.

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).

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.

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.

[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?

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

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

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?

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.