18
   

A limit to understanding ?

 
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Nov, 2013 11:30 am
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
The "ToE" in modern common usage is a scientific endeavor, not a philosophical one.
What puzzles me Ros beyond any other aspect of evolutionary theory is the common observation that the physical constants as well as the way they relate to one another seem to have been "set up", in some cases within a fraction of one percent, to make life possible

That is simply not the case Dale, so it never puzzles me.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Nov, 2013 11:35 am
@rosborne979,
Quote:
simply not the case Dale
To the contrary Ros, if for instance the gravitational constant differed by half of one percent, life as we know it would be impossible

Maybe you're objecting to my suggestion that it was "set up" or "adjusted", to accommodate intelligent life, in which case of course I couldn't argue. My speculation is based purely on the intuitive, not well regarded by "science"
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Nov, 2013 02:48 pm
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
simply not the case Dale
To the contrary Ros, if for instance the gravitational constant differed by half of one percent, life as we know it would be impossible

But other life might be possible, and it might then note the same "coincidence" of supportive conditions that we observe. Or life might not exist at all, in which case there would be nobody around to complain about the lack of coincident conditions. So, as you can see, the only case possible is one in which any life forms would observe conditions which appeared coincidentally supportive of itself.

dalehileman wrote:
Maybe you're objecting to my suggestion that it was "set up" or "adjusted", to accommodate intelligent life, in which case of course I couldn't argue.

Yes, that is my primary objection. And although you say you "couldn't argue", there is no reason for you to even bring up the obvious first point unless you want to imply the argument.

Yet, intuition or not, the argument you present is without basis.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Nov, 2013 02:51 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

I am suggesting that the quest for a ToE (Theory of Everything) is futile and that all we can expect is continued expansion of our prediction and control practices.

The base assumption of "WE" (i.e.of a communicative community) implies that the role of "language" is crucial for understanding (a) from a cognitive viewpoint, if we take language to be a vehicle for thought and (b) from an ontological point of view if we accept Wittgenstein's comment "the limits of my language are the limits of my world". However, we must take "language" to include the metalanguage of mathematics together with its idiosyncratic forms of "coherence" which can transcend normal understanding.


If you're saying that the universe isn't susceptible to analysis and understanding, I disagree.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Nov, 2013 02:53 pm
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
The "ToE" in modern common usage is a scientific endeavor, not a philosophical one.
What puzzles me Ros beyond any other aspect of evolutionary theory is the common observation that the physical constants as well as the way they relate to one another seem to have been "set up", in some cases within a fraction of one percent, to make life possible


Perhaps you meant to write "life as we know it" here, Dale.

There may be all sorts of life in what we consider impossible places here in the universe. We do not have much information on what kind of life exists...and where it exists.

Life is here...the conditions we have are here...to assume the conditions were set up so that the life could exist is a stretch...at least, in my opinion it is.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Nov, 2013 02:55 pm
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
simply not the case Dale
To the contrary Ros, if for instance the gravitational constant differed by half of one percent, life as we know it would be impossible

Maybe you're objecting to my suggestion that it was "set up" or "adjusted", to accommodate intelligent life, in which case of course I couldn't argue. My speculation is based purely on the intuitive, not well regarded by "science"

It's not well regarded by science, because it's an error prone way of finding the truth. My suspicion is that you just want to believe in God because it makes you feel better to think that you won't really die and that most of your enemies will be punished.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Nov, 2013 04:02 pm
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
If you're saying that the universe isn't susceptible to analysis and understanding, I disagree.

Given that physicists of today are quoted as saying that "99% of the universe is unknown", your disagreement seems little more than optimism.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Nov, 2013 04:20 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

Quote:
If you're saying that the universe isn't susceptible to analysis and understanding, I disagree.

Given that physicists of today are quoted as saying that "99% of the universe is unknown", your disagreement seems little more than optimism.

You have said nothing to support an argument that the universe isn't susceptible to understanding. Once they didn't know where rain came from. Go have fun with your magical beliefs and your comforting imaginary companion, if you need such a crutch.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Nov, 2013 04:21 pm
@fresco,
What's wrong with optimism?
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Nov, 2013 04:26 pm
@Brandon9000,
I doubt Fresco is implying anything theological. I'm sure it's a purely philosophical exploration probably related to the nature of language and understanding or perception.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Nov, 2013 04:30 pm
@rosborne979,
Exactly. For "universe" read "universe if discourse". Consider how the discourse appears to have no limit.
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Nov, 2013 04:57 pm
@rosborne979,
Quote:
But other life might be possible,
Of course Ros but somehow I doubt it

Quote:
Or life might not exist at all
Most likely I'd suppose

Quote:
there is no reason for you to even bring up the obvious first point unless you want to imply the argument.
Just fullov implications aren't I


Quote:
Yet, intuition or not, the argument you present is without basis.
Intuition is undervalued. Consensus has it Einsteins insights were intuitional

That's not meant to compare me with Einstein, it's only to compare me with Einstein
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Nov, 2013 05:04 pm
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
My suspicion is that you just want to believe in God because it makes you feel better to think that you won't really die and that most of your enemies will be punished.
Not at all, 9000. I believe only in some sort of natural entity not yet well understood, to which the term "God" is applied arbitrarily. But when I go I'm gone, except to say something one might label "soul" is my remnant. Any punishment of "enemies" is through natural processes not always successful
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Nov, 2013 05:05 pm
@rosborne979,
Quote:
purely philosophical exploration probably related to the nature of language and understanding or perception.
More or less exactly what I mean by semantic issue
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Nov, 2013 07:49 pm
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
purely philosophical exploration probably related to the nature of language and understanding or perception.
More or less exactly what I mean by semantic issue

Do you have any evidence to support these theories?
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Nov, 2013 08:05 pm
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:
Quote:
But other life might be possible,
Of course Ros but somehow I doubt it

This from a guy who dreams of a God called "She". Seems inconsistent on your part.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Nov, 2013 12:48 am
One of the formal objections to a ToE is Godel's incompleteness theorem. If we accept that there will always be an assumption in every explanatory system then even an assumption of a "god of the gaps" is open to further deconstruction. The theorem implies limitless nesting, and is expressed in the common rejoinder to postulating God: "who made God ?".
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Nov, 2013 10:49 am
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
Do you have any evidence to support these theories?
Nah Bran, all speculation, intuition

However I like to think my view hangs together better than the typical mysticism purporting to explain it all
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Nov, 2013 10:53 am
@rosborne979,
Quote:
This from a guy who dreams of a God called "She". Seems inconsistent on your part.
Maybe Ros you misunderstand what's meant by "Her". If however you could detail what seems inconsistent and how, I'd be most happy to respond
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Nov, 2013 10:56 am
@fresco,
Quote:
…..the common rejoinder to postulating God: "who made God ?"
My own approach, assuredly not worth much hereabout, is that She didn't need to be made, that She's a natural phenom, has always existed in one form or another
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/25/2022 at 08:38:31