Science cannot solve the final mystery

[cladking]

Atheists believe there are no gods.

What if I define "God" as that which makes nature wondrous? Are you saying there is nothing that makes nature wondrous; that nature isn't wondrous?

What if I define "God" as "long odds"? Are you saying that one in a trillion events are impossible? Are you saying that it's impossible for a vacuum to exist on earth?

What is ancient people defined "sekhmet" as "potential energy"? Are you saying that mass at altitude in a gravity well can't do work?

All things are digital. Reality is digital. Something either is or is not. The question here is one of language because as you make so eloquently clear in your post, there is no agreement on the definition of "God'. Of course some (g)God(s) are improbable to exist but this doesn't exclude all. Even the most improbable can't be ruled out by our math. Yet believers in atheism assign a 0% probability to all (g)Gods. If there are an infinite number of worlds as is posited by many believers in science, does it not follow that some worlds (perhaps an infinite number) have Gods which do exist?

Atheism is a belief. It is not even wrong. The reality is we can't even compute the likelihood that God exists. All we can say is that there is no direct evidence that God exists just as there is no direct evidence that people before 2000 BC believed in any number of Gods. Indeed, all the direct evidence says not only they didn't believe in Gods but that they wouldn't understand the concepts of "belief" or "God".

It is language that makes people believe in God and language that makes people not believe in God. Ancient Language had no means to define or discuss anything that didn't exist unless it had existed or was likely to come into existence. We see our beliefs and we believe there is or is not a God without even knowing the attributes required to be a "God". Must "God" be conscious? Do "Gods" evolve over time? etc etc?

 

[cladking]

What evidence have you presented? At this point I'm not even sure what argument you are trying to support.

When I say that we all see what we believe this is EVIDENCE. It is my best evidence and I have supported this in the past but prefer not to because it is well known by modern science and I find supporting simple obvious truisms tiring. People who don't know that there is no evidence that any two identical objects exist are pretty hard to convince of this truism so I get left to ask them to find two identical objects. People should be aware of things like the shortest distance between two points is a straight line and if A > B and B > C then A > C. I shouldn't need to prove such statements.

Until you recognize the facts and logic I present there is little point in going further because it all looks like contention to you. You have your beliefs and you can't see the facts and logic that support another argument.

I'm trying to tell you that there are other ways to see questions about the ultimate mysteries and these other ways might be more productive to Knowledge > Creation > Understanding; the original Holy Trinity. Of course this looks like gobbledty gook to you so you won't want elaboration or understanding of it. As soon as something smacks of "religion" you dismiss it out of hand. You can't even consuider the possibility that religion is based in ancient science and modern science is based in belief. You can't consider the possibility that other perspectives, while no more "correct" can provide a far better vantage for seeing truth; for seeing reality.

 

[charlie sc]

What if I define "God" as that which makes nature wondrous? Are you saying there is nothing that makes nature wondrous; that nature isn't wondrous?

What if I define "God" as "long odds"? Are you saying that one in a trillion events are impossible? Are you saying that it's impossible for a vacuum to exist on earth?

Why should anyone accommodate your insane definitions? Your definitions become meaningless for any practical and comprehensive use. This is like glimpsing into the abyss of madness.

 

[cladking]

Oh, so now it's a glance. Isn't it still worship?


Ummm, yes they do. Idolatry - Wikipedia


So we're talking about faith now, not worship?

You're using different definitions of words.

I am saying EVERYTHING we see is belief. I am saying all our actions are based on belief. We can't sneeze without invoking our beliefs. Religions do not forbid one from believing Toyota is superior to Ford and buying one. They don't stop you from your beliefs but some can be highly restrictive of religious beliefs and of actions.

One doesn't worship anything because he believes in it. But when one knows with certainty that he is correct and that everything he sees supports this "knowledge" then it is no stretch in semantics to say he is worshiping himself, humanity, or human knowledge. Science has become the source of many beliefs just as religion was once the source of most beliefs. This is of course in reference to the ultimate questions and not whether one should buy a Toyota. Praise God or praise Einstein; for SOME people there is no practical difference.

 

[cladking]

Why should anyone accommodate your insane definitions? Your definitions become meaningless for any practical and comprehensive use. This is like glimpsing into the abyss of madness.

Then how do atheists define the God in which they don't believe?

I never heard of "Oku and Dâyuni'sï". If I don't believe in them then I'm not even wrong.

I'm sorry if you can't follow this. You're not alone though. It's especially tough for those with all the answers and none of the questions.

Good luck with that.

 

[charlie sc]

You're using different definitions of words.

I'm using the most common use of the word and if I deviate I may use an uncommon usage. However, I always try stay within standardised definitions. You, on the other hand, seem to define things so far out of context it becomes insane. You're using the word worship as the word see. Why not just use the word see and bias? No idea. I can't read your mind, nor do I think it would be a good idea.

Praise God or praise Einstein; for SOME people there is no practical difference.

Now you're more inline with the word worship. Cool. I have no idea why, but at least that's something.

Then how do atheists define the God in which they don't believe?

Atheists spend far more time attempting to define god than theists and this is one of the problems. It's the theists that don't seem to care. God is this vague concept and notion of some being that's omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. Who cares?

 

[atanu]

When you have actually worked through the details of Godel's results and have actually worked with a viable physical theory, then you will be able to judge whether those physicists knew enough math to understand the Godel statement or whether the mathematicians understood enough physics to justify the application of Godel's results to it.

How is this relevant to implication of Godel’s proof and other two scientists’ opinions regarding unknowability of self through science owing to the self being part of the system. Hawking in fact highlighted the problem of circular reference.

Can we not agree that knowledge of ‘self’/‘consciousness’ is beyond the scope of empirical methods?

 

[Polymath257]

How is this relevant to implication of Godel’s proof and other two scientists’ opinions regarding unknowability of self through science owing to the self being part of the system. Hawking in fact highlighted the problem of circular reference.

Can we not agree that knowledge of ‘self’/‘consciousness’ is beyond the scope of empirical methods?

No, we cannot. The self-reference only means that there are *some* questions that cannot be answered. In no way does it imply those questions are the ones directly related to that self-reference directly.

So, the fact that we *know* there are unanswerable questions in the universe (position of an electron) is enough to fulfill the conclusion of Godel's result.

Furthermore, Hawking is *wrong* when he says that every unsolvable math problem leads to an unsolvable physics problem. The reason is that many statements in math have absolutely no observational correlates. There is literally no way to observationally determine the cardinality of the points in a subset of a line. So that is a math question that has no physics aspect at all. I suspect those 'absolutely unsolvable Diophantine equations' are in the same category: any possible solutions are so large that they have zero observational consequence.

Also, the Godel results do not disallow knowledge of the mechanisms of self-reference. In fact, they are *proved* using exactly such mechanisms. So, the claim that the Godel results mean we cannot know the nature of consciousness is simply a bad conclusion based on the logic.

Now, if you had actually gone through a proof of the Godel results and studied the conditions under which the conclusion is valid, then you might be able to pick up on the mistakes the *physicists* make when attempting to apply those results. At least, we could discuss whether the results are correctly applied (they aren't).

 

[gnostic]

How exactly do atheists worship themselves or the the genius of humanity? I’d sure like to know.

To give you some help, I can give you some examples of how theists worship. They pray and some of them bow down. They have rituals(depending on the religion and denomination) and thank their god(s) usually with a prayer or some gift thingie. Ok, your turn.

Excellent! This is a start.

There are many definitions of "seeing". Check an unabridged dictionary if you don't believe it. Each person has a specific meaning in mind when they say or hear the word "seeing" and our job is to try to understand what the speaker means by each word. Hint; the speaker's meaning might not even appear in the dictionary despite the hundreds of definitions because we don't all speak our confused language real goodly. Even the best make errors and use improper grammar or words incorrectly. It's very easy to get hung up on specific definitions and descend into playing word games. It's very easy to even have a conversation with more than one topic. We don't notice the faults in language because we think in language, don't pay attention, and language is often used poorly. Add in the fact that we also hear what we expect, feel what we expect, and can even taste and smell what we expect and it's a wonder communication ever occurs.

You are using the definition of "to see" that is synonymous with "to observe". Of course every good scientist is supposed to observe and observing something is not "worship". I am using the definition "to look" or "to glance" or something like "to stare". We all have input in our visual range which normally includes everything in front of us but the we attend to only some things and don't even move our eyes to "look" at others. We don't observe anomalies (things we don't understand) but rather we tend to just "look" and attend to nothing. When we do attend (observe) we typically attend only to those things that are expected and understood. We overlook far more than we observe all the time pretty much. There are of course specific exceptions for most individuals.

Seeing our beliefs is certainly a form of self worship. Who died and left only our own beliefs as the only reality?

So worshiping, for you, is seeing?

Are you sure you’re using the right word?

No, charles, you are not wrong; cladking is using his own warped definitions of words.

He claimed he don’t play word games, and yet that exactly what he has been doing.

You are right, cladking. He is trying to redefine words to suit his absurd conspiracy theory.

By redefining the words people used, he has basically given no one to move forward or backward, and you won’t be able to distinguish left from right, up from down.

It is why I will no longer be replying to cladking, because I am no longer willing to play his deluded game, and I don’t want to jump in his rabbit hole.

 

[cladking]

No, charles, you are not wrong; cladking is using his own warped definitions of words.

No. You're playing words games. Every word has many definitions and there is no "standard" definition. Every definition is correct and millions of connotations exist. How we parse/ solve/ deconstruct a sentence is our own personal understanding of what is said. EVERYBODY extracts a different meaning from EVERY utterance. Instead of trying to deconstruct MY meaning you are looking for YOUR own meaning. If I define a word then THAT is what I MEAN but you'll even improperly deconstruct words I DEFINE. You simply don't want to talk about the same thing I do so you won't. You pick words to talk about instead.

I don't engage in semantical discussions and arguments so we have very little to talk about.

It's not word definitions tripping most people trying to follow what I'm saying. I'm very careful to make meanings apparent in context (most words). It's the strangeness of the ideas and that they fly in the face of most peoples' assumptions. Even those who know we see what we believe don't believe that applies to themselves. They are full well certain there is no God and science has the answers or there is a God and science doesn't even know the questions. I believe the latter are more right but EVERYONE is wrong. I also believe knowing answers is above my pay grade.

 

[charlie sc]

No, charles, you are not wrong; cladking is using his own warped definitions of words.

He claimed he don’t play word games, and yet that exactly what he has been doing.

You are right, cladking. He is trying to redefine words to suit his absurd conspiracy theory.

By redefining the words people used, he has basically given no one to move forward or backward, and you won’t be able to distinguish left from right, up from down.

It is why I will no longer be replying to cladking, because I am no longer willing to play his deluded game, and I don’t want to jump in his rabbit hole.

Yes. I see him as either a very humorous POE or

Either way, I find him quite funny.

 

[ecco]

What if I define "God" as that which makes nature wondrous? Are you saying there is nothing that makes nature wondrous; that nature isn't wondrous?

What if I define "God" as "long odds"? Are you saying that one in a trillion events are impossible? Are you saying that it's impossible for a vacuum to exist on earth?

I could care less about how you define god. People who compile dictionaries have already done that to the satisfaction of most people.

 

[ecco]

All things are digital. Reality is digital.

Nonsense. Complete, utter nonsense.

Is it either hot or cold? How about warm?
Is it either rain or sleet? How about snow?
Is a person either black or white?

Something either is or is not. The question here is one of language because as you make so eloquently clear in your post, there is no agreement on the definition of "God'. Of course some (g)God(s) are improbable to exist but this doesn't exclude all. Even the most improbable can't be ruled out by our math.

Yet believers in atheism assign a 0% probability to all (g)Gods.

I'll not speak for all atheists. However, my stance on gods is not based on a probability. It is based on the knowledge that all gods are the creations of man's imaginings. You agree with that, with one specific exception. Hindus agree with that with one very different exception.

If there are an infinite number of worlds as is posited by many believers in science, does it not follow that some worlds (perhaps an infinite number) have Gods which do exist?

Do you seriously believe that it is possible for a singing mouse named Willie to pilot a steamboat on one of your proposed worlds?

 

[ecco]

The reality is we can't even compute the likelihood that God exists. All we can say is that there is no direct evidence that God exists just as there is no direct evidence that people before 2000 BC believed in any number of Gods. Indeed, all the direct evidence says not only they didn't believe in Gods but that they wouldn't understand the concepts of "belief" or "God".

Timeline of religion - Wikipedia
9130–7370 BCE
This was the apparent period of use of Göbekli Tepe, one of the oldest human-made sites of worship yet discovered; evidence of similar usage has also been found in another nearby site, Nevalı Çori.[11]​

The concept of god probably goes back to when man had reasonable language and intellectual abilities. "Where did we come from?" and "What happens to us when we die?" are questions that would have been asked.
The answers are "IDunno" and "GodDidIt". Tribal elders who reply "IDunno" don't last long. Have you ever heard a politician or business leader say IDunno?

 

[ecco]

What evidence have you presented? At this point I'm not even sure what argument you are trying to support.

When I say that we all see what we believe this is EVIDENCE. ...

Until you recognize the facts and logic I present there is little point in going further because it all looks like contention to you. You have your beliefs and you can't see the facts and logic that support another argument.

I can't see facts and logic to support your arguments when you haven't presented any facts or logic.

I'm trying to tell you that there are other ways to see questions about the ultimate mysteries and these other ways might be more productive to Knowledge > Creation > Understanding; the original Holy Trinity. Of course this looks like gobbledty gook to you so you won't want elaboration or understanding of it. As soon as something smacks of "religion" you dismiss it out of hand.

Typical of religionists, you want to believe that, when it comes to religion, I "dismiss it out of hand". For you to believe your statement, you have to dismiss the fact that I have had many years to contemplate religions.

For example, your Holy Trinity. This is such a convoluted concept that even many zealous religionists have a hard time explaining it.

First, there was an eternal god who you refer to as God.
Then, somehow, for some reason, a second portion of God came into existence. You call this 1/2 god entity The Holy Ghost.
Then, The Holy Ghost impregnates and young Virgin and creates another 1/3 god entity referred to as Jesus.

So God went from 100% God to 1/3 God along with 1/3 Holy Ghost and 1/3 Jesus. Some of you argue the 2nd third and the 3rd third have always existed and all are one.

Yes, I dismiss this as nonsense. Out of hand? Hardly!

 

[ecco]

You can't even consuider the possibility that religion is based in ancient science and modern science is based in belief. You can't consider the possibility that other perspectives, while no more "correct" can provide a far better vantage for seeing truth; for seeing reality.

If you want to believe that "Ancient Science" knew more than modern science, that's your prerogative.
If you want to believe that "Ancient Science" is the basis for Great Religious wisdom, that's your prerogative.
If you want to believe that modern science is based on beliefs, that's your prerogative.

Provide some evidence. Your repeated assertions are not evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Hi ecco

Now I am going to play with words, but not as religious. I am something else also, I am a skeptic. So I am going to play with the word "knowledge". And I am going to use reducitio ad absurdum in the end.
I will take the following for granted. I am not everything(solipsism), rather I am caused by something else, the rest of everything, but it is not ontological dualism, since I am a part of everything.
So now it is science time, methodological naturalism and how it is that we don't have know what ultimate reality is. I need QM and a Boltzmann Brain. Since you use wiki, I will do that:

The Boltzmann brain argument suggests that it is more likely for a single brain to spontaneously and briefly form in a void (complete with a false memory of having existed in our universe) than it is for our universe to have come about in the way modern science thinks it actually did. It is a reductio ad absurdum response to Ludwig Boltzmann's early explanation for the low-entropy state of our universe

Boltzmann brain - Wikipedia
Now that is insufficient to understand the problem of how to determine the likelihood of you being a Boltzmann Brain. Here is how it is unknown what reality is outside your experience of it.
Reality is, as it appears to you, caused by something else, than your experience of it. I.e. objective reality independent of your mind. But if reality is not as it appears to you, you still only have your experience of it. So knowledge is the belief and faith in that reality independent of you, is as it appears to you.

This is not limited to a Boltzmann Brain, it is a problem of grounding knowledge about reality independent of the mind. Nobody in the recorded history of mankind have solved that and it is connected to this problem in regards to knowledge.

1. Dissent – The uncertainty demonstrated by the differences of opinions among philosophers and people in general.
2. Progress ad infinitum – All proof rests on matters themselves in need of proof, and so on to infinity.
3. Relation – All things are changed as their relations become changed, or, as we look upon them from different points of view.
4. Assumption – The truth asserted is based on an unsupported assumption.
5. Circularity – The truth asserted involves a circularity of proofs.

Agrippa the Skeptic - Wikipedia

This is not about truth per se, but rather about the limit of proof, evidence, reason and logic and indeed knowledge.
It ends here with the apparent reality that we are both a part of. It is as much a fact that you understand reality differently than a religious person, as it is a fact that a religious person understand reality differently than you, yet you are both a part of reality. No matter how much another person's thinking is nonsense to you, that is also so in the other direction. That is Aristotle and the psychology of logic. You can't believe something you don't believe as that is a contradiction, but that doesn't stop other humans from believing differently. That also works in the other direction.

So here it is as nonsense in regards to science:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

Science doesn't make moral judgments
Science doesn't make aesthetic judgments
Science doesn't tell you how to use scientific knowledge
Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations

Science is the assumption that reality is as it appear to humans, but no evidence, proof, reason, logic or what ever can be given for that. Indeed within reality as it appears atheism and religion are both natural human behavior and that is that. If you want to claim that religion is nonsense, then don't use science for that. You can't because nonsense is a process in your brain and not a result of observation. You can't see what makes sense or not, so you are not doing science. You are doing philosophy, psychology, politics or what ever. I know that and I also know that about myself. I know that science has limits. I use science for reality as it appears and religion to make sense of reality. And yes, that is not how you do it, but I don't care, because it works for me. And I accept that you do it differently for yourself, but I don't accept that you claim authority about what is nonsense not just for you, but for all humans including me and other religious humans. I go reductio ad absurdum on your claim of knowledge of what ultimate reality is. You don't know that, nor do I. I know that and you believe differently.

So here it is for knowledge about that which is independent of the mind, other than it is independent of the mind. It is nonsense to claim such knowledge, because knowledge happens in the mind and if it is independent of the mind, it is unknown. All forms of strong knowledge of what reality really is, is not knowledge, but beliefs. I know that, since I am a skeptic.

 

[cladking]

If you want to believe that modern science is based on beliefs, that's your prerogative.

I have PROVEN beyond doubt that at least some modern science is based on beliefs. I have shown over and over that assumptions underlie science and that experimental results are expressed as models built and maintained by language not reality and not "science". Rather than addressing the arguments people attack the words themselves that I choose to show the logic and evidence.

Do you not remember that every single Egyptologist understand the nature of the Great Pyramid, and by extension the nature of its builders without fundamental and basic evidence like the infrared imaging done nearly four years ago. If they're not understanding the pyramid in terms of fact ten they are "understanding" it in terms of Zahi Hawass' BELIEF that data that doesn't conform to his beliefs is unnecessary.

Reality (especially in the soft sciences) is now determined by peers rather than data, knowledge, or experiment. Expert opinion is not within the purview of real science and this has been proven over and over through history but especially during very modern times and the era of Look and See Science. Reality does not bend to vote or observation. This is a truism and if you can't see that we'll never be able to communicate.

I understand it's much more difficult to see the assumptions and beliefs of modern science because you can only understand things in terms of language. It would help if you could merely acknowledge what I mean by "models". How do we work toward an understanding while people are picking at my words instead of their meaning? "Real" scientists are saying the exact same thing but they don't see their own thinking is at the root of the problem and language is at the root of their thought. They simply don't know that there was no "thought" on the face of the planet until the collapse of the "tower of babel". They have never considered the possibility that all of creation uses a metaphysical language because they don't understand the nature of their own metaphysics and the "thought" that underlies modern metaphysics.

There's nothing complex about anything I've done or I couldn't have done it. Rather I stumbled on ancient "thinking" (metaphysics really) and it has given me a unique perspective on this question. We can't really formulate the questions from our perspective much less approach answers. I believe once we factor language out of metaphysics and experimental understanding we'll see that reality is composed of logic, not laws. We'll see our nature and better understand how language affects (makes) us.

Bu now someone (Gnostic?) will say metaphysics is woo so I must believe in conspiracies or they'll come up with another way to say science has all the answers except what they can never know and religion is made-up nonsense. No one will address a single one of the dozens of points in this post. No one will explain how Egyptology can vote on what the pyramid really is without any of the evidence. No one will admit that science has mostly lost its way and it's a metaphysical problem where math is believed to explain reality and peers don't need no stinkin' facts, and no stinkin, logic.

 

[cladking]

All forms of strong knowledge of what reality really is, is not knowledge, but beliefs. I know that, since I am a skeptic.

Yes! This is a simple truism. We don't really know we actually exist so how do we know that Moscow does?

Everybody sees a completely different reality and even individuals see a new reality over time. A cinematographer sees what will make good film. An electrician sees wires and current. A mathematician sees ratios and equations. A cop sees infractions and a lawyer hears ambulances.

We all see our models of everything from geography so we can get home to cabinets so we can measure the wood to build them. We model our own reality from our beliefs and then we see the world in terms of those models. It's hard to get past all these simple facts because people don't even seem to realize that they must deconstruct this sentence and every sentence before it makes sense. They see their own reality so they don't see EVERYONE else sees a completely different reality. As babies we mostly just see "mommy" and we never seem to notice our lives become more complex and we start seeing different things and what we see is dependent not only on the beliefs that mommy teaches but ALSO ON THE LANGUAGE we acquire. Language lies at the heart of our thought and is the basis for human progress.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes! This is a simple truism. We don't really know we actually exist so how do we know that Moscow does?

Everybody sees a completely different reality and even individuals see a new reality over time. A cinematographer sees what will make good film. An electrician sees wires and current. A mathematician sees ratios and equations. A cop sees infractions and a lawyer hears ambulances.

We all see our models of everything from geography so we can get home to cabinets so we can measure the wood to build them. We model our own reality from our beliefs and then we see the world in terms of those models. It's hard to get past all these simple facts because people don't even seem to realize that they must deconstruct this sentence and every sentence before it makes sense. They see their own reality so they don't see EVERYONE else sees a completely different reality. As babies we mostly just see "mommy" and we never seem to notice our lives become more complex and we start seeing different things and what we see is dependent not only on the beliefs that mommy teaches but ALSO ON THE LANGUAGE we acquire. Language lies at the heart of our thought and is the basis for human progress.

Okay, I will try. You have a point but you are overdoing it. If I can't see and understand you, I can't answer you, yet I can. There are at least 3 aspects to reality in practice. I.e. in practice means if we are communicating, then reality consists of 3 aspects in regards to humans: Same, similar and different. We are in the same reality because otherwise we couldn't be talking, which we are, right? We are similar in that we think about what reality is, yet we come to different results.
In short in practice we share parts of reality, yet we differ how we make sense of it.