Theism Doesn't Ultimately Explain Anything

[PureX]

I agree with your sentiment above with the following caveat: Is the fact that most humans don't or can't embrace our unknowing a result of their being taught, conditioned, indoctrinated to not embrace our unknowing, and if so, is it not appropriate to work to reverse this influence or bias towards not embracing our unknowing, if the latter is the superior attitude? You seem to argue that one must accept the status quo even if there is a better alternative.

I suppose there are a lot of variable reasons for why someone would wish to avoid confronting their own ignorance (unknowing). Certainly we all have an ego, the purpose of which is to maintain one's internal conception of self by any means and at any cost. Right or wrong. And many of us, particularly in this modern consumption driven culture, have never been even introduced to the age old wisdom of reigning in one's ego, deliberately, so as not to become enslaved to it. Resulting in a lot of people who are indeed enslaved by their own ego's pathological drive to maintain one's illusion of self-righteousness, no matter what.

Another common reason, I suspect, that people are not inclined to accept and explore their own ignorance (unknowing) is that old turd "cognitive dissonance". Which is a very uncomfortable state of feeling one's "self" being torn asunder by conflicting reality paradigms. One spends one's whole life believing that 'being here' is essentially "X", and then suddenly finds themselves confronted with the very real possibility that 'being here' is actually "Y" and not "X", it tends to pull the reality rug right out from beneath them; leaving them feeling incredibly unsure, uncertain, unbalanced, and confused. These are not feelings that most humans enjoy experiencing, and so tend to avoid if at all possible.

I am sure that nature and nurture also play their part in how willing one might be to confront the profound limitations of their own presumed "knowing". Many of us may simply not have the intellectual construct needed to enable them to contemplate their own thought processes: to "see their own thoughts" from an external conceptual vantage point.

And I am sure there will be other reasons, too, for why so many of us refuse to confront the reality of our own profound ignorance (unknowing). As to your question about the 'should we' or 'shouldn't we' try, I honestly don't think, and certainly don't know, that there is all that much choice in it for us. The choice is there in theory, but reality is not a theory. Reality is what happens in spite of our theories. And I suspect that in reality, and generally speaking, we humans simply are not designed to doubt and question ourselves to this degree and depth. It distracts and inhibits our DNA's drive to replicate, and it provides us with no particular pleasure. So we just aren't made to go there.

As to my "glass half empty" perspective, I come from a personal experience. I was an alcoholic for many years, and know first hand how possible it is to "have a choice" in theory, but have no apparent choice at all, in actual practice; regardless of determination or desire. So I am very reluctant to presume that other people are simply choosing not to face their own profound ignorance head on, as opposed to being quite literally and actually unable to do so. I can't really say, either way, because of my own profound ignorance regarding the intellectual and emotional machinations of my fellow humans, but I have good reason, personally, not to endow them with choices that they may well not actually possess.

This statement is quite hyperbolic and untrue. Even in common non-technical usage of the term 'delusion', this is strong language, and to say that it is all we have, that we have no grasp or concept of reality or parts of reality I consider completely false. I fully agree that human beings can be self-deceptive, be heavily influenced by confirmation bias, etc, but that all is illusion or delusion is an extreme and indefensible position.

I am using the term in a much broader context. That is the context of the human condition.

The Truth is 'what is'. As opposed to 'what is not'. (I assume you will agree with this.)

The problem for we humans, is that we do have direct access to 'what is', and therefor we do not have direct access to the Truth. We have only very limited, "second hand" access to 'what is' through our body's sense mechanisms and the signals these mechanisms send to our brains. And our brains, then, have to interpret these signals, inter-relate them, and contextualize them within an elaborate imaginary conceptual framework (paradigm) that we hold in our heads as "realty".

Thus, "reality" is a partial, inaccurate, imagined, illusory vision of 'what is' that we create in our heads, and take to be true: i.e., it is a delusion. And this is why I used that term, and why I applied to all human beings. And I think it's of fundamental importance that if we humans wish to ever be honest with ourselves, about ourselves, we will have to begin with this uncomfortable fact of the human condition. It's why, as a species, we humans are so profoundly ignorant and quite insane.

"People are what they are, wrong and crazy as that may be."
- yes, but that does not mean we give up, that we stop trying to improve.

Improvement may not be possible. And if it is ever to become possible, we're going to have to start by facing this uncomfortable fact, so that we can overcome it.

 

[1213]

Love isn't exclusive to theists or theism, though.

Or is it? Depends much on how the word is defined.

He who doesn't love doesn't know God, for God is love.
1 John 4:8

We know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and he who remains in love remains in God, and God remains in him.
1 John 4:16

 

[MikeF]

Or is it? Depends much on how the word is defined.

He who doesn't love doesn't know God, for God is love.
1 John 4:8

We know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and he who remains in love remains in God, and God remains in him.
1 John 4:16

And John is the last word on the subject because .........?

Many are not going to take John's word for it.

 

[MikeF]

I suppose there are a lot of variable reasons for why someone would wish to avoid confronting their own ignorance (unknowing). Certainly we all have an ego, the purpose of which is to maintain one's internal conception of self by any means and at any cost. Right or wrong. And many of us, particularly in this modern consumption driven culture, have never been even introduced to the age old wisdom of reigning in one's ego, deliberately, so as not to become enslaved to it. Resulting in a lot of people who are indeed enslaved by their own ego's pathological drive to maintain one's illusion of self-righteousness, no matter what.

Another common reason, I suspect, that people are not inclined to accept and explore their own ignorance (unknowing) is that old turd "cognitive dissonance". Which is a very uncomfortable state of feeling one's "self" being torn asunder by conflicting reality paradigms. One spends one's whole life believing that 'being here' is essentially "X", and then suddenly finds themselves confronted with the very real possibility that 'being here' is actually "Y" and not "X", it tends to pull the reality rug right out from beneath them; leaving them feeling incredibly unsure, uncertain, unbalanced, and confused. These are not feelings that most humans enjoy experiencing, and so tend to avoid if at all possible.

I am sure that nature and nurture also play their part in how willing one might be to confront the profound limitations of their own presumed "knowing". Many of us may simply not have the intellectual construct needed to enable them to contemplate their own thought processes: to "see their own thoughts" from an external conceptual vantage point.

And I am sure there will be other reasons, too, for why so many of us refuse to confront the reality of our own profound ignorance (unknowing). As to your question about the 'should we' or 'shouldn't we' try, I honestly don't think, and certainly don't know, that there is all that much choice in it for us. The choice is there in theory, but reality is not a theory. Reality is what happens in spite of our theories. And I suspect that in reality, and generally speaking, we humans simply are not designed to doubt and question ourselves to this degree and depth. It distracts and inhibits our DNA's drive to replicate, and it provides us with no particular pleasure. So we just aren't made to go there.

Perhaps you are right, especially in the sense that once the ego matures and 'sets' (for lack of better term) the odds of changing the concept of self and self in the world are low. And once set, that sense of self in the world is passed on to the children, etc.

But I sense an underlying, slow transformation, or evolution of humanity's perspective. The irreligiosity that is growing in Europe (not necessarily among new immigrants) gives indication to me that humanity has the ability to be less dependent on complete, pre-packaged answers to the big unknowable questions. This evolutions is just a continuum that has brought us from Animism, through Shamanism and Polytheism, to the dominant Monotheism of today.

As a glass half-full, I see things progressing in a positive direction and no need to throw in the towel assuming things will never change.

As to my "glass half empty" perspective, I come from a personal experience. I was an alcoholic for many years, and know first hand how possible it is to "have a choice" in theory, but have no apparent choice at all, in actual practice; regardless of determination or desire. So I am very reluctant to presume that other people are simply choosing not to face their own profound ignorance head on, as opposed to being quite literally and actually unable to do so. I can't really say, either way, because of my own profound ignorance regarding the intellectual and emotional machinations of my fellow humans, but I have good reason, personally, not to endow them with choices that they may well not actually possess.
I am using the term in a much broader context. That is the context of the human condition.

I do not disagree with your point here. And to be quite honest, I have no expectation that those today who are uncomfortable confronting the unknown realistically could be made to be comfortable, except for a very small percentage. What I do see as possible, is making space for the option of being comfortable with the unknowable, and that space fostering change in the long run.

The Truth is 'what is'. As opposed to 'what is not'. (I assume you will agree with this.)

I don't see a problem with this statement.

The problem for we humans, is that we do have direct access to 'what is', and therefor we do not have direct access to the Truth. We have only very limited, "second hand" access to 'what is' through our body's sense mechanisms and the signals these mechanisms send to our brains. And our brains, then, have to interpret these signals, inter-relate them, and contextualize them within an elaborate imaginary conceptual framework (paradigm) that we hold in our heads as "realty".
Thus, "reality" is a partial, inaccurate, imagined, illusory vision of 'what is' that we create in our heads, and take to be true: i.e., it is a delusion. And this is why I used that term, and why I applied to all human beings. And I think it's of fundamental importance that if we humans wish to ever be honest with ourselves, about ourselves, we will have to begin with this uncomfortable fact of the human condition.

And here I disagree. Evolution has, through trial and error, given us quite reliable senses. Survival has ensured the accuracy of our senses on the macroscopic level, within specific ranges of sound and the electromagnetic spectrum. The world is as we perceive it on the macroscopic level. We also have developed the capacity to build tools to see what we cannot see, to analyze and evaluate large data sets beyond the capacity of our central nervous system alone. We have a much better handle on "what is" than you give us credit for. What we perceive is real and true. We may not have a full understanding of how the cosmos works, but that does not lessen or diminish what we do perceive and experience. This world is neither an illusion nor a delusion.
And I am not totally dismissing what you are saying. Yes, we have adapted to interact in the macroscopic world in a specific way. Yes, it is possible that there are aspects of reality that our brain wiring may have trouble grasping. But what we perceive and understand to date is true, we are here, the earth is in a solar system in a galaxy etc. That which is still unknown, is unknown. It does not diminish or take away from what we have learned and know today.
I think you put too much faith in the magical unknown. History has shown that from our most primitive beginning, the reality we perceive as humans has only ever strengthened in it's surety, not the reverse.

It's why, as a species, we humans are so profoundly ignorant and quite insane.

This statement, again, is hyperbolic and inaccurate. Compared to every other species we are quite highly informed and on the aggregate, sane.
That glass half-empty mentality is expressing itself quite strongly.

Improvement may not be possible. And if it is ever to become possible, we're going to have to start by facing this uncomfortable fact, so that we can overcome it.

And this statement simply does not match with what we observe. Human beings are the product of continual improvement. One merely has to look at the whole of human history to see this.

 

[Meow Mix]

Thank you very much for your answer. I appreciate it. I dont wish to derail your thread with a tangent on the ontological questions on the necessity of a being or a cosmological argument. We should separately discuss that and I think you are the right person for that. Sincerely. I like your approach.

Thank you and cheers.

If you want to make a thread about necessity or cosmological arguments go ahead and tag me in a comment so I see it and I'll join ^.^

 

[Meow Mix]

When you use words like spatiotemporal extension, you should consider that everyone is not an astrophysicist like you. We maybe sophomore to you. Im kidding.

^.^ I think it is just a good definition for what we mean by "material." For instance it seems like we mean something more than just matter when we use the word material we're usually thinking of "tangible" things like stars, planets, and people. But what about fields (nevermind that particles are really particle fields, or strings, or whatever they turn out to be)? I think fields would fall under "materialism." So when I separate material from immaterial, I think it is the case that material things have extension in time and/or space (has dimension), and possess mass and/or energy. That less ambiguously puts fields in the materialism camp.

It's an honour to have some one as educated as you.

I don't know what to do with compliments so you get this cute emoji again ^.^

Anyway, I am trying to understand you. You said atheists are not naturalists. When you say naturalists do you mean something else? When I say that I mean people who do not practice methodological naturalism, but are by default walking and talking naturalism methodologically or not. I understand that all atheists are not naturalists but the definition of atheism in my opinion has to have naturalism as its body because there is no middle ground. Either you are a naturalist, or a super-naturalist. what you get is what you get. There is nothing real other than reality, and reality is what you get.

Thats how I have understood atheism to be. I am talking about a fundamental, not a protocol.

I do not like the word "naturalist" because the word "supernatural," to which a "naturalist" is supposedly opposed, is a meaningless word as far as I can tell. Assuming we can nail down what "supernatural" means, then not all atheists are naturalists. Some believe in ghosts, some Buddhists are atheists, there is nothing about not believing in gods that makes a person a naturalist.

But what is "supernatural?" If I type it in google and ask for a definition I get something like this: "(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."

But lots of things are "beyond scientific understanding," and we're never 100% correct about "the laws of nature." For instance, before radioactive elements were understood, were they supernatural? If I were to go back in time and predict an eclipse before such motions were well-understood, did I do something supernatural?

There is no exhaustive, good definition that separates "supernatural" from simply being "not yet known;" no objective ontological, qualifiable difference.

I am reminded by Feynman's explanation of how we discover weird new phenomena from time to time: imagine two people playing chess in a park, with a third person watching. The observer doesn't know the rules for chess, but she can infer most of them by watching many games over and over: bishops move diagonally, rooks move in straight lines, so on and so forth. They have put together "The Laws of Chess."

Then say something happens that doesn't normally happen: maybe someone castles ("hey, you can't move two pieces in the same move, can't move the King more than one space, and certainly can't move those pieces through one another!") or perhaps something like en passant ("pawns don't move that way!").

Our observer might exclaim, "you have broken the laws of chess!"

But the "laws of chess" were never broken, the observer just didn't know them perfectly.

So what does "supernatural" really mean? It can't just mean something "unknown to science" or "against the laws of nature," because sometimes nature castles or takes a pawn en passant. If ghosts are real (I doubt it), then it's not that they have "broken the laws of nature," it's that we never completely understood the laws of nature; there would still be some governing limitation about them that would still be "the laws of nature."

Anyway, this long diatribe is why I don't use the word "naturalist." Because I really just want to say "as opposed to what?"

 

[Meow Mix]

I understand that idea that it just kicks the can farther up the road, but in reality, the human soul can find a lot more satisfaction concept of forever worshiping a perfect being then living in the universe that exists for no reason and no purpose.
Humans seem to be inherently self-destructive, and need a reason to exist bigger than themselves... Just ask alcoholics anonymous.

This seems like it's up to the human in question. I'm quite satisfied with a universe that I doubt has inherent purpose. This is because I make my own purpose; I have feelings about what is meaningful and I can still react to those feelings.

 

[Meow Mix]

I understand from your posts that you are a professional scientist. Do you consider yourself a philosopher as well, if not necessarily a professional one? I would love to know how you view the relationship between science and philosophy.

I would consider myself an amateur philosopher at best. It has been a long time since I've read actual philosophical literature (as opposed to pop-philosophy such as books). I don't have formal education in philosophy beyond the various 101's and intros when I was an undergraduate with electives to spend.

However, I place a deep importance on philosophy in physics. Speaking of pop-philosophy books, some of the best physics books I've read were actually philosophy books (e.g. "On Physics and Philosophy," Bernard d'Espagnat; and the cringe-inducingly named "Quantum Philosophy," Roland Omnes. Note that Omnes' later books after that were a massive departure for me, so I don't recommend anything past that... just to be clear).

My first physics hero that wasn't just someone cliche like Einstein or Hawking has been Fotini Markopoulou, who broke the scene with a deeply philosophical work on category and sheaf theory (The internal description of a causal set: What the universe looks like from the inside).

I joke that physics is 1/3 math, 1/3 actual physics/science, and 1/3 philosophy. Physicists have a harder time grasping sound metaphysics than a lot of other scientists because being well-suited for physics work doesn't make one well-suited for metaphysics, this is why we have so many otherwise good physicists going along with all kinds of woo ideas, or ideas that are less conspicuously woo but bad metaphysics all the same (just read any list of interpretations of the wave function).

I feel like that was a lot of blabbering, so the short story is: philosophy is of extreme importance to physics in my book. I would not insult professional philosophers by calling myself one, but I will meekly take the amateur moniker.

 

[Meow Mix]

Or is it? Depends much on how the word is defined.

He who doesn't love doesn't know God, for God is love.
1 John 4:8

We know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and he who remains in love remains in God, and God remains in him.
1 John 4:16

Either "love" means what we normally mean when we utter it, or it doesn't, though. Atheists certainly love: I have love for my friends, love for my family. I've known romantic love. I have general love for fellow sentient beings, and love for less sentient beings.

When we say God loves, we either mean the same thing or we don't. If we mean something else, then we have to define explicitly what it is; else we've only really said "God does an unknown thing in an unknown way," which is really saying nothing at all. Might as well be saying "t'was brillig, and the slithey toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe."

 

[MikeF]

I would consider myself an amateur philosopher at best. It has been a long time since I've read actual philosophical literature (as opposed to pop-philosophy such as books). I don't have formal education in philosophy beyond the various 101's and intros when I was an undergraduate with electives to spend.

However, I place a deep importance on philosophy in physics. Speaking of pop-philosophy books, some of the best physics books I've read were actually philosophy books (e.g. "On Physics and Philosophy," Bernard d'Espagnat; and the cringe-inducingly named "Quantum Philosophy," Roland Omnes. Note that Omnes' later books after that were a massive departure for me, so I don't recommend anything past that... just to be clear).

My first physics hero that wasn't just someone cliche like Einstein or Hawking has been Fotini Markopoulou, who broke the scene with a deeply philosophical work on category and sheaf theory (The internal description of a causal set: What the universe looks like from the inside).

I joke that physics is 1/3 math, 1/3 actual physics/science, and 1/3 philosophy. Physicists have a harder time grasping sound metaphysics than a lot of other scientists because being well-suited for physics work doesn't make one well-suited for metaphysics, this is why we have so many otherwise good physicists going along with all kinds of woo ideas, or ideas that are less conspicuously woo but bad metaphysics all the same (just read any list of interpretations of the wave function).

I feel like that was a lot of blabbering, so the short story is: philosophy is of extreme importance to physics in my book. I would not insult professional philosophers by calling myself one, but I will meekly take the amateur moniker.

For me, I have been experiencing a growing disdain for traditional or classic Philosophy. Since the beginning of the Scientific Revolution around the 16th-17th centuries I see a fundamental schism growing between Philosophy and Science. In terms of gaining understanding of reality, I see Science, with its scientific principles and standards, as an improved and superior method of knowledge acquisition, essentially superseding what came before. Sort of like Philosophy 1.0 replaced by Philosophy 2.0 (Science). I also find that much of the language of classic or traditional philosophy has become outdated, antiquated.

I also see Philosophy used as a crutch for those who need or want there to be something beyond our physical reality, and Philosophy in the classic sense seems to provide that crutch. For this and other reasons I lean towards chucking Philosophy in the bin, or at least relegating it to the history section of the library.

I get that physics being 1/3 math, 1/3 physics/science, and 1/3 philosophy is tongue-in-cheek, but how would you describe that philosophy 1/3? Is it simply the hypothesizing, speculating, guessing, imagining side that is present in all scientific inquiry, the part that speculates what lies beyond our ability to gather data?

I guess I'm curious as to whether you see Science and Philosophy as distinctly separate, and if so, what value does Philosophy bring, or a philosophical approach as separate from a scientific approach, to the table, for you.

 

[PureX]

... I sense an underlying, slow transformation, or evolution of humanity's perspective. The irreligiosity that is growing in Europe (not necessarily among new immigrants) gives indication to me that humanity has the ability to be less dependent on complete, pre-packaged answers to the big unknowable questions. This evolutions is just a continuum that has brought us from Animism, through Shamanism and Polytheism, to the dominant Monotheism of today.

I don't think humans have ever been especially given to "pre-packaged answers to the big questions". I think we are programmed to seek consensus, And so are simply willing to cede to the general cultural consensus that we're born into. That doesn't mean we all accept it as "the truth" beyond it's social functionality. It just means we don't bother to deny it, or argue about it; internally or with others. (Unless we become philosophers, artists, or priests.)

And I see little progress in our slide from animism to monotheism, as it's all the same phenomena, just different semantic ideations of it. These appear to be mostly "lateral" differences, as opposed to being "progress", to me.

... I have no expectation that those today who are uncomfortable confronting the unknown (honestly) could be made to be comfortable, except for a very small percentage. What I do see as possible, is making space for the option of being comfortable with the unknowable, and that space fostering change in the long run.

I am not aware of there not already being all the "space" anyone could need to accept their own profound cognitive limitations. After all, it's an internal paradigm shift. Not something that requires external cooperation.

And here I disagree. Evolution has, through trial and error, given us quite reliable senses. Survival has ensured the accuracy of our senses on the macroscopic level, within specific ranges of sound and the electromagnetic spectrum. The world is as we perceive it on the macroscopic level. We also have developed the capacity to build tools to see what we cannot see, to analyze and evaluate large data sets beyond the capacity of our central nervous system alone. We have a much better handle on "what is" than you give us credit for. What we perceive is real and true. We may not have a full understanding of how the cosmos works, but that does not lessen or diminish what we do perceive and experience. This world is neither an illusion nor a delusion.
And I am not totally dismissing what you are saying. Yes, we have adapted to interact in the macroscopic world in a specific way. Yes, it is possible that there are aspects of reality that our brain wiring may have trouble grasping. But what we perceive and understand to date is true ...

Logically, we cannot know this to be so. Because we cannot know how what we don't know would change what we think we do know to be true, now, were we to come to know it. Also, keep in mind that the current consensus of astrophysicists estimate our knowledge of the universe at about 13%. Which leaves so much left unknown that what we think we do know could be 87% inaccurate. Meaning that what we actually know could be as low as 1%.

Also, this estimate says nothing about the value/significance of that which remains unknown to us. Which could range beyond our comprehension. So your claim that we know all this and that to be true is just not logically supportable. We THINK we know all this and that. We may even BELIEVE that we know all this and that. But our thoughts and beliefs about 'what is' do not define nor contain 'what is'.

... we are here, the earth is in a solar system in a galaxy etc. That which is still unknown, is unknown. It does not diminish or take away from what we have learned and know today.

It's not about what we have learned. It's about what it means. We humans still have no idea where we came from, where we're going, or why we're here. Which defines us as being profoundly ignorant by any reasonable metric. And explains why we behave with such insanely self-destructive abandon.

I think you put too much faith in the magical unknown. History has shown that from our most primitive beginning, the reality we perceive as humans has only ever strengthened in it's surety, not the reverse.

Only via functionality. Apart from what functions (physically), we know nothing.

I love this old jazz song. It not only has never lost it's relevance in terms of it's message (even from 1968 til now), in just a few words it calls EVERYTHING into question. Forcing us to face that 'big unknown'. It's called, "Real Compared To What?"

 

[1213]

...I have love for my friends, love for my family. I've known romantic love. I have general love for fellow sentient beings, and love for less sentient beings.
...

What does “love” mean to you?

 

[Meow Mix]

For me, I have been experiencing a growing disdain for traditional or classic Philosophy. Since the beginning of the Scientific Revolution around the 16th-17th centuries I see a fundamental schism growing between Philosophy and Science. In terms of gaining understanding of reality, I see Science, with its scientific principles and standards, as an improved and superior method of knowledge acquisition, essentially superseding what came before. Sort of like Philosophy 1.0 replaced by Philosophy 2.0 (Science). I also find that much of the language of classic or traditional philosophy has become outdated, antiquated.

I also see Philosophy used as a crutch for those who need or want there to be something beyond our physical reality, and Philosophy in the classic sense seems to provide that crutch. For this and other reasons I lean towards chucking Philosophy in the bin, or at least relegating it to the history section of the library.

I get that physics being 1/3 math, 1/3 physics/science, and 1/3 philosophy is tongue-in-cheek, but how would you describe that philosophy 1/3? Is it simply the hypothesizing, speculating, guessing, imagining side that is present in all scientific inquiry, the part that speculates what lies beyond our ability to gather data?

I guess I'm curious as to whether you see Science and Philosophy as distinctly separate, and if so, what value does Philosophy bring, or a philosophical approach as separate from a scientific approach, to the table, for you.

Somebody said (and it’s falsely attributed to Bohr a lot), “anything beyond the prediction of the outcome of experiment is metaphysics.”

We do philosophy every time we interpret. For instance, take the old canard that everyone (even some physicists) gets wrong about superposition and the wave function, a popular example is Schrödinger’s cat.

People will tell you that the cat is somehow both alive and dead at the same time until you open the box and look: that’s (wrong) metaphysics. Understanding why that’s wrong is also metaphysics.

Or consider Feynman’s many-paths integrals, which (put in oversimplified terms), gives correct answers by calculating every path a particle might take, including from point A to point B in a loopy path, or from point A to Mars and back to point B, etc. But it is never really thought that the particle is actually doing this, the math just gives correct statistical answers. (When we do a thing mathematically but don’t say the thing is real, this is called instrumentalism).

Or consider the interpretation of mass informing the geometry of space: metaphysics. There’s any number of things to bring up.

Without philosophy, scientists couldn’t know what to do with the data. Interpreting is important because it informs a general worldview from which more scientific ideas spring up: if you have bad metaphysics, you’re more and more likely to hypothesize wrong.

There are questions in physics, let me just go back to interpretations of the wave function, such as: we can’t accept realism (that we’re describing a real thing in reality as written) and locality (that causality is always local) at the same time and in the same respect, which are dearly held intuitions.

Or consider that we don’t really know right now whether spacetime is a thing unto itself (background dependence) or just a consequence of relations between other things (background independence). Are strings fundamental or are fields fundamental? Is there a duality, such that it only matters that we pick one at the foundation and stick with it; though either would work?

Realism, locality, multitudinism, duality, all these interpretational things require good metaphysics to be worth a d***.

I am reminded by a meme:
Person 1: why is philosophy important?
Person 2: well, why is science important?
Person 1: because we can…
Person 2: aaaaaand you are doing philosophy.

This probably wasn’t as elegant as I’d want it to be since I’m typing on a phone, but I’ll close out with another quote attributed to Bohr: “shut up and calculate.” Some scientists try to skip the metaphysics altogether; but this is abandoning realism and could probably be construed as a form of instrumentalism. Can’t get away from the philosophy.

 

[Meow Mix]

What does “love” mean to you?

Probably something like “an intense feeling of deep affection.”

 

[MikeF]

I don't think humans have ever been especially given to "pre-packaged answers to the big questions". I think we are programmed to seek consensus, And so are simply willing to cede to the general cultural consensus that we're born into. That doesn't mean we all accept it as "the truth" beyond it's social functionality. It just means we don't bother to deny it, or argue about it; internally or with others. (Unless we become philosophers, artists, or priests.)

And I see little progress in our slide from animism to monotheism, as it's all the same phenomena, just different semantic ideations of it. These appear to be mostly "lateral" differences, as opposed to being "progress", to me.
I am not aware of there not already being all the "space" anyone could need to accept their own profound cognitive limitations. After all, it's an internal paradigm shift. Not something that requires external cooperation.
Logically, we cannot know this to be so. Because we cannot know how what we don't know would change what we think we do know to be true, now, were we to come to know it. Also, keep in mind that the current consensus of astrophysicists estimate our knowledge of the universe at about 13%. Which leaves so much left unknown that what we think we do know could be 87% inaccurate. Meaning that what we actually know could be as low as 1%.

Also, this estimate says nothing about the value/significance of that which remains unknown to us. Which could range beyond our comprehension. So your claim that we know all this and that to be true is just not logically supportable. We THINK we know all this and that. We may even BELIEVE that we know all this and that. But our thoughts and beliefs about 'what is' do not define nor contain 'what is'.
It's not about what we have learned. It's about what it means. We humans still have no idea where we came from, where we're going, or why we're here. Which defines us as being profoundly ignorant by any reasonable metric. And explains why we behave with such insanely self-destructive abandon.
Only via functionality. Apart from what functions (physically), we know nothing.

I love this old jazz song. It not only has never lost it's relevance in terms of it's message (even from 1968 til now), in just a few words it calls EVERYTHING into question. Forcing us to face that 'big unknown'. It's called, "Real Compared To What?"

First, thanks for sharing the song. First time hearing it, really enjoyed it.

When I hear things like, "We only know about 13% of the universe.", or, "We only use 10% of our brain." , I have to chuckle. Not sure what is meant by percentage of knowledge of the universe. If the total, or scale and dimension of the cosmos is not know, how do we know what 100% is? As you say, we don't know what we don't know.

And back to the value/significance question. You are heavily weighted in the presumption that there is a value/significance. As to my earlier point, the more we learn about the cosmos, it only further confirms the reality that we have been aware of for millennia. Each expansion into what is unknown simply strengthens and improves this understanding, which you concede only in terms of what you describe as physicality. But that only strengthens the position that there is nothing but physicality. No heaven in the clouds, no hell beneath our feet. Instead of shedding light on the artificial constructs of reality provided in religion, our expanding understanding only refutes them.

Based on the trend of confirming our perceived reality and giving no indication that there is anything outside of our physical reality, it would not be logical to continue to insist that there is anything outside of our physical reality. Wanting and needing there to be more than physical reality in no way speaks to the probability of there being more.

Whatever remains in "the big unknown" is just that, unknown. We can't put our finger on the scale and direct what we want the unknown to be or contain. The best guesses we can make can only come from the trends of what we have learned to date.

As to where human beings came from, why we are here, and where we are going, we have sufficient data to draw some conclusions. We have come from the antecedent species we have evolved from to become Homo Sapiens. If the question is how life started, we do not know, but have some working hypothesis. Why is there life? The most likely answer is that there is no reason. It is becoming more clear that all of this is the random outcome of a singularity resulting in our expanding cosmos. And yes, how matter forms in its present configuration has all been down to random chance, despite what you wish. So there can be no assumed purpose to the cosmos, no assumed reason why, based on what we observe we can only assume no purpose unless we get new information to indicate otherwise. Hence, where we are going is up to us and the vagaries of the cosmos.

And just has we have been discussing, that people need to acknowledge and accept that there is much that we do not know, they must also accept that all of this mostly likely has no reason or purpose. Unfortunately, the odds are that the majority will not be able to accept this reality.

 

[PureX]

First, thanks for sharing the song. First time hearing it, really enjoyed it.

When I hear things like, "We only know about 13% of the universe.", or, "We only use 10% of our brain." , I have to chuckle. Not sure what is meant by percentage of knowledge of the universe. If the total, or scale and dimension of the cosmos is not know, how do we know what 100% is? As you say, we don't know what we don't know.

And back to the value/significance question. You are heavily weighted in the presumption that there is a value/significance. As to my earlier point, the more we learn about the cosmos, it only further confirms the reality that we have been aware of for millennia. Each expansion into what is unknown simply strengthens and improves this understanding, which you concede only in terms of what you describe as physicality.

The real problem with this 'observation' is that it ignores the innate bias of how we explore the 'unknown'. How we look, and what we look for determines to a very great degree what we can find. And what we do find. Which is WHY we keep finding 'new' information that correlates with the information that we've already found. We are incapable of looking for what we don't even know is there to be found. Because we haven't got the mechanisms for it, or even any idea what those mechanisms might be. We base all our 'explorations' on what we already think we know, and we interpret anything we find according to that presumed knowledge. This is the real problem with not knowing what we don't know. And it's a very significant problem. One that we do not know how to overcome.

Also, regarding my comment about significance, I meant it in terms of context. Everything we 'discover' is within the context of what we already think we know. But we don't know how what we think we know fits into the whole of what there is to know. So we can't know the significance of what we think we know in context of the whole. Our 'understanding' of existence, as 'significant' as it is to us, may be of little actual significance in relation to the whole of 'what is'. And as an example: nearly all of what we humans think we know about the 'nature of existence' is dependent upon functionality within the context of our own existence. But our own existence is really only a very, VERY small fraction of existence as a whole. So the significance of what we know about existence may well be of almost no significance at all in relation to the whole of existence. And we cannot even look for what is significant in that context, because we haven't got even a clue about how or what to look for.

Logically considered, what we think we know about 'what is', (remember that the truth is 'what is') is basically zip relative to the whole. All we have are some facts that are only true relative to the context of physical functionality. And yet we strut around pretending that we have it all 'mostly figured out'. Even as we still have no idea what our place or purpose is in this great existential event. And we routinely destroy ourselves and each other because of that ignorance. We are quite insane as a species.

But that only strengthens the position that there is nothing but physicality. No heaven in the clouds, no hell beneath our feet. Instead of shedding light on the artificial constructs of reality provided in religion, our expanding understanding only refutes them.

Sure, like the fact that; seeing nothing with our eyes closed supports the presumption that there is nothing there to be seen.

As to where human beings came from, why we are here, and where we are going, we have sufficient data to draw some conclusions. We have come from the antecedent species we have evolved from to become Homo Sapiens. If the question is how life started, we do not know, but have some working hypothesis. Why is there life? The most likely answer is that there is no reason. It is becoming more clear that all of this is the random outcome of a singularity resulting in our expanding cosmos. And yes, how matter forms in its present configuration has all been down to random chance, despite what you wish. So there can be no assumed purpose to the cosmos, no assumed reason why, based on what we observe we can only assume no purpose unless we get new information to indicate otherwise. Hence, where we are going is up to us and the vagaries of the cosmos.

This is all just bias-based opinion. It is not knowledge. And by bias I mean profoundly biased by the innate limitations of the human condition.

And just has we have been discussing, that people need to acknowledge and accept that there is much that we do not know, they must also accept that all of this mostly likely has no reason or purpose. Unfortunately, the odds are that the majority will not be able to accept this reality.

What is interesting to me, here, is that it appears to be YOU who cannot accept the depth and profundity of what we don't know. As it's you who is insisting that we what we think we know (about physical functionality) is 'true' just because it's all we can prove to be true (via physical functionality). And then you 'double down' by claiming that there isn't anything else to discover, apart from it. That's quite a tall bias, there, based essentially on our own ignorance.

 

[MikeF]

The real problem with this 'observation' is that it ignores the innate bias of how we explore the 'unknown'. How we look, and what we look for determines to a very great degree what we can find. And what we do find. Which is WHY we keep finding 'new' information that correlates with the information that we've already found. We are incapable of looking for what we don't even know is there to be found. Because we haven't got the mechanisms for it, or even any idea what those mechanisms might be. We base all our 'explorations' on what we already think we know, and we interpret anything we find according to that presumed knowledge. This is the real problem with not knowing what we don't know. And it's a very significant problem. One that we do not know how to overcome.

As we have discussed in the past, I think we both agree, that we human beings are imperfect and fallible creatures. I do not disagree that as with all our many limitations, this is one we must be aware of. But to say that we do not know how to overcome it, or to imply that we can't overcome it, that it presents an impenetrable barrier of some sort, is not true. You fail to appreciate our ingenuity, our boundless curiosity, and our propensity to smash things together just to see what will happen. You are not appreciating those times in history when we have stumbled upon something that is wholly outside of our expectation and what we think we know. As a good example, the idea that time is relative nicely shows that your impenetrable barrier can be overcome.
We have the tool to mitigate these limitations of the fallible human being, and that is the tool of Science. Notice I did not say solve or eliminate, but rather mitigate. And it is this mitigation that gives us some purchase to pull forward and continue to gain new knowledge and understanding of the cosmos. Yes, the process is slow, with fits and starts, and dead ends, but it is working. You seem to actively resist any appreciation of this. Or is it that to admit this, it would diminish in your mind, or humanities collective mind, the likelihood that the imagined impenetrable veil beyond which the magic kingdom lies, is indeed impenetrable and that there is a magic kingdom beyond it.

Also, regarding my comment about significance, I meant it in terms of context. Everything we 'discover' is within the context of what we already think we know. But we don't know how what we think we know fits into the whole of what there is to know. So we can't know the significance of what we think we know in context of the whole. Our 'understanding' of existence, as 'significant' as it is to us, may be of little actual significance in relation to the whole of 'what is'. And as an example: nearly all of what we humans think we know about the 'nature of existence' is dependent upon functionality within the context of our own existence. But our own existence is really only a very, VERY small fraction of existence as a whole. So the significance of what we know about existence may well be of almost no significance at all in relation to the whole of existence. And we cannot even look for what is significant in that context, because we haven't got even a clue about how or what to look for.

When you say that our existence is a very small fraction of existence as a whole, what exactly do you mean? Yes, the matter that makes up known life on this planet is very, very small in relationship to the mass of the cosmos. But, if the laws of physics apply equally throughout the cosmos, then what we learn about our little corner of the cosmos can be extrapolated to the whole. In that sense, the whole is not as mysterious and unknowable as you would like it to be. You love to hold up this dichotomy between the physical world and an artificial construct of a metaphysical world, or realm beyond the physical. From a logic standpoint, there are no grounds for this assumption of another realm. You are succumbing to a need to fill in the unknown with answers, to project onto the unknown a structure and answers that quiet the anxiety related to that big unanswerable question of why we and all of 'what is' exist.

All we have are some facts that are only true relative to the context of physical functionality.

And since there is absolutely no indication that there is anything other than 'physical functionality', as you like to phrase it, then logically that is all we can assume there is. To say anything else would be pure imagination and desire.

And yet we strut around pretending that we have it all 'mostly figured out'.

Please, every age and era has done just this, seen themselves as the pinnacle of human civilization. This is just our flawed and fallible nature expressing itself. It is only one of our many failings that we must be on constant guard against.

Even as we still have no idea what our place or purpose is in this great existential event.

As always, this is a subjective idea. That there should be a purpose and that purpose assumed to exist is not supported by the facts in evidence.

And we routinely destroy ourselves and each other because of that ignorance. We are quite insane as a species.

No, we routinely destroy ourselves because we are animals, evolved to live in small, competing groups. This is not insanity, simply the result of our biological evolution. Either we will evolve beyond our small group instincts or we will destroy ourselves, and if it ends in destruction, the universe will not care.

What is interesting to me, here, is that it appears to be YOU who cannot accept the depth and profundity of what we don't know. As it's you who is insisting that we what we think we know (about physical functionality) is 'true' just because it's all we can prove to be true (via physical functionality). And then you 'double down' by claiming that there isn't anything else to discover, apart from it. That's quite a tall bias, there, based essentially on our own ignorance.

Not sure how we get a ruling as to which one of us is clouded in bias more than the other.
I would ask that you think carefully about what follows: Am I saying that there isn't anything else to discover? No. I think I have been quite clear and have agreed with you that we do not know all there is to know about 'what is'. And I thought that we had common ground in the understanding that what is unknown is exactly that, unknown. We cannot make any definitive statements about what lies in the unknown, especially to make any claim that anything actually exists or is a component of the unknown that is outside the realm of our experience. To do so is simply to create an artificial construct, an imagining. We can't make stuff up and call it real. You cannot create a 'metaphysical realm' outside of our physical reality and call it real.
Working with what we actually know and leaving the unknown as unknown I would consider the least bias approach.

 

[PureX]

As we have discussed in the past, I think we both agree, that we human beings are imperfect and fallible creatures. I do not disagree that as with all our many limitations, this is one we must be aware of. But to say that we do not know how to overcome it, or to imply that we can't overcome it, that it presents an impenetrable barrier of some sort, is not true.

And yet we have not overcome it. And we may well never do so. Because logically speaking, nothing we think we know can be known for certain (... because we can't know how what we don't know would affect the validity of what we think we know, now). And without that certainty, 'knowledge' becomes 'opinion'. We are doomed to live in a world held together in our minds by derived opinions, and no way to verify them apart from the fact that they function in the context of the moment. There is no way over, through, or around this barrier that I am aware of. If there is, please let me know.

You fail to appreciate our ingenuity, our boundless curiosity, and our propensity to smash things together just to see what will happen. You are not appreciating those times in history when we have stumbled upon something that is wholly outside of our expectation and what we think we know. As a good example, the idea that time is relative nicely shows that your impenetrable barrier can be overcome.

Everything is relative, to us. Which means truth is relative, to us. Which is why our presumed 'knowledge' is really just (relatively) derived opinion.

We have the tool to mitigate these limitations of the fallible human being, and that is the tool of Science.

... And art, and philosophy, and religion, and ... but the 'mitigation' remains limited and relative.

Notice I did not say solve or eliminate, but rather mitigate. And it is this mitigation that gives us some purchase to pull forward and continue to gain new knowledge and understanding of the cosmos.

All science can tell us is how the cosmos functions, physically. Being a philosophical materialist, this would be considered good enough. But philosophical materialism is a failed philosophical proposition. And it failed several centuries ago; soon after it was proposed. It is now re-emerging as "scientism"; a sort of fanatical, anti-religious, religion. But it has still not overcome it's past failure, so far as I am aware.

Yes, the process is slow, with fits and starts, and dead ends, but it is working. You seem to actively resist any appreciation of this. Or is it that to admit this, it would diminish in your mind, or humanities collective mind, the likelihood that the imagined impenetrable veil beyond which the magic kingdom lies, is indeed impenetrable and that there is a magic kingdom beyond it.

I do not resist humanity's ingenuity. I resist the blinding ignorance and innate self-contradiction that accompanies philosophical materialism. Yes, we humans are able to explore physical functionality, and use what we learn to our own advantage (if we can figure out what that advantage actually is). But this is not the same as knowing truth. Because truth is more than physical functionality. And how much more, we can only speculate.

When you say that our existence is a very small fraction of existence as a whole, what exactly do you mean?

I mean that everything we experience and cognate as 'existing' is only a very small fraction of what actually exists. And we can surmise this from the fact that we keep discovering and rediscovering how wrong and incomplete our cognition of existence is, as existence keeps manifesting in ways that we did not expect and could not have anticipated.

Yes, the matter that makes up known life on this planet is very, very small in relationship to the mass of the cosmos. But, if the laws of physics apply equally throughout the cosmos, then what we learn about our little corner of the cosmos can be extrapolated to the whole.

That's a big IF. So big that we don't have a way of even testing it. Every way we could invent would be designed from and for the assumption that 'physicality' is uniformly omnipresent.

In that sense, the whole is not as mysterious and unknowable as you would like it to be.

You meant, 'according to that assumption'.

You love to hold up this dichotomy between the physical world and an artificial construct of a metaphysical world, or realm beyond the physical. From a logic standpoint, there are no grounds for this assumption of another realm.

Logic IS a manifestation of that "other realm". How is it that you can't see this?

The failure of philosophical materialism came from it's inability to recognize or respond to the philosophical proposition called "gestalt". That is that the whole can transcend the sum of it's parts. The main example being (immaterial) consciousness resulting from a collection of unconscious (material) parts. Or animate life forms resulting from a collection of inanimate non-living physical parts. This simple observable fact of our existence exploded the materialist's assertion that reality is defined by and limited to physicality. And yet here we are several centuries later, still stumbling over the same materialist assertions. Mostly because science has become, for some people, a new kind of "God" ... their new and exclusive source of all truth and meaning regarding the mystery of existence.

And since there is absolutely no indication that there is anything other than 'physical functionality', as you like to phrase it, then logically that is all we can assume there is. To say anything else would be pure imagination and desire.

There is cognitive functionality; transcending the physical functionality from which it emerged, because the whole can transcend the sum of the parts.

As always, this is a subjective idea. That there should be a purpose and that purpose assumed to exist is not supported by the facts in evidence.

All ideas are subjective. You are posing an irrelevant/irrational distinction. And "no facts in evidence" is just another way of saying, "I don't know". And that's called "arguing from ignorance" if you assert that "I don't know" means "there's nothing to know".

No, we routinely destroy ourselves because we are animals, evolved to live in small, competing groups. This is not insanity, simply the result of our biological evolution. Either we will evolve beyond our small group instincts or we will destroy ourselves, and if it ends in destruction, the universe will not care.

No animal species that I am aware of routinely attacks each other, en masse, and destroys itself in the name of 'competition'. Our doing so is not the result of natural evolution, it's the result of cognitive transcendence that may or may not prove to have been advantageous to the existence of the participants.

Not sure how we get a ruling as to which one of us is clouded in bias more than the other.

"More" is probably an irrelevant distinction. It's 'the fact of' that matters.

I would ask that you think carefully about what follows: Am I saying that there isn't anything else to discover? No. I think I have been quite clear and have agreed with you that we do not know all there is to know about 'what is'. And I thought that we had common ground in the understanding that what is unknown is exactly that, unknown. We cannot make any definitive statements about what lies in the unknown, especially to make any claim that anything actually exists or is a component of the unknown that is outside the realm of our experience. To do so is simply to create an artificial construct, an imagining. We can't make stuff up and call it real.

Our "making stuff up" is a very real and true part of 'what is' us. Imagination is not "unreal", nor is it "untrue". It is simply a metaphysical aspect of our existence. Our imagination is as 'real and true' as our DNA is. You're having difficulty understanding this because you have gotten stuck in the trap of philosophical materialism; that asserts that reality is defined by and limited to physicality. But it isn't, and we aren't. Our existence is both physical, and metaphysical. Both material, and cognitive.

You cannot create a 'metaphysical realm' outside of our physical reality and call it real.

And yet here we are, both physical matter and cognition, as real as real can be.

Working with what we actually know and leaving the unknown as unknown I would consider the least bias approach.

Sure, but where is that line?

 

[MikeF]

There is cognitive functionality; transcending the physical functionality from which it emerged, because the whole can transcend the sum of the parts.

To simply say cognition transcends the physical in no way proves or demonstrates that it does. I would argue that the evidence clearly shows that cognition is wholly dependent on the physical makeup and function of the central nervous system. Cognition is directly affected and altered by all manner of physical interactions and insults, from the physical layout of the nervous system, to chemical, hormonal, disease processes, injury, electrical stimulation. All these can affect and alter cognition. Cognition hasn't transcended anything. It is intimately dependent on the physical.

All ideas are subjective. You are posing an irrelevant/irrational distinction. And "no facts in evidence" is just another way of saying, "I don't know". And that's called "arguing from ignorance" if you assert that "I don't know" means "there's nothing to know".

To hypothesize about what may be discovered in the unknown in any meaningful way, it would be based on extrapolating from what is know. To assert that something exists beyond our ability to verify it is meaningless, since we can assert an infinite number of imagined and untrue things.

No animal species that I am aware of routinely attacks each other, en masse, and destroys itself in the name of 'competition'. Our doing so is not the result of natural evolution, it's the result of cognitive transcendence that may or may not prove to have been advantageous to the existence of the participants.

Many small group/pack mammalian species compete between same-species groups. If any were to aggregate in the numbers that we do, maybe you would see similar behavior. To be a good scientist and draw sound conclusions you need to look at all the variables.

I'm not sure what you mean by cognitive transcendence. If it is your personal hypothesis, I would need the terms definition and some supporting evidence or examples to evaluate it.

Our "making stuff up" is a very real and true part of 'what is' us. Imagination is not "unreal", nor is it "untrue". It is simply a metaphysical aspect of our existence. Our imagination is as 'real and true' as our DNA is. You're having difficulty understanding this because you have gotten stuck in the trap of philosophical materialism; that asserts that reality is defined by and limited to physicality. But it isn't, and we aren't. Our existence is both physical, and metaphysical. Both material, and cognitive.
And yet here we are, both physical matter and cognition, as real as real can be.

Yes, we think, we imagine, we have cognition. None of that is in any other realm that the physical reality in which we exist. What you think and imagine is the express product of your unique central nervous system. As described above, cognition is intimately tied and dependent on your physical makeup and your experiences. No other realm is required to explain what we observe, and the creation of one does not fit with what we observe. Any thoughts, ideas, or imaginings that reside in your head, are trapped there unless you physically share them in some way. They have no reality outside of that.

 

[1213]

Probably something like “an intense feeling of deep affection.”

Ok, that is interesting. To me love means to care without conditions and it is not really affection, nor emotion/feeling.

Love is patient and is kind; love doesn't envy. Love doesn't brag, is not proud, doesn't behave itself inappropriately, doesn't seek its own way, is not provoked, takes no account of evil; doesn't rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth;
1 Cor. 13:4-6