Why Didn't the Universe Always Exist?

[mikkel_the_dane]

Or so philosophers like to claim. Not all thinking is philosophy. Once we get away from idle speculation into testing ideas through observation, we get away from philosophy and into science and knowledge.

Yeah, problem is that it is still thinking. And you haven't explain how to in the effect solve what correspondence is in regards to truth, because that is in effect what you claim in regards to objective reality.
So just forget science and philosophy and explain the problem of correspondence in regards to truth and objective reality.

 

[Polymath257]

Very good. Good work.


You should read some philosophers of science without just making things up. Try Samir Okaha.

Any recommendations for specific readings?

Read Thomas Kuhn. Don't make things up because you just don't like to hear some truth.

Kuhn made some good points, but his analysis of the Copernican revolution had a lot of deficiencies. In particular, the time it took to accept the Copernican model had more to do with the time it took to get good evidence than it did any fundamental resistance to the ideas. It wasn't until after Kepler and Galileo that the Copernican model was simple enough to really compete effectively. By that time, Aristotelian physics was starting to be shown wrong, so that made the transition possible. But getting to that place took time and *evidence*.

 

[Polymath257]

Yeah, problem is that it is still thinking. And you haven't explain how to in the effect solve what correspondence is in regards to truth, because that is in effect what you claim in regards to objective reality.
So just forget science and philosophy and explain the problem of correspondence in regards to truth and objective reality.

Not required. Reality is *defined* by what works.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not required. Reality is *defined* by what works.

But that is internal in your mind both of defined and works as they are in effect cognitive words about how something makes sense to you. You still haven't connected it to objective reality. In effect for truth you are using an internal model of a sort of coherence and not correspondence.
What is defined is always to a human. What works is always to a human. I want independent of a human. That is your standard from other threads about this.

 

[Polymath257]

But that is internal in your mind both of defined and works as they are in effect cognitive words about how something makes sense to you. You still haven't connected it to objective reality. In effect for truth you are using an internal model of a sort of coherence and not correspondence.
What is defined is always to a human. What works is always to a human. I want independent of a human. That is your standard from other threads about this.

As an example, we cannot prove we are not in a simulation or brains in a vat. There is no possible evidence that would show those views to be wrong.

And *that* is precisely why they should be rejected! The fact that there is no possible way, even in theory, to show them wrong is what makes them meaningless.

So, if your notion of 'objective reality' allows for those models, then, as I see it, the problem is with the models you allow. Those *cannot* be 'objective reality' because they are meaningless and cannot be tested.

Yes, at this point, all investigations are by humans. We investigate to find models that work in the sense of being testable and accurate after testing. That is what *defines* objective reality.

You say you want something independent of humans. Well, the fact that it is humans doing the work means that is impossible. But what we can strive for is to determine how being human might bias us and to attempt to compensate for those biases. We can study ourselves and find our weaknesses and attempt to manage them. Again, that is why having a variety of perspectives is a good thing: it forces us to test our assumptions and make sure (as much as possible) we aren't engaged in confirmation bias.

If we ever find another intelligent species that searched for truth, we might be able to exchange ideas and tests and find that we had more biases than we thought. This would not surprise me.

So, yes, the standard is to find truth independent of human biases. The conflict is that this search must be done by humans. So we need to go carefully and skeptically and test all ideas about the world at every possible point.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

As an example, we cannot prove we are not in a simulation or brains in a vat. There is no possible evidence that would show those views to be wrong.

And *that* is precisely why they should be rejected! The fact that there is no possible way, even in theory, to show them wrong is what makes them meaningless.

...

That is internal thinking in you and I think differently. And you are not a we for all humans as you have no objective evidence for that. So you are as subjective as philosophers. Now please site the physical objective scientific theory of we as you use it. You can't as you are cognitive just like philosophers.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It is about the manifestation/incarnation/evolution of God through the elemental, mineral, plant, animal, human, angelic, archangelic, etc., kingdoms to realize Itself. At the end of evolutionary unfoldment, one realises one is God. God/Existence is expressing itself through all things, and awareness has unfolded to a lessor or greater extent according to the evolutionary state, The human soul cannot become an angel without giving up its desire to be a human.

The purpose of religious practice is to give up worldly desires to discover the underlying spiritual nature of being. It requires many incarnations in the human kingdom to become an immortal angelic being. The world is presently near a judgement where there will be many human souls becoming immortals, and likewise many atheists who will have failed this time around and have to repeat. There is no hell per se, but reincarnating repeatedly in smelly frail bodies will eventually cause the respective souls to dig a little deeper and begin to discover what and who they really are in the context of all existence/God.

Thanks for that, but I still don't see anything substantive there and no reason to investigate this area further. I have yet to read about any concrete benefit or useful insights gleaned from anybody who uses that kind of language. It's always just poetry to me: "the manifestation/incarnation/evolution of God through the elemental, mineral, plant, animal, human, angelic, archangelic, etc., kingdoms to realize Itself." How about we just say that the universe evolves and leave out the gods and archangels?

Whatever your reasons for devoting so much time to such meditations is not coming through. You said that there was no benefit to it, but I can't believe you do it without some kind of reward or return, yet you don't articulate what that is and I can't detect any clue as to why you do it or why you would recommend others do it.

I am saying (1) I do not go along with the notion that humans are animals because that is what I discern from the Bible.

I know. I know where your science comes from.

Why do you suppose that they teach you that what obviously is an animal - man- is not that? It's because they want you to believe that you are inherently different and special due to an unseen god creating you in its image and inserting a soul into you but not the beasts. OK. I suppose that's a harmless belief. But what would be the harm in understanding that man is an animal? Do you find that demeaning?

The world is corrupt in most senses. People have greatly damaged the atmosphere, life is treacherous in many senses and murders and mass murders continue and I'm not speaking only of school killings or surprise shootings in Las Vegas, things like that. I knew of the world's awful situation due to greed and selfishness long before I ever saw what the Bible had to say.

You just keep repeating that and ignoring my responses to it. Are not aware of any happiness or goodness in the world? It's all around you, but since you never mention it, maybe a confirmation bias filters it out for you. It's a kind of blindness. Just as for a literally blind person, it's always as dark as the night, you also don't see light. You don't see beauty. You don't see love. You don't hear laughter. The only things you ever mention are corruption, violence, greed, pollution, suicide, drug overdose, and the like.

It might be useful to you to notice that, ask why it is so, and ask how you can have a bit of that light in your own life. It's there all around you, but you don't seem to see it.

I resent your religion doing that to you on your behalf. It serves them to have you see the world so darkly. It makes you more fearful, less a denizen of our world and more of an alien in it seeking protection and shelter that only it can give you, so you cling tightly to your faith. That's the point. That's how it serves them but costs you.

The same thing is done in the American political arena, where people are indoctrinated into a dark mindset which serves the people disseminating such ideas at the cost of those who hold them - people who are taught to see the world in terms immigrants coming for their jobs, Jews coming to replace them, liberals coming for their precious guns, Marxists and Communists everywhere, and all manner of grievance and complaint including being upset that a biological male wants to be treated as a female.

You should read some philosophers of science without just making things up.

More of your offensive and presumptuous condescension and hand-waiving without counterargument. You're not nearly as smart as you pretend to be. And if you choose to continue to prop yourself up on my back, expect to read more words like these.

I don't just make things up. You do, like your claim that scientism is a problem. You just say it but can't defend it, and when rebutted, you go into your demeaning mode, generally writing no more than "research it." Look at how often you've done that in just the last two weeks:

 

[muhammad_isa]

And philosophy has a very poor track record for finding the truth..

The scientific method is part of philosophical thought.
Many people want to put academia into separate boxes, while in reality they overlap.

First, philosophers disagree with each other.

Yes .. we do.
There are many reasons for this.

Each makes their arguments, and all seem to reach conclusions, but the end results all differ. That shows the process is unreliable.

That is your conclusion. We are all capable of thought, and responsible for our own beliefs and deeds.

Second, even when the majority of philosophers agree with each other, when the ideas are testable, they tend to be wrong. Kant thought that the only geometry possible was Euclidean geometry. All other philosophers through time agreed. They were all wrong.

Right .. many were wrong .. but you are not going to point out those that are right (or unknown),
are you!?

The problem is that there is no way to determine the truth when two philosophers disagree. there is no way to *test* to see even which one is wrong.

Speak for yourself .. I am quite capable of deciding for myself .. and making 'informed' decisions.

And that means that philosophy is NOT a good way to get to truth..

It doesn't mean that .. without study and thought, it is easy to be fooled. A broad understanding
of topics is necessary to put scientific discovery, for example, into context.

This is why many universities make it compulsory to study other disciplines alongside
their specialities. Some people ignore it, or have no interest.

This ultimately shows that philosophy is simply a matter of confirmation bias among intelligent people. That is a very poor way to find truth.

That applies to the physical sciences too. Many people effectively worship what we currently
know, until somebody comes along 'thinking outside the box', and updates our understanding..

Well, this is what *some* philosophers claim, but should we believe them? Do they really have good reasons for their claims, or are they simply engaging in more confirmation bias?

That's the thing .. words and numbers have a different nature. You are right to be skeptical.
..but not dismissive, I would say.

You know, the scientific method.

I do, and highly value it.

 

[gnostic]

Philosophy deals with these sorts of issues, and explores various possibilities.
..and then, of course, we have religion .. which many people believe to be true.

It is not always necessary to "see something" in a physical sense, to understand that a philosophical
viewpoint is more than likely true. That's would be a narrow-minded view of reality.
My reality is formed by many different considerations .. not just physical science.

People can take whatever philosophical stance they like .. and can change their mind if they like.
Take away our weaning .. our language .. our education .. our conditioning .. what is your reality then??

You are evading my questions.

Which philosophy?

There are many philosophies, not one philosophy.

And of those, none of them really deal with the universe…

That deals with our universe only. It cannot tell us anything about whether time might be eternal,
or limited to our experiences in this universe, for example.

And here we are.

Which philosophy deal with another universe or outside of this universe?

None.

And if you think such philosophy existed in a religion, or in mysticism, or in spirituality, then you’re right - I cannot accept any of these philosophies seriously, because every single one of them, are merely based on fantasies, and cannot be verify in any way.

All I have seen in these types of philosophies (from religions & from mysticisms) are no better than sci-fi novels, comic books or horror fictions - all very creative & entertaining, and without a doubt, very interesting, but no less fictitious or mythological.

The problems with most philosophies (not just talking about religious philosophies, I am talking about philosophies in general), they are mostly just “talk” - they are just blah, blah, blah, without any substance, and no way to verify if what they say to be true. And they often relied on confirmation biases and circular reasoning to support or to justify their existence as a “philosophy“.

One of the traps, that many so-called philosophers fall into, is sophistry.

Anyway, you still won’t tell me, which philosophy you are referring to, and I suspects that I won’t get a straight answer from you.

I am going to bed, so good night, and have a great weekend.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The heart is a very poor way to determine truth (as opposed to goals and values). use the brain for truth and the heart for values.

..but they overlap .. and scientific truths are not the same as moral truths .. but they are
connected. Everything is, in my reality .. which I have found out through experience.

When at school, I saw different subjects as unrelated, but in reality they are not.

Again, BOTH the heart and the brain are required for balance. Both have their function and both have their limitations. Use each as best: the brain for truth and the heart for values.

My 'central processor' does not compartmentalize in that way.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Reality is *defined* by what works.

You are describing our common physical reality .. but ignore anything else,
suggesting it is not worth exploring, as nothing can be empirically proved.

We are all unique individuals, with different experiences. I for one, do not agree
with your narrow definition of reality. My experiences are different to yours, clearly.

 

[gnostic]

That applies to the physical sciences too. Many people effectively worship what we currently
know, until somebody comes along 'thinking outside the box', and updates our understanding..

I have come across this before - “thinking outside the box“ - quite recently.

This “thinking outside the box“ work some of the times, but most of times, they are wrong.

if you seriously believe that “thinking outside the box“ will guarantee to getting to right answer, then you are dead wrong.

They are only true, if you can test them in some ways.

 

[ratiocinator]

..but they overlap .. and scientific truths are not the same as moral truths .. but they are
connected.

This is true but totally irrelevant when it comes to the nature of time, which is where all this started. You seem to be trying to bring in anything you can that is different from science as some sort of smokescreen to hide the fact that what was under discussion was about our physical reality and hence in the realm of scientific investigation.

There is no moral aspect to whether time may have had a start or not.

 

[muhammad_isa]

And here we are.

Which philosophy deal with another universe or outside of this universe?

None.

Not true..
Philosophy_of_space_and_time - Wikipedia

The problems with most philosophies (not just talking about religious philosophies, I am talking about philosophies in general), they are mostly just “talk” - they are just blah, blah, blah, without any substance, and no way to verify if what they say to be true..

That's right .. they are 'food for thought' .. we are not going to agree with them all.

 

[ratiocinator]

Not true..
Philosophy_of_space_and_time - Wikipedia

Can you quote what that page has to say about other universes?

 

[firedragon]

Any recommendations for specific readings?

Yep. Given already.

Kuhn made some good points, but his analysis of the Copernican revolution had a lot of deficiencies. In particular, the time it took to accept the Copernican model had more to do with the time it took to get good evidence than it did any fundamental resistance to the ideas. It wasn't until after Kepler and Galileo that the Copernican model was simple enough to really compete effectively. By that time, Aristotelian physics was starting to be shown wrong, so that made the transition possible. But getting to that place took time and *evidence*.

Irrelevant.

 

[firedragon]

More of your offensive and presumptuous condescension and hand-waiving without counterargument. You're not nearly as smart as you pretend to be. And if you choose to continue to prop yourself up on my back, expect to read more words like these.

Read up.

 

[firedragon]

Scientists understand the limits of knowledge as do scientifically literate lay persons.

Of course scientists do understand. It's the dogmatic evangelist who does not.

 

[Polymath257]

Yep. Given already.

Well, then I missed them. Care to give them again?

Irrelevant.

Not actually. His point dealt with how science changes paradigms and the fact that evidence is required for such changes and takes time to acquire is directly relevant to his point.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, then I missed them. Care to give them again?

Not actually. His point dealt with how science changes paradigms and the fact that evidence is required for such changes and takes time to acquire is directly relevant to his point.

What are paradigms?