quote:

Originally posted by Renegade You're confusing stability for order. All existent things in the universe - on the scale of the atom right up to the scale of large clusters of galaxies - are stable structures: if they weren't stable than they wouldn't exist. In this sense, all systems - from solar systems, to ecological systems, to molecular systems, to biological systems - tend, in a sense, towards stability. This is not through design or omniscient forethought, but for the simple tautological reason that if these systems did not tend towards stability then they just simply wouldn't exist. If you ever find your credulity stretched about how something seemingly so "ordered" could have arisen without design, think about how it could have arisen though some system - or process - tending towards stability: just about everything, from evolution to the motion of the planets, no longer seems quite so extraordinary if you can conceive of them in these terms.

that is a fucking sensational post. ive tried many times to put that viewpoint forward and struggled with my explanation. cheers!

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby There is no data whatsoever saying that anything anywhere leans towards either stability nor chaos. As a matter of fact, both terms, "stability" and "entropy", are made-up terms that human beings have applied to systems to explain their erratic behavior.

no, thats the same as saying height, width, depth & time are just human constructs which theyre clearly not. the laws of the universe are a type of stability in and of themselves.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN no, thats the same as saying height, width, depth & time are just human constructs which theyre clearly not. the laws of the universe are a type of stability in and of themselves.

They are human constructs, actually...

It's your way that you've been taught, and an effective way, to view the world to explain why objects get larger and smaller as they move.

I'm not saying that they're necessarily wrong, because they're not.

But you've adapted to that way of viewing reality. There are actually no dimensions, but that doesn't mean that M-Brane's eleven dimensions don't exist. They exist if we make use of them and can define them, though our constructs will always be breakable since they are not the actual reality around us.

I'd like to see your height, width, and depth in certain areas of space-time; I bet they would curve into all sorts of craziness that we have not yet created constructs for.

I'm still waiting to hear what these "laws of the universe" you keep blathering about are. What are the laws of the universe, hmm?

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade You're confusing stability for order. All existent things in the universe - on the scale of the atom right up to the scale of large clusters of galaxies - are stable structures: if they weren't stable than they wouldn't exist. In this sense, all systems - from solar systems, to ecological systems, to molecular systems, to biological systems - tend, in a sense, towards stability. This is not through design or omniscient forethought, but for the simple tautological reason that if these systems did not tend towards stability then they just simply wouldn't exist. If you ever find your credulity stretched about how something seemingly so "ordered" could have arisen without design, think about how it could have arisen though some system - or process - tending towards stability: just about everything, from evolution to the motion of the planets, no longer seems quite so extraordinary if you can conceive of them in these terms.

I mostly agree with what you're saying, but any stable system needs some sense of order for stability to be possible in the first place. I don't see them as completely distinct ideas with no interrelation.

NOTE: I didn't read your entire post, only the section PKC quoted. So my comment isn't in related to the original context. I'm just adding on to what you said.

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby They are human constructs, actually...

insofar as we are limited by language to describe anything in existance, then yes, you are right. however all these things exist outside human experience or construction, so as such they are not "human constructs", merely the words to describe them are. why argue about anything if everything can be termed a construct?

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby I'm still waiting to hear what these "laws of the universe" you keep blathering about are. What are the laws of the universe, hmm?

well, laws concerning gravity or the speed of light etc. again, our understanding of them might be a human construct, but they exist and function whether we understand them or not.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z I mostly agree with what you're saying, but any stable system needs some sense of order for stability to be possible in the first place. I don't see them as completely distinct ideas with no interrelation.

but it doesnt necessarily follow that the system of order is created by a deity. is there a reason your "sense of order" doesn't/can't exist in the same way that the stable system exists?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN but it doesnt necessarily follow that the system of order is created by a deity. is there a reason your "sense of order" doesn't/can't exist in the same way that the stable system exists?

No, it doesn't. And I didn't say it did. I also don't see how that's evidence for the contrary.

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby There is no data whatsoever saying that anything anywhere leans towards either stability nor chaos. As a matter of fact, both terms, "stability" and "entropy", are made-up terms that human beings have applied to systems to explain their erratic behavior.

Of course "stability" and "entropy" are human concepts: all concepts are. That is not to say, though, that these terms are not demonstrably congruous with the world we experience and therefore likely a property of nature rather than the mind. In fact, the definition you inadvertantly offered there - the propensity of a system towards erratic behaviour - is a pretty good means of objectively distinguishing a stable system from an entropic one.

quote:

I think you have some wisdom to garner still from life, BUT I will say that you have the foundations of intellect planted.

I'm not sure when it was that you were annointed as the ultimate arbiter of human wisdom, but thanks I guess.

quote:

Interesting how you use the word "science" as if it an antithesis to all other ways of viewing reality.

I was responding to what TVD said about ID and whether the claims it makes are scientific, not making claims myself about the epistemological validity of science. Nonetheless, I would still argue that the philosophy of science is most certainly an antithesis to all other philosophical systems: name me one epistemology that even approaches the success of science in defining the nature of the world we experience?

quote:

Remember, it's all subjective collections of objective data. Science just does it in a fabulously structured way. Have you ever done an experiment in your life? Do you understand the process of weeding out the unknowns and the possibles in order to derive just one fraction of a piece of data that could be potentially correct? Science deals almost completely in this. A real scientist questions everything he's been taught, and everything that he knows and does himself.

Yes, thanks. I understand how science works.

Incidentally - intentionally or otherwise - you've just offered a pretty good justification as to why science is a superior philosophical system to all others. The concept of introducing doubt and seeking to eliminate it is the closest thing to a solid epistemological foundation we, as human beings, will ever reach.

quote:

Super-String theory is no longer functional; it has been replaced with 11-dimensional M-Brane.

Er, M-Theory is superstring theory.

quote:

You say "the fact that all matter and energy balances out.....". You do realize that this is not a fact, right? Starting your sentence like that is not wise, especially since there are very few facts and very much conjecture.

Okay, I'll bite: what would you say constitutes a "fact"? On what grounds would you argue that this is not a fact?

quote:

You think the universe balances because of positive and negative curvatures? I assume you were trying to say that the universe is probably (as we can tell now by our current tools) essentially flat like a plate. Because I assure you, if you go by einstein's (and all future physicists after this) papers on relative space-time, then there are curvatures, else there will be no more days and nights and no more revolutions of the earth and moon (and sun even).

I think you misunderstood me. The fabric of the space-time is curved by the existence of matter, but only in specific locations. If there was more than a certain "critical density" of matter and energy in the universe as a whole, then all of fabric of space-time would be positively curved. If there was less than this "critical density" of matter and energy in the universe, then the universe would be negatively curved. When we measure the curvature of the space-time, however, we find it to be neither:

quote:

General relativity relates the curvature of space (and of time) to the amount of mass (and energy) in the universe. Space is flat if the density of mass (plus energy divided by c2) is equal to a value known as the critical density. (It's negatively curved if the density is lower, and positively curved if the density is higher.) In an expanding universe like our own, the critical density depends on the expansion rate. The mathematical relations of general relativity reveal that the critical density is proportional to the square of the Hubble constant H0. For the measured value, H0 = 70 km/sec/Mpc, the critical density required for the universe to be perfectly flat turns out to be only 9 x 10-27 kg/meter^3.

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu..._9/notes40.html

Space-time is flat because there is just the right amount of matter and energy in the universe to sustain this shape. It would therefore be tempting to suggest that the universe is "fine-tuned" in this reagrd, as TVD put it, but my argument is that there are credible explanations (especially in superstring theory) as to why the universe must take this shape, rather than it merely being a matter of coincidence or divine intervention.

quote:

As for "dark energy", that doesn't really mean anything. I assume you meant dark matter.

No, I meant dark energy - the energy we don't yet understand that is causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate at an ever increasing rate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

quote:

I would not call it GOD, nor would I think it mattered. But it's very possible that we are the echoes of a complex series of events taking place in the past that specifically created our potential existence for some purpose (or no purpose).

Of course it's "possible": everything is "possible", which is what makes "possible" such a meaningless word. The fact that something is "possible", however, does not mean that it isn't demonstrably "untrue". As such, I can only ask you what it is that you find in the universe that might incline you to believe that the deliberate creation of our existence is "true" rather than merely "possible".

quote:

Blah blah blah, you want to dance with the bible-thumpers by thumping your own doctrines? Whatever.

You're equating the beautifully expounded philosophy of Camus and Sartre with the dogma of Christianity? Whatever.

quote:

By the way, there are no "laws of the universe" necessarily.

Elements within the universe behave within certain observable parameters measurable and predictable to the millionth decimal place. If these are not "laws" then the word has no meaning.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade I don't think anyone could find joy or relief in the realisation that there are no absolute morals. People do not become atheists to abandon moral responsiblities - in fact, I'd argue that responsibility is stronger within atheistic world-views, for the simple reason that we recognise that we and we alone are responsible for how we treat each other: there is no God to judge or punish us, so we are left personally responsible for the consequences of our actions. I have never met anyone who believes that he can act with impunity just because God does not exist. If the only thing stopping you from raping or mudering someone is the idea that there is a God who would not look favourably on such actions, then I am genuinely concerned for you. Whether you like it or not, it is you - not God - that is responsible for your actions and for treating other people with the respect they deserve. The existence of God then, in this regard, is completely irrelevent.

I do not know whether or not people become atheists to abandon "moral responsibilities" and I do not know whether they "find joy or relief in the realisation that there are no absolute morals". It is not the point of this post to discuss these things. I want to contend with your statements about "absolute morals" and "God".

You are making these statements, whether you realize it or not, with the assumption that everyone agrees that acting "morally", i.e. not "raping or murdering someone", is the right/better/more beneficial for the individual/constructed society/propagation of genes thing to do. Only then do your statements about "responsibility" and "concern" have any meaning.

If someone does not agree that killing you and raping your wife are a "bad" thing and should be avoided, then you should not be "concerned" about the fact that they are afraid of God's punishment is the only thing that keeps them from doing so. You should thank that existant or non existant God.

For someone who does not believe in "absolute morals" they have no moral responsibilities except that which they make for themselves. To go on about "higher calling" or "greater good" means nothing if there is nothing "higher" or "greater" than humans and what they make up.

"Whether you like it or not, it is you - not God - that is responsible for your actions and for treating other people with the respect they deserve. The existence of God then, in this regard, is completely irrelevent."
Yes you are responsible for your own actions; and God is irrelevant for that. However what "the respect they deserve" means something different for each person and to say otherwise is untrue. Without a "God" or "absolute morals", saying anything else is merely you trying to force your opinion on someone else.

You can go on and on about how your "opinion" or "view" is the best way for humans to "get along" or "progress"; you can spew facts and figures about how history has shown that those who "get along" find the most "success"; you can argue that without agreeing to and following a set of "morals" society will collapse; you can resort to saying the the best way to propogate your genes is to, essentially, have "moral responsibility"; but all you are doing is blowing smoke up your own ass to hide the fact that you can't face the full implications of saying "God is dead".

Sorry to hijack this thread, but I really have a problem evolutionary psychology. I do not whether evolution is true or not nor do I know whether there is a God. I also do not know whether you were trying to argue evolutionary psychology there, but it sure sounded like it.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Nonetheless, I would still argue that the philosophy of science is most certainly an antithesis to all other philosophical systems: name me one epistemology that even approaches the success of science in defining the nature of the world we experience?

Maybe this is true; maybe the problem with a lot of scientists (and pseudo-scientists) is that you're standing behind a bulk of knowledge created by others, with no capacity either spiritually or scientifically to unravel this universe for yourself.

quote:

Yes, thanks. I understand how science works.

Maybe; maybe not. We'll see, eh?

quote:

Incidentally - intentionally or otherwise - you've just offered a pretty good justification as to why science is a superior philosophical system to all others. The concept of introducing doubt and seeking to eliminate it is the closest thing to a solid epistemological foundation we, as human beings, will ever reach.

Superior philosophical system?

You missed the point. It's a different beast, just as religion and philosophy are different beasts. They go about different ways of connecting to what is going on in the world around you.

It's your own fault that your mind can't wrap around this concept due to your dependence on the stability of a singular concept (in this case science).

Is it superior system to others in some or many ways? Yes.

Would I ever be so daft and unwise as to say that is it offering justification for itself as a superior system to ALL OTHERS?

No, never. Maybe when I was 15, but not now.

quote:

Er, M-Theory is superstring theory.

Yes; and windows IS ms dos.

quote:

Okay, I'll bite: what would you say constitutes a "fact"? On what grounds would you argue that this is not a fact?

What constitutes circular logic? Sounds like you have a religious faith in something you should be questioning.

quote:

Space-time is flat because there is just the right amount of matter and energy in the universe to sustain this shape. It would therefore be tempting to suggest that the universe is "fine-tuned" in this reagrd, as TVD put it, but my argument is that there are credible explanations (especially in superstring theory) as to why the universe must take this shape, rather than it merely being a matter of coincidence or divine intervention.

You really believe space-time is mostly flat as a whole?!

Maybe it's POSSIBLE, but it's more likely that we simply don't have the proper capacity and the proper tools of measurement to see what is actually there.

Superstring Theory, if you insist, does itself build the fabric of a matrix of universes balancing around and into each other. You can't possibly bring up superstring theory in the same paragraph where you claim that the universe is flat.

Question everything, and maybe one day you'll come up with a unique idea.

quote:

No, I meant dark energy - the energy we don't yet understand that is causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate at an ever increasing rate:

Oh, okay!

We don't understand it and yet it's *causing* the accelerating expansion of the universe, eh?

LOL

We don't understand something, that's for sure.

But I think you don't understand something, and that's the nature of energy.

You think you know shit about anything?

Ask any, ANY, physicist what "ENERGY" even is, and you'll get a surprise that will turn your little scientific bubble upside down! LOL

quote:

Of course it's "possible": everything is "possible", which is what makes "possible" such a meaningless word. The fact that something is "possible", however, does not mean that it isn't demonstrably "untrue". As such, I can only ask you what it is that you find in the universe that might incline you to believe that the deliberate creation of our existence is "true" rather than merely "possible".

That's cute... you picked up on the identifier word "possible" instead of picking up on the idea that I was trying to convey to you. I hope you can fix that error in your mind and then re-ask this question in a way that fits the idea I was presenting to you.

If you need me to elaborate for you, then just ask.

quote:

You're equating the beautifully expounded philosophy of Camus and Sartre with the dogma of Christianity? Whatever.

I LOLed at your use of ism jizzum to categorize your reality.

quote:

Elements within the universe behave within certain observable parameters measurable and predictable to the millionth decimal place. If these are not "laws" then the word has no meaning.

Ah... you should try your hand at chemistry then!

You'll absolutely LOVE how your precious elements love to follow rules! /sarcasm

Cheers, be well =)

quote:

Originally posted by NebulousQ I do not know whether or not people become atheists to abandon "moral responsibilities" and I do not know whether they "find joy or relief in the realisation that there are no absolute morals". It is not the point of this post to discuss these things. I want to contend with your statements about "absolute morals" and "God". You are making these statements, whether you realize it or not, with the assumption that everyone agrees that acting "morally", i.e. not "raping or murdering someone", is the right/better/more beneficial for the individual/constructed society/propagation of genes thing to do. Only then do your statements about "responsibility" and "concern" have any meaning. If someone does not agree that killing you and raping your wife are a "bad" thing and should be avoided, then you should not be "concerned" about the fact that they are afraid of God's punishment is the only thing that keeps them from doing so. You should thank that existant or non existant God. For someone who does not believe in "absolute morals" they have no moral responsibilities except that which they make for themselves. To go on about "higher calling" or "greater good" means nothing if there is nothing "higher" or "greater" than humans and what they make up. "Whether you like it or not, it is you - not God - that is responsible for your actions and for treating other people with the respect they deserve. The existence of God then, in this regard, is completely irrelevent." Yes you are responsible for your own actions; and God is irrelevant for that. However what "the respect they deserve" means something different for each person and to say otherwise is untrue. Without a "God" or "absolute morals", saying anything else is merely you trying to force your opinion on someone else. You can go on and on about how your "opinion" or "view" is the best way for humans to "get along" or "progress"; you can spew facts and figures about how history has shown that those who "get along" find the most "success"; you can argue that without agreeing to and following a set of "morals" society will collapse; you can resort to saying the the best way to propogate your genes is to, essentially, have "moral responsibility"; but all you are doing is blowing smoke up your own ass to hide the fact that you can't face the full implications of saying "God is dead". Sorry to hijack this thread, but I really have a problem evolutionary psychology. I do not whether evolution is true or not nor do I know whether there is a God. I also do not know whether you were trying to argue evolutionary psychology there, but it sure sounded like it.

Actually there is plenty of evidence for morals being an integrated system that has evolved in the human brain. I dont have time to post all the research and arguments because i have a midterm tomorrow and dont have time to locate all the relevant information but ill give you an example. Throughout most of the world deliberate, "unmerited" murder, rape, and other forms of violence are frowned upon. This is even before we had internet in cable, you can pick up a history books and check yourself. Now what valid explanation could you advance for this occurrence? Sure you could say there have always been dieties around the world, but not all dieties around the world "punished" or "condemned" "unmerited", deliberate violence, and yet as a species we shun upon acts like rape and murder. Research suggests that our whole moral system evolved due to the fact that living in organized socities, respecting others in order to be able to benefit from having multiple allies, requires that cheaters be punished, and thus those individuals that where able to punish others wihtout transgressing others are the ones who are still alive today.

___________________
Poetry>Byron//Blog>TheMean

quote:

Orbax At that point you kind of crossed the rubicon and you might as well lay siege to Rome

let me reply little later!! no time.

quote:

Originally posted by venomX Actually there is plenty of evidence for morals being an integrated system that has evolved in the human brain. I dont have time to post all the research and arguments because i have a midterm tomorrow and dont have time to locate all the relevant information but ill give you an example. Throughout most of the world deliberate, "unmerited" murder, rape, and other forms of violence are frowned upon. This is even before we had internet in cable, you can pick up a history books and check yourself. Now what valid explanation could you advance for this occurrence? Sure you could say there have always been dieties around the world, but not all dieties around the world "punished" or "condemned" "unmerited", deliberate violence, and yet as a species we shun upon acts like rape and murder. Research suggests that our whole moral system evolved due to the fact that living in organized socities, respecting others in order to be able to benefit from having multiple allies, requires that cheaters be punished, and thus those individuals that where able to punish others wihtout transgressing others are the ones who are still alive today.

Yeah..

I think that certain people who grow up with the wrong setting are more inclined to perform terrible acts. These people have a weakness usually: they fear authority and reprimand. Why? Because they care most about themselves. Else why would they harm others? It's all selfishness, and governments and laws apply that selfishness to keep people in line and attempt to keep people safe.

Unfortunately, this may have negative effects on people who are NOT inclined to selfishness.

A rational and fair man grows to know that he does to others as he would expect them to do to him.

Why does the quickie-mart clerk let you use the employee bathroom even though it's off-limits?

Because that same clerk is going to be out eventually and he'll be dying to use the toilet.



It's all relative.