Frog march wrote:I am in complete agreement with that statement. If the elements of the model derive from sensory input then the model can represent the external world. But it is also possible (and sometimes desirable) to create a model in which some or all of the elements of the model are mental constructs. That kind of model may or may not represent the external world. The deeper the levels of abstraction between sensory input and mental constructs, the easier it becomes to introduce errors into the model.

The pre-telescope model of the external world had the spherical shell of stars as a limiting boundary. That shell and everything inside it constituted a finite universe. The concept of totality was meaningful with respect to a finite universe defined as the totality of all that exists.

When the shell of stars idea was abandoned the concept of totality was no longer meaningful with respect to a universe without an observable boundary. Perhaps it was assumed that eventually a boundary would be found. When the size of our galaxy was established it was believed that all that existed was within our galaxy. Once again the notion of a boundary resurfaced. However, Hubble’s determination of the distance of Andromeda demolished that last boundary. No observable boundary of the universe has appeared since.

No one has proved that the present mainstream model of the universe must be finite. For an infinite universe the concept of average density is very questionable and the property of entropy is not applicable. The concept of entropy is meaningful only for a closed system.

R.A.F. wrote:The implied connection was that the correspondence of an idea with reality does not depend on the number of people supporting for the idea. That many people consider the universe to be real does not imply that the universe is real.

Cougar wrote:A postulate is something assumed without proof as a basis for reasoning. Being a postulate does not exclude something from being hypothetical. And just because something is hypothetical does not preclude its subsequent change from a hypothetical thing to an observed thing.

Reasoning with a term whose meaning is not clear can produce false or meaningless results. So let’s consider your basic definition of the universe as “everything.” One meaning of the word ‘everything’ is ‘every single thing as an individual’ or ‘each thing’, as in “Clear everything from the desk”. That meaning cannot define the universe. The second meaning of ‘everything is ‘all.’

‘All’ has two distinct meanings in the present context. The first meaning, akin to ‘each’ as in “All men are mortals,” cannot define the universe. The second meaning of ‘all’ is ‘the whole or full amount of something.’ ‘Whole’ in the present context might mean ‘an assemblage of parts associated together as one thing.’

It is easy to conceive of an automobile as an assemblage of parts associated together as one thing. One thinks in terms of an engine, frame, suspension, wheels, body, etc. It would be unwieldy and perhaps impossible to think of an automobile as an assemblage of protons, neutrons, and electrons. It would be equally impossible to reason about the universe as an assemblage of atoms, or stars. Soon after Hubble’s work on Andromeda, galaxies were thought to be the ‘building blocks of the universe.” They were the things that were receding from us. They were thought to be the ultimate structures of matter.

Later, however, it was found that galaxies associated as parts of clusters. Not too long ago clusters were found to be associated as superclusters separated by huge galaxy free voids. There is no basis for assuming that there are no higher rungs on the structure ladder. There could be a dozen more or an infinite number more. No one has demonstrated that there has to be an ultimate largest part of which the universe is assembled. It might be as impossible to model the universe as an assemblage of superclusters as it would be to model an automobile as an assemblage of sub-atomic particles.

Reviewing where we’ve just been, ‘everything’ led to ‘all’ which led to ‘whole’ which led to parts having a totally unknown nature. Defining the universe as “everything’ leads to something with at best a questionable meaning and at worst with no meaning. The same is true for the defining the universe as “the totality of all that exists” or as “the whole of existence.” It seems that the universe should be given a completely meaningful definition if the universe idea is to be justified.

Bathcat wrote:The second paragraph in my first post of this thread reads:Real things can be known by indirect observation. One need not be an electron or directly observe an electron to know that electrons are real.

Bathcat also wrote:If the sea snail senses the presence of a predator and pulls inside its shell, could it possibly perceive the predator also as an extension of itself? As for your unalive machine, if it can control its own motion and if in order to survive it must never attempt to enter an opening too small for it to pass through, wouldn’t it have to boot up with some self knowledge; say its dimensions in three axes? Even if it has AI algorithms to let it let it learn about itself (during a protected infancy) wouldn’t it have to have boot data to differentiate self from anything that is not self? Otherwise how would it save what it learns about itself to the self.dat file rather than to the external.dat file?

As for speculative reasoning to show that speculative reasoning is wrong, that is tantamount to cutting ones legs off from under oneself. That kind of reasoning suffers from the fallacy of self-denial. Speculative reasoning is fine so long as the mind’s I watches over the reasoning.

frogesque:

You are right! I’ve done that. Had to keep my thumb in a glass of ice all night to get a little sleep. Didn’t know that a hole should be drilled in the nail to relieve the pressure.

Don’t worry, there will always be that next mystery waiting ahead.

Mosheh Thezion wrote:[quote]I would have to say that the universe is composed of and so is, potential energy of specific quality and a transdimensional spatial Ether.[/b]

Is the potential energy finite or infinite? Is the transdimensional spatial Ether finite or infinite?

Fram:
Replying to your post of Mon May 02, 2005 12:28 pm:

The Catholic Church is not merely an abstract idea. It is an association of real, physical people, past and present, who share properties and a history.

Regarding your box analogy, how do the insiders know that there is an outside from which, or to which, information could flow? According to the BB model information is constantly coming in from the outside the visible universe box. Every year information from another light-year out is coming in and the contents (galaxies, etc.) of the box are constantly increasing.

skrap1r0n wrote:One of the rules of logic is that proof of the consequent does not constitute proof of the antecedent. In the situation you present the observations are antecedent and the predictions are consequent. Verifying the predictions cannot verify (or justify) the observations.

Grey wrote on Tue May 03, 2005 1:28 am:The distinction between direct and indirect observation is not arbitrary; it is as objective as the distinction between presentation and representation. Direct observation is the sensing of what an object presents to the senses. Indirect observation is the sensing of a representation of an object presented by an intermediary.

When visible light emitted or reflected by an object (light object, dark surroundings) or by its surroundings (dark object light surroundings) is presented directly to the naked eye, the resulting observation of the object is direct. The directness of the observation is not altered by the eye’s responding to only some or one of the presented wavelengths, or by the lens of the eye changing the path of the light. Lenses, filters, and mirrors alter the path of the light, but do not cause observations to be indirect.

When the light reaching the eye was not emitted or reflected by the observed object or its surroundings (as with night vision goggles), an intervening object (device) has substituted one or more new wavelengths in place of what came from the object or its surroundings. The light from the object was presented to the device, which, in turn, creates a representation of its view of the object and its surroundings in visible light, and such observation is indirect. A painting or photograph of an object, being a representation, facilitates indirect observation of the object.

If an observed object does not emit or reflect light, or if the object cannot be visually distinguished from its background, then any visual display of the object is necessarily a representation and, hence, such observation is indirect. A false-color representation of radio waves, for example, provides indirect observation. Direct and indirect observation can also be made with the auditory and tactile senses.

I disagree. It would be difficult to get a group of philosophers to agree on precisely what the distinction was, so it cannot be said to be objective. You yourself seem to show some confusion in the matter.

In the latter case, that can't possibly be considered direct observation. You aren't seeing the object in question at all. You're seeing the surroundings, and deducing the existence of an intervening object. It could instead be a cardboard cutout for all you know.

Why not?

Certainly they do, since they change the quality of the light. Moreover, froma quantum perspective, photons are absorbed and re-emitted as they pass through a medium. The photons that you see are not the same ones that were emitted by the object, and might be changed in their qualities (such as polarization, for example, by a filter). How then can this be different from a more complex device other than in degree?

Hmmmmm I think think this question needs a thread of its own. :-k

8)

I don't buy it. The only way it would be possible would be if everyone shared a consiousness. Unless you are postulating that even the people around you are figments you have conjured, but if thats the case, then Why can't be be god? I mean if it's all in my mind, why am I bound by laws of nature?

__________________
The More I learn, The More Ignorant I Become

Eagle Eye Observatory

.

The applied energy had it self a quality such that as the energy was applied it manifested in patterns predestined by the quality of the energy.
each level.. as we precieve them.. dimensional level, then had itself a finite amount of energy which was put forth towards particular efforts..
and the overall amount of energy applied in creation most clearly has already been applied. and is so Finite.. yet variable at any time, based on God only know what.

The spatial Ether, while not finite.. is instead.. compliant.
one might propose that some odd quality of applied energy might result in a 3d space that just continues to expand, until what???
possibly in that case, the Ether might react in any number of ways, which i am not clearly able to speculate on...
thinning to the point of rupture like a balloon??
-MT

Ahhh but none of you have consiousness. You only say you have consiousness to confuse me and make me think that you exist. 8-[

But I Am Not Fooled!! [-(


:wink:

Lol tha LAST thing you want is someone like me in your head

__________________
The More I learn, The More Ignorant I Become

Eagle Eye Observatory

Which leaves me puzzled as to why you even posted this thread. I'm not understanding your purpose in doing so. :/

__________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
Philip K. Dick, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
Mark Twain

Avatar courtesy of Bunny.

This thread reminds me of the old "Is Science a belief system" thread....

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Say what??

The "spatial ether" idea has been throughly debunked. [-X

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Hey, let's all go over to Lurker's and play some head games!

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

I exist, therefore I say I exist.

But saying that does anything else, is the world dictated by quantum theory? If I turn my back from a window and look back a moment later will everything still be there? If I put a man in a room and split the room in two will he still be in both halves... or will he be in two halves, or will he be in two halves in both halves of the room?

The questions are endless so just stop asking them!

Or enlarged?
Richard. Looking at an object doesn't mean you see an object. Similarly touching something doesn't mean you are physically touching it as it's just an illusion, the electrons in my body and in my desk prevent me from passing my hand through it and I never actually 'touch' it, but if my body was made of electrically neutral particles (lets just say I wouldn't fall apart for now) I could pass my hand through the desk, through myself and more dangerously through the floor.

Looking at myself in a mirror I see myself. Or I see the reflected light that was filtered by my body because my skin and clothing and hair only re-emit certain colours so the mirror that then re-emits the photons can only emit the photons of the same colour. I don't see me I see my Colour filtered photons. Also the silver in the back of a mirror strips out certain wavelengths of the spectrum, See Here. I have a blue top on right now that would be missing some photons from its colour.

When i propose an Ether, i propose a transindental fluid which condesends to obey surtain natural laws.
Laws set forth by the applied energy in creation.

-MT

Grey wrote:A visual representation of an object is a copy of the object in the form of a photograph, picture, statue, video display, etc. An object must exist before it can be copied. The necessary antecedence of an object to a copy of it means that an object and a copy of it are two different entities. That a copy can continue to exist when the original object has ceased to exist also means that the two are different entities. That difference is a precise distinction between the two. The same precise distinction applies to an object and its representation. Direct observation is observation of an object itself. Indirect observation is observation of a representation of an object. Since there is a precise distinction between an object and its representation, there is a precise distinction between direct observation and indirect observation. I think it would be easy to get a group of philosophers to agree that the distinction is precise and objective.

Grey also wrote:If there is no difference between an object and its surroundings the object cannot be directly observed. That’s how natural camouflage works. However, if you observe a dark region in a light surrounding, you have observed something dark even if you cannot identify it. Observation and identification are not synonymous. If the dark region has the shape of a rattlesnake and it moves like a rattlesnake and you know that you are not looking at a movie or television show, you should have complete trust that you have directly observed a rattlesnake and should act accordingly.

Grey also wrote:Because those opthalmologic factors do not alter the fact that an object itself is being observed rather than a representation of the object.
Grey also wrote:Since opthalmologic factors do not alter the directness of observation, eyeglasses, sunglasses, artificial lens implants, and, hence, lenses and filters in general have no bearing on whether an observation is direct or indirect.

When a surgeon looks, whether with naked eyes, or through eyeglasses, or through a magnifying lens, or a filter, at an x-ray picture representation of a broken bone, he directly observes the picture and indirectly observes the broken bone. In the operating room when he retracts the overlying tissues and can see the broken bone itself, whether with naked eyes, or through eyeglasses, or through a magnifying lens, or a filter, he directly observes the broken bone.

I hope that now we all have a clear understanding of direct and indirect observation and can return to the original point of this thread. All kinds of cosmic things have been observed, but the universe has never been observed directly or indirectly. That makes it a hypothetical entity. Is there any scientific evidence or logic that justifies the idea of the universe as a physical thing to which physical properties and histories can be attributed?

Have you ever seen a solar system? No. Have you ever seen a galaxy? No. You have seen stars, planets, dust, but you make them into the solar system idea, the galaxy idea. This is perfectly justifiable, just like the universe idea is justifiable.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

Actually, this was a trick question. You're obviously mistaken if you think it would be easy to get a group of philosophers to agree about anything! But seriously, take a look at some of the essays on the matter, and you'll find that the distinction between direct and indirect perception is anything but the simple matter that you're pretending it is.

And when you see a chair, you're not seeing the chair itself, but light reflected from that chair in a certain pattern. That is, a representation of the chair in a patterned array of light. Clearly indirect, then.

And, of course, one can perceive the light of an object long after the object itself no longer exists or has changed dramatically. This usually isn't an issue in our common experience, but we're discussing astronomical observations, where it does become an important matter.

Nope. You've observed some light, and assumed the existence of an intervening dark object (as well as inferring the existence of a bright background, of course). It's a well-founded inference, but an inference nonetheless.

Yet the only thing being perceived when seeing an object is the light itself, and these change that light.

You continue to try to establish your own arbitrary definitions for such matters. Yet I'd already said several times that I was willing to grant that there is a correspondence between things we observe and things that are real. You've chosen to continue addressing this issue anyway.

The universe consists of everything that exists. Provided that at least something exists, there is a universe. We observe the universe all the time, just as we see a forest when walking through it, even if we cannot see it in its entirety. We need not observe a whole object in order to say that we observe an object (indeed, we never see more than half of any object - the half that's facing us).

This is going to be very un-scientific, mainly because I am

Here goes ...

If I walk through an area that contains a large amount of trees I immediately assume that I'm in a forest. I have no need to view the trees from several different outside points of reference to know that.

Dictionary definition of a forest:
1/ A dense growth of trees, plants, and underbrush covering a large area.
2/ Something that resembles a large, dense growth of trees, as in density, quantity, or profusion

Therefore, lots of trees = forest
This definition matches what I recognise to be a forest, this is also true for anyone I've meet.

Next, changing Enzp's post slightly:

As I view through a large expanse of stars and galaxies, I am struck by the fact that I cannot see the universe, only part of it at a time, yet I still see the universe.

Dictionary definition of a universe:
1/ All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.

Ask anyone in the street what their definition of the universe is and they'll look up and say "everything, all the stuff out there".

Therefore, lots of stars and galaxies = universe
This definition matches what I recognise to be the universe, this is also true for anyone I've meet.

The universe does exist as defined by the common use of the term in our society, regardless of whether its observed directly or indirectly.

For the layman the universe does exist.

__________________
Don't wrestle with a pig; you'll both get muddy and the pig enjoys it.
- JayUtah

Never try to reason with a pig. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.
- tsig
------------------------------------------------------------
Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about

Don't be sad, you gave a very good reply. The Universe exists for scientists too. Only "philosophers" seem to have a problem with this.

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

Fram wrote:Fram, since you are giving your examples in terms of things seen and not seen, let’s examine the ideas of ‘things’ and ‘seeing a thing.’ A thing is an entity that is separate from one or more other entities. In order to see a thing it must somehow stand out from everything else potentially in your field of vision. Suppose you stand two feet away from the mid-line of a 50-foot high, 100-foot long wall. No matter which way you turn your head you cannot see the entire wall at the same time. But by turning your head you can see its top, bottom, and two ends. You have seen enough of the wall to have observed its separation from other things and to know that it is a thing. You do not have to see the other side of the wall to know that it is a thing. And, of course, things have names. If you are the first person ever to see a thing, you have the privilege of naming it.

You are right when you say that I have never seen the solar system. No one has ever directly observed the solar system. One would have to be outside the solar system to directly observe it. However, things that cannot be directly observed can be indirectly observed. Earlier in this thread I gave the electron as an example of something that cannot be directly observed. Electrons produce a bright spot on the screen of a CRT. In 1897 J. J. Thompson used that indirect observation of electrons in a method to determine the ratio of charge to mass of the electron. He showed that cathode rays were really streams of electrons. (So why do we still call the tubes cathode ray tubes? Inertia, I guess.)

As for the solar system, we have many indirect observations about its members, enough to know their masses, motions, and separations from each other, and enough to know that those motions are systematic. The solar system is not something that we made into an idea. It is something that we indirectly observed to be a thing in its own right. All we did for it was give it a name.

You say that we make the galaxy idea from the stars, planets, and dust we have seen. Perhaps you mean that the light we see in a galaxy comes from its stars. People always saw stars. Those with better eyesight even saw some ‘fuzzy stars’ with the naked eye. After telescopes were invented those fuzzy stars were found to have various interesting shapes, even pinwheel shapes with a central nucleus, and they were called nebulae.

Ultimately light is emitted or reflected by atoms. However, we cannot see atoms. We see the larger objects composed of atoms, the sun and moon for example. If you photograph the Great Nebula in Andromeda, Messier 31, through a 24-inch reflector telescope, you will see the hazy patterns of diffuse light from the nucleus and spiral arms of the galaxy; but you will not be able to resolve any individual stars of the galaxy. It is the galaxy itself that stands out from other things. We can see the larger things composed of stars. We can also see larger things composed of galaxies, the galaxy clusters. We can even indirectly observe superclusters composed of galaxy clusters. None of those things are ideas of our own making. They are things we have either seen or indirectly observed.

Your idea of our making the galaxy idea because we have seen stars, planets, and dust is not justifiable. That line of thought does not imply that the universe idea is justifiable.

Grey wrote:Don’t you think it would be easy to get a group of philosophers to agree that the various branches of philosophy are aesthetics, ethics, epistemology, logic, and metaphysics?

Grey also wrote: where the words ‘essays’ and ‘perception’ are links to articles on direct and indirect perception.

Those articles refer to the question of whether the act of perceiving is direct or indirect. In this thread I have made no claims regarding the directness or indirectness of perception, so I should not be accused of pretending that it is simple. Grey confuses perception and observation. They are not at all the same. There is a significant difference between them. Perception is an involuntary action of the brain. Observation is often a voluntary action of the observer, especially scientific observation. When observation is voluntary a choice is made of what to observe. One can choose to observe an object itself (direct) or a photograph of the object (indirect). If something cannot be directly observed one must devise or discover a method of indirect observation.

Grey also wrote:Clearly? Not at all. In that reply seeing is confused with sensing. One does not see light. Ones retinas sense the light reflected from the chair. The brain processes the signals from the retinas and presents them to the consciousness (in full color 3D). Seeing is the entire process from sensing of the light to being conscious of the sight. Without light, retinas, nerves, and brain there can be no seeing.

In a tactile observation one touches the chair itself. If there are no copies of the chair then one cannot touch a representation of the chair, and the observation is direct. Having seen the chair one has a visual memory of the chair. If one then shuts ones eyes and feels all parts of the chair, a one to one correspondence is found between the visual memory and the tactile observations. The two observations corroborate one another.

b]Grey[/b] also wrote:You may have jumped to an unwarranted conclusion. The word ‘dark’ means having very little or no light. A field of vision can consist of various areas with differing degrees of lightness or darkness. One need not invoke intervening objects to explain the brightness or darkness of the various areas. If in a dark region on a lighter background one observer senses some light and another senses no light at all, does the former see the dark object and the latter infer an intervening object? If no human can see light in the dark area with the naked eye, but light can be detected in the dark region with a photometer (indirect observation) has a dark object been observed? And what about a bright planet of the night sky that becomes a black spot as it crosses the face of the sun, is its existence also only assumed during that crossing? Your objection seems problematic.

Grey also wrote:Here perceiving has been confused with sensing. The only thing sensed when seeing an object is the light itself. The brain converts the signals from the retinas so that the consciousness can perceive the recognizable object from which the light came. Seeing is the entire process from sensing light to perceiving. Changing the nature of the light does not change the object perceived. A white cube is seen as a cube regardless of the color of the light illuminating it.

Grey also wrote:“The universe consists of everything that exists” is a troublesome definition for a physical universe as a thing that can have physical properties and histories attributed to it. One problem with that definition is that if the universe is a thing that exists, then the term ‘everything that exists’ includes the universe and all things that are not the universe. That definition, then, is equivalent to “The universe consists of the universe and all things that are not the universe. The universe = the universe + all things that are not the universe is not possible because a thing cannot be greater than itself. That last definition really fails because a thing cannot be defined in terms of itself. Just in case someone would reply that “The universe consists of everything that exists excluding the universe,” that definition also fails because a thing cannot be defined in terms of itself.

The only way to make Grey’s definition meaningful is to claim that the universe is not a thing that exists. Then, although the definition “The universe consists of everything that exists” is reasonable, we should examine the sense in which the term ‘consists’ is being used. The term ‘consist,’ meaning composed or made up of, derives from its Latin root ‘consistere,’ meaning stand together. (The term ‘exist’, by the way, derives from its Latin root ‘exsistere’ meaning to stand out or to stand apart). In the present line of reasoning the universe cannot stand together with the things that exist in the physical sense. They can only stand together if the universe is the class or set of all things that exist objectively. The standing together, then, is by virtue of all the members sharing the membership rules defining the universe class. Classes or sets are abstract ideas and exist only in the mind. All that can be attributed to a class or set is its rules of membership. An abstract class or set cannot have physical properties (density, entropy) or histories (BB, SS) attributed to it. As a side note, a class can be self-inclusive. Here are two: The class of classes and the class of abstract ideas.

Grey also wrote:The objects we have been considering are physical things. A physical thing is a real entity separate from another or others. If a thing did not in some way stand out from everything else it could not be observed or identified. Though we need not see the entire object to observe and identify it, we must see that in some way it is separate from other things.

A forest is an area of land covered with trees. In order to know that a forest is an area of land covered with trees one would have to know that there are areas of land and perhaps areas of water not covered by trees. That, in turn, means that forest boundaries had to be observed before a stand of trees could be observed to be a separate thing and given the name ‘forest.’

If while in the forest you cannot see beyond the forest, you do not see the forest for the trees. Only when we observed that there were things beyond the local galaxy did we name it ‘the local galaxy.’ Prior to that the local galaxy was mistakenly thought by many to be the universe.

Quantum_Raider wrote:You can only assume that you’re in a forest if you already know what a forest is. You learn the definition of a term from someone else or from a dictionary. For a forest to be a thing it has to be separate from other things such as treeless land, oceans, and other forests. If a thing were somehow not separate from anything else how could it be detected and be recognized as a thing? Even your definition does not go so far as to say “covering all land.” You’re knowing you are in a forest is augmented by your knowledge that there are also non-forest areas.

Quantum_Raider also wrote:Here is that same definition with excess verbiage removed without changing its meaning in any way:

The universe is all matter and energy regarded as a whole.

At first glance that definition seems to make sense, but lets make sure by replacing some of the terms by their meanings.
“The universe is all matter and energy regarded as a whole”
“The universe is all matter and energy regarded as a complete unit.”
“The universe is all matter and energy regarded as a complete distinct object.”
“The universe is all matter and energy regarded as a complete separate or distinguishable object.”

Because the universe is to be a thing that has physical properties, the last definition must be amended as:
“The universe is all matter and energy regarded as a complete separate or distinguishable physical object.”

The universe cannot be separate from anything that it includes. There cannot be anything external to it from which it could be separate. It cannot be separate from anything. It cannot be physically distinguishable because it cannot be physically observed. The universe cannot be what that definition requires of it. That definition harbors a hidden self-contradiction. That definition is meaningless.

Quantum_Raider also wrote:Hey! You and I are not stars or galaxies. Where do we fit in. All the atoms, molecules, dust, living things, asteroids, planets (including Mother Earth), cosmic particles and gases, galaxy clusters, superclusters, cats, dogs, birds, trees, forests, flowers, bowling alleys, ball fields, and countless other things are going to be angry that you didn’t include them.

Just saying that it does exist doesn’t justify it as a physical thing to which physical properties and histories can be attributed.

Richard, you need to make your posts less aphoristic. Some folks who might otherwise find your arguments justifiable, are likely put off by such brevity. In their own reality, of course.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

Just where do you think all the atoms, molecules, etc. came from?? From Stars. As the late Carl Sagan was fond of saying..."We are all Star stuff".

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Maksutov wrote:Many thanks for your kind suggestion.

R.A F. wrote:The most important atom, Hydrogen Mass No. 1, did not come from stars. Quite the reverse, stars came from H Mass No. 1. We consist mostly of water. The H Mass No. 1 in that water was not created in stars. Only the oxygen in that water was created in stars. On a weight basis only about 89% of us consists of atoms made in stars. 11% of our weight consists of the same kind of atoms that made hydrogen stars. We are not all star stuff. We are partly star stuff and partly primordial hydrogen. I’m not even all-star stuff.

At some point, you have to accept something, or simply say that nothing can be proved, nothing can be predicted, and nothing exists.

Since the latter position leads to inaction and, eventually percieved self disollution and removal from the game, playing the game is really the only option that appears to get you anywhere and do anything productive from the perspective derived from within the game. Denying the game exists in reality does not mean it can't be played, or that it doesn't have rules which can be discerned, flawed senses or no.

So, we accept that reality is as real as we percieve, as much as we are real, and that what holds here holds everywhere, since to believe otherwise ends up with useless arbitrary statements of what could be possible that would still fool us, or give the appearance that something was out there. Untenable non-game related positions. Useless statements of fancy, from a game perspective, which offer no understanding of the rules.

Science is not about what we like to believe; it is about the simplest explanation available to account for the properties we can percieve. In other words, you might be correct Richard J. Hanek that the game is nonexistent in an objective reality - but it won't change the rules of the game, or dissuade the players, and doesn't provide any useful input to the state inside the game.

PatKelley wrote:I do not understand what mean by your metaphoric use of term ‘the game.’ Do you mean the game of life? The game of science? The game of cosmology? The universe?

PatKelley also wrote:One of the definitions for ‘science’ in the physical sense is “systematic knowledge of the material world gained through observation and experimentation.” Some kinds of such knowledge are difficult to comprehend. Because the unknown can only be expressed in terms of the known, new knowledge must relate to known knowledge in order to be comprehensible. An explanation is a bridge between the old knowledge and new knowledge.

Sometimes that bridge is a hypothetical construct. Hypothetical constructs have to be devised or invented. Usually they invoke something unobserved to explain what is observed. Despite his claim that he did not hypothesize, Newton’s gravitational force that could act across space was a hypothetical construct. Electric and magnetic fields were also hypothetical constructs. Because of the problems connected with action at a distance, quantum mechanics hypothesizes that there are quantum objects that are carriers of those forces. The more kinds of physical phenomena a hypothetical construct helps to explain and the more verified predictions it enables, the more credence we give to its physical existence. If a technique is invented to indirectly observe something previously hypothesized, then it ceases to be hypothetical and is known to exist.

For unknown millennia before the invention of the telescope anyone could see with his own eyes that the stars were all at the same distance from earth and that there was nothing beyond the stars. For those people the universe was the shell of stars and everything inside it. That was a simple idea that was plain to see and explained many things. That idea was given great credence. Since they only saw only one such shell. It seemed clearly to be a single thing. The ‘uni’ in universe means ‘one.’ The universe is still believed to be a single thing.

In light of more modern knowledge we know that there is no such thing as a shell of stars. We no longer see a boundary of the universe; and despite the lack of observational evidence that there is such a thing as the universe, its existence is still accepted as solid fact.

I see a different kind of connection between the universe and games. Although many games are forms of amusement, almost all of them involve a conflict of interest situation. Familiar examples include games like football, basketball, baseball, bridge, and monopoly. Computer games pit you against the machine itself or against simulated opponents.

Real world life constantly involves conflict of interest situations. We ourselves have conflicts of interest. Conflicts of interest require that we make decisions. We are always making decisions when we choose between alternatives. Should I continue working on this or should I go to bed? Should I buy a new car now or wait for the new models? Should I eat my cake now or save it for later?

Our time on earth and our resources are finite; wrong decisions can diminish both of them. We try not to chase will-o-the-wisps because we do not want to waste our precious time and resources. It is not easy to obtain time on the important telescopes. It takes a major resource commitment to put a scientific instrument into orbit. If the universe is not a physical thing and cannot have physical properties and histories, wouldn’t the time and resources spent seeking those properties and histories be a terrible waste? And consider the possibly more meaningful ideas and projects that were probably pushed aside or abandoned because time and resources were wasted on a wild-goose chase.

The BB theory was based on the assumption that the universe is a physical thing. The most recent observations seem incompatible with the BB theory. Isn’t it time to find out if the universe is really a physical thing that can have properties and a history? If we are going to make rational decisions, shouldn’t we determine if the idea of a physical universe idea is justifiable?

Can you name any of these "meaningful ideas and projects that were probably pushed aside or abandoned because time and resources were wasted on a wild-goose chase?" Let me remind you that such things as the Hubble Telescope are not only used for determining properties and histories of your "will-o-the-wisps" universe, but also for things that obviously do have properties and histories. Since these things are part of the universe, their properties and histories are part of the properties and history of the universe as well. Or should we just stop putting telescopes into orbit and rely on philosophy instead?
It's not just the BB theory that is "based on the assumption that the universe is a physical thing". Pretty much the whole notion of cosmology takes the existence of a universe as a given.

And how do you propose to "determine if the idea of a physical universe idea is justifiable"? Do you have some experiments in mind, or do you propose to attack the problem with more philosophy? Philosophy has had such an excellent track record in the sciences! We're still cleaning up the mess that Aristotle made of things!

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

If the universe is not physical, then we are not physical. Therefore, nothing we do really matters, therefore it doesn't hurt to "waste time" on whatever project we want.

__________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
Philip K. Dick, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
Mark Twain

Avatar courtesy of Bunny.

8) The problem is... if nothing matters... then that leads to a general. "so what" attitude.

dont any of you study socialogy? Beliefs lead to attitudes, and attitude are a powerful determining factor in our decission making..

and our decisions makes up our behavior..

So, when some punk kid kills, and say.. So what..

we all know who to blame.. those who teach a "So what belief system."

Which im sorry to say.. is big bang.. it teaches that nothing matters, its all the result of random action and chaos..

and Big Bang is the basis for all modern Atheism...

and if there no God, and no Heaven or Hell, then why not rape, kill, steal and generally fight violently for what ever we want, and whatever pleases us.. whenever.. wherever..?

and its fundamental precepts are taught to every young american... and yet no arguements are made to them about the possible negative effects that these beliefs can have on our long term behavior.

-MT

I'm sorry, that's flat-out wrong.

And the rest of your post treads far too close to religious discourse, which is against the board rules.

For the record, since you apparently didn't understand what my smiley meant: I was joking in my previous post.

__________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
Philip K. Dick, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
Mark Twain

Avatar courtesy of Bunny.

8) Kesh?

Do you believe in big bang? and is it not based on random formation and chaos????? Generally?

Is it not the foundation of Atheism today???

And does it not propose that there may be no meaning? and that after death it maybe nothingsville???

All of that is true... and if you or a street punk believe it, then you would grow up being an Atheist, and have no reason to worry about so called bad behavior.. and the law of the jungle would suffice for you, or him.

Lets hope you dont meet him in a dark alley.. cause his attitude is messed up.. and we can thank Big bang.. for his lack of morals.

Thats not to say, people cant have morals with a belief in big bang.. but its a matter of influences in childhood.. and there are alot of people out there.. how many more have to die, and get locked up because of having these ideas put into their head by the school system.?

Dont get me wrong.,.. im not a creationist... no...

im for open discussion, and warnings about poossible influences.
Warnings that no one teaches, preaches, or promotes to the masses.


-MT

Heck, those "beliefs" might even lead to...gasp!...drug use.

Maybe you need to take a long ride in your humm-vee (a pi-based variant of delta-vee )... :roll:

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.