|
|
| Author |
Message |
brighn
|
|
Science and religion warehouse
| 
Oct 31 06:32 UTC 2000 |
In pursuit of the following interests:
(a) To provide for a chessboard on which the various players may place their
pieces
(b) To maintain a repository on a consistent theme
(c) To avoid further domination of certain threads and posters throughout
Agora in general (thus encouraging others to speak in other items)...
I present this item, where interested parties (the obvious ones being Rane
and me, and whomever else wishes to play along) can jabber intellectually and
philosophically on matters of religion, science, and whatnot.
Ground rules, which I request that people strive to follow:
(1) Keep it erudite and avoid personal attacks. Hopefully, if this goes well,
we can stop dominating other items; in response to this act of respect,
reciprocate with due respect here.
(2) Avoid personal attacks. Yes, that's redundant, but I also mean that
responses to comment should not require obscenities. Semantically neutral but
pragmatically charged terms should be avoided except when relevant.
(3) This isn't a place to get into semantic feuds. If you think a word may
have a vague meaning, provide a definition and stick to it. If you want to
use a word with multiple senses, find a way to distinguish the senses (such
as numbering them, or using adjectives). If somebody else's arguments hinge
on their definitions, address the sense of their argument, not the words.
(4) If this maintains as a reasonably healthy item, people should feel free
to ask (politely) that threads in other items of a scientific or religious
nature that are getting excessively dominant be moved here.
This is an experiment. Let's see if it works. =}
|
| 50 responses total. |
brighn
|
|
response 1 of 50:
|
Oct 31 06:49 UTC 2000 |
A few initial comments on my background. I was raised in a theological
household. I term it that to distinguish it from a religious household, for
a feel there is an important difference between religion and theology.
Religion is the system of worship -- when people refer to "religious
households," they generally mean that there is grace said at every meal,
obscenities are eschewed, moral behavior is dictated by the Bible, and so
forth. Theology is the study of worship, and of God -- my father encouraged
his children to explore their own religious beliefs, to compare them to
others, and to try to find a moral balance that suited them. He encouraged
a reasonable distinction between science and faith, and maintained that the
principle role of religion is to guide moral behavior in this life. Although
he's a United Methodist minister, his stance on the afterlife is simple: We'll
find out when we get there. If it makes us feel better to believe one thing
or another, then so be it.
As an adult, I find I am torn. Having been raised in an era of science, I
learned the value of science, and was taught that science is more "real" or
"rational" than religious faith. However, I also saw that fallibility of
humans allowing our grasp on science to be exagerrated. I also have beliefs
about the universe that cannot be proven, and which seem quite ludicrous to
the scientific eye.
The various debates in the last few weeks, especially with Rane, have led me
to various beliefs, and have challenged some of them. That's why I wish to
continue pursuing them, but fear annoying others to the point that they feel
they can't post in Agora because "they'll go at it again."
There is my agenda and my apologetic.
|
brighn
|
|
response 2 of 50:
|
Oct 31 07:07 UTC 2000 |
That said, I'm interested in how much concord we really have. Rane, please
state which of the following statements you agree and disagree with and (in
the case of disagreement), please expound on why.
(a) All phenomena and events in the universe are subject to science(a). [Def:
Science(a) is the field defined by the scientific method, considered by an
infinitely capable thinking being or machine.]
(b) While science(c) has not disproven the existence of God(s), it has made
it greatly implausible. [Def: Science(c) is the current state of scientific
knowledge]
(c) The proof for the existence or absence of God(s) falls outside of the
realm of science(b). [Def: Science(b) is the field defined by the scientific
method, considered by humans and any computers devised by humans]
(d) The proof for the existence or absence of God(s) falls within the realm
of science(a).
(e) For free will to exist, there must be a significant random element to a
successful scientific model which attempts to incorporate human behavior.
(f) human response falls within the realm of science(a), but science(c) has
far from an accurate picture of it.
(g) There is a substantive difference between a fact which is the description
of a datum and a fact which is the result of a set of scientific assumptions,
which are (in their turn) the result of data (that is, between "first degree
facts" or "strong facts" and "second degree facts" or "weak facts").
(h) There is a substantive difference between a theory which is accepted by
the overwhelming majority of a field, and which is based exclusively on
scientific data, and a theory which is based on a certain degree of
supposition and prediction as well as data.
(i) The delineation of all possible scientific(c) statements about the
universe is not so clear as implied by (g) and (h)... there are many fuzzy
states.
Hmmmm... that should get something going, I hope. =}
|
senna
|
|
response 3 of 50:
|
Oct 31 07:08 UTC 2000 |
The hostility of certain religious persuasions toward science perplexes me.
To me, if you believe the universe is God's creation, wouldn't you practically
be obligated to explore and appreciate it? It seems to be, mostly, fear and
jealousy. They don't realize that the truths are compatible (and they are!
A day in Genesis is quite probably a very long time, anyway).
The idea of scientific superiority perplexes me, too. They aren't even the
same thing, but certain people seem to want to establish science in the same
place as religion. It makes no sense. They aren't the same thing.
Scientists are reacting, as much as anything, and they've gone the wrong way
with it.
Of course, some people will probably ignore the first paragraph and attack
the second. This is exactly what I'm talking about.
|
senna
|
|
response 4 of 50:
|
Oct 31 07:12 UTC 2000 |
Brighn's second slipped in.
We're really getting into philosophical principles here. Free will, in
partciular, is an interesting subject to debate.
|
jazz
|
|
response 5 of 50:
|
Oct 31 14:42 UTC 2000 |
Before you go much further, it'd be useful to distinguish whether
you're talking about science and religion in terms of abstract theory and
written theology, or as they're actually practiced.
As they're actually practiced, science and religion overlap
considerably - they're both shaped by the face of human need. Both struggle
to answer the questions that haunt people's darker hours, such as why we're
here and how we came about, and, though religion generally reaches a markedly
different conclusion, the question that is answered remains the same. Both
aim to make more sense out of reality - and as animals we're natural pattern
makers and extrapolators - and to prevent the bad portions of it by helping
to drive away disease, sickness, sadness, and disharmony. The fact that the
means by which the two respond to the face of human need are quite divergent
is material, but it doesn't change the responsiveness of both to our
condition.
|
brighn
|
|
response 6 of 50:
|
Oct 31 15:32 UTC 2000 |
#4> Oh, we can talk about whatever's relevant. I just threw in #2 as seed,
in case nobody else came up with anything.
that said, the thread of #3 and #5> I think #5 reflects the theme of mine
which is the most often misunderstood, which is that science(a) is not a
religion, while science(c) frequently is -- that is, science, at its
theoretical core, is just a mechanism for exploration. Saying that science
is a religion is like saying that guns kill. "Guns dont kill people, people
kill people," and science is just a tool, but it's frequently used to create
a climate of intellectual oppression.
I was thinking on the way to work this morning about WHY I seem to think (as
do most of my cohort, I imagine) that beliefs generated by science are
generally superior to beliefs generated by religion (a scale reflected in but
not overtly stated in #2), and the answer is obvious: The scale by which we're
taught (in our society) to gauge such things was developed by science. If
scientific theory is weighed against theology on science's value scale, of
course science will win.
But that leaves a greater question: If we can't or shouldn't judge religions
based on science's scale, what scale do we use? Are we truly led to the
conclusion that all religions, no matter how absurd, are equally valid? If
the main scale used by science -- consistency with observations -- is "off
limits," then what?
One way that I've attempted to approach that is to determine the degree to
which religions address issues which are outside of science(c) vs. those which
are in conflict with science(c). For instance, liberal Christianity tends to
accept Genesis 1 as an allegory, and so it's not in conflict withour current
scientific knowledge. As I've said, my father taught me a Christianity in
which the mythology is less important than the morality, and I assume that
we can all agree that one positive traditional role of religion is to teach
sound morals (whether one religion's morality is sound or not is another
debate).
One inescapable fact is that, whatever theories of science we generate, we
are working on the tacit assuption that our observations are accurate -- that
we aren't being actively deceived either by Descartes' demon or Job's God,
seeking to test our faith, and that there aren't events that occur around us
which are outside our ability to measure, like the radio waves that are moving
around us which we can't hear without a radio. Even when we use devices to
measure observations more completely, we are perpetually reliant on our own
observations for accuracy.
|
gull
|
|
response 7 of 50:
|
Oct 31 18:21 UTC 2000 |
Re #3: I agree with you. I think a lot of people create a conflict where
there doesn't really have to be one.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 8 of 50:
|
Oct 31 19:58 UTC 2000 |
Sigh...I like items that allow an exchange of ideas on one or a small
number of topics. Long questionnaires aren't in that category. But for the
sake of brighn's effort to concentrate the discussion, I'll at least begin
in the same spirit.
I was raised in a nonreligious household. However I can recall that
somewhere before high school I went to church and Sunday school, and even
acted in a church play (for irony...I played Judas). I was also given a
bible, which I have in my library. However that is just about all I recall
from that period, and I had dropped out of all of it by the time I entered
high school. I suspect that I had a juvenile curiousity about what my
friends were doing on Sunday, and my parents abetted that curiousity.
Now, that damn questionnaire....
(a) All phenomena and events in the universe are subject to science(a).
[Def: Science(a) is the field defined by the scientific method,
considered by an infinitely capable thinking being or machine.]
Yes, science can attempt to address any subject and events. However I do
not support the last clause of the proffered definition of science(a).
Infinity is a useful mathematical construct, but not a very good for
semantics.
(b) While science(c) has not disproven the existence of God(s), it has
made it greatly implausible. [Def: Science(c) is the current state of
scientific knowledge]
Utterly implausible (which is just short of disproven, since logic
cannot prove some kinds of negatives). There are an enormous number of
similar hypotheses that cannot be disproven in the same sense, but most
of which are equally implausible.
(c) The proof for the existence or absence of God(s) falls outside of the
realm of science(b). [Def: Science(b) is the field defined by the
scientific method, considered by humans and any computers devised by
humans]
It would have been nice to have science(b) defined prior to science(c),
but beyond that I don't see a distinction between science(b) and
science(c).
I disagree. Scientists(b) have, however, put aside this question because
not the slightest evidence for the hypothesis has been put forward
and tested with a positive result, so it is not fruitful to spend
further time on it.
(d) The proof for the existence or absence of God(s) falls within the
realm of science(a).
I answered this in (c) (assuming science(b), as science(a) doesn't
exist).
(e) For free will to exist, there must be a significant random element to
a successful scientific model which attempts to incorporate human
behavior.
Disagree, although such random elements can be present. Free will only
requires that there be options among which to choose and inputs of
sufficient complexity that alternative choices and bases for choice
are not pre-determinable in a finite system, but hinge upon
manifestations of chaotic elements.
(f) human response falls within the realm of science(a), but science(c)
has far from an accurate picture of it.
Agreed.
(g) There is a substantive difference between a fact which is the
description of a datum and a fact which is the result of a set of
scientific assumptions, which are (in their turn) the result of data (that
is, between "first degree facts" or "strong facts" and "second degree
facts" or "weak facts").
Disagree. That distinction cannot be made rigidly. Even descriptions of a
datum can be uncertain. Even to apprehend a datum requires some degree
of development of a hypothesis about it. As far as I can see, one can
only assign a degree of confidence in a "fact" from zero to large,
with no rigid boundaries between them.
(h) There is a substantive difference between a theory which is accepted
by the overwhelming majority of a field, and which is based exclusively on
scientific data, and a theory which is based on a certain degree of
supposition and prediction as well as data.
Disagree. There are theories "based on a certain degree of supposition
and prediction as well as data" that are accepted by the overwhelming
majority of a field, hence is has been demonstrated that there is no
necessary "substantive difference". Macroevolution is a good example.
This is based exclusively on scientific data. It is also a consequence
of logic being applied to those scientific data, and logic is only
supposition and prediction.
Thinking about this further, it is a contradiction to even propose
that "a theory...[can be]...base exclusively on scienfitic data".
If all one has is a box of data, one does not have a theory (or
interpretation).
(i) The delineation of all possible scientific(c) statements about the
universe is not so clear as implied by (g) and (h)... there are many fuzzy
states.
Disagree. The delineation of all possible scientific(b?) statements about
the universe is not possible, much less useful.
The assertion, however, does seem to be addressed by my prior observation
that scientific theories (interpretations) in which there is great
confidence can still only *constrain* future theoretical development.
One might call a current theory "fuzzy", but even "fuzzy" has boundaries,
but "fuzzy" can also still blend into the forbidden.
|
brighn
|
|
response 9 of 50:
|
Oct 31 20:25 UTC 2000 |
Rane writes:
As far as I can see, one can
only assign a degree of confidence in a "fact" from zero to large,
with no rigid boundaries between them.
I'll buy that, and that was more of what I was trying to get at with (i).
The remaining issue (the place at which we seemed to be in disagrement
already) was the one of Free Will. How can Free Will exist without randomness?
I'm terribly confused about that (and you don't have to cap Free Will... bad
habit of mine ;} ).
[Distinction between science(b) and science(c): The former is what humans are
ultimately capable of, the latter is the current state of the field.
"Infinite" in the definition of (a) was meant to imply a limit approaching
infinity, not infinity itself. World enough and time, all that.]
Going back to the free will issue (and Rane accused me of being linear ;} ),
maybe I'm misusing "random," or you're not understanding what I'm meaning.
Quantum probability would qualify as randomness (any probability, for that
matter).
Let me use a specific example. Flip a coin. According to theoretical math,
there's a 50% chance either side will land up. According to traditional
science, it is 100% predictable which side will land up, based on the original
state, the upward force, the torque, the windspeed, etc. -- but this can only
be calculated once the coin is airborne (assuming the various measurements
could be taken), because the element that most affects the randomness is the
initial upward force and spin, the "human element." Assuming we could indeed
measure all of these things, would modern science suggest that the final state
of the coin could always be predicted?
Taking another example, imagine a cow equidistant between two bales of hay.
Math would suggest that the cow would randomly select one or the other, not
having a particular reason to choose one or the other. What scientific model
would there be for making any prediction in this case, if any?
*ponders*
The second case seems like rudimentary free will, while the first case seems
like a rudimentary clash between science (the real world) and math (the
abstract world). Structurally, the examples are identical, while conceptually,
they're at opposite ends of the scale. Am I making a sou of sense?
|
janc
|
|
response 10 of 50:
|
Oct 31 22:07 UTC 2000 |
My background: My parents claimed to believe in God but not churchs. We
never prayed or went to churchs. My dad felt to spend Sunday in the Sun was
a better way of worshipping God than to sit in a church. That's about the
whole of my religious education. My parents virtually never talked about God,
pro or con.
I've always been fascinated by systems of thought and the way that you can
reach different conclusions from different sets of assumptions. I believe
that there are multiple realities reachable by simply changing ones mind.
So as not to be boring, one should be willing to change one's mind frequently.
However I find certain sets of assumptions more beautiful and compelling than
others, so, although I find lots of viewpoints interesting, I have my personal
preferences. I like science a lot. The God thing I find useful only within
the broadest definition - I think it is emotionally satisfying and somewhat
intellectually useful to think of The Universe not only as a big lump of
scatter matter, vacuum and energy, but alternatively as something analogous
to a living being, which may be called, for convenience, God. Note that this
is a poor analogy, but the same is true of any way our small brains can
attempt to think about the Universe. In some ways I think that thinking of
oneself as insignificant part of a vast purposeful thinking/feeling organism
is in some ways useful. I don't try to push the idea too hard, because, it
is, after all, only a rough analogy, and only good enough to influence your
general stance toward the universe, not to drive your day-to-day decision
making. Being inclined to hold such somewhat silly beliefs, I happily call
myself religious. I think it's healthy to be able to admit that the things
you believe in are actually all uncertain. I find almost no "facts" that I
don't find questionable on close critical analysis. That means I must abandon
either "fact" or "analysis". I enjoy analysis and can live without facts.
|
janc
|
|
response 11 of 50:
|
Oct 31 23:23 UTC 2000 |
(a) All phenomena and events in the universe are subject to science(a). [Def:
Science(a) is the field defined by the scientific method, considered by an
infinitely capable thinking being or machine.]
Ugh, what an awful definition. Science is a human social process, not
a machine. One of the keys is the idea of "independent observers". That
means one thinking being cannot do science no matter how infinitely
capable, because it cannot do independent observation. Science is a
semi-formalized protocol by which multiple independent beings can
agree on what is true in their common universe.
Furthermore, I object to the emphasis on "thinking". Very little science
is about "thinking". Mostly it is about "observing". An infinitely
capable thinker who was bad at observing would produce bad science.
So what is subject to science? The universe of observer-independent
events and objects. Call it the "objective universe".
Note that I haven't answered your question, but you didn't define
"the universe". If you meant the objective universe, the answer is yes.
If you meant the universe experienced by any particular human, then the
answer is no, because any individual's experiences include man subjective
ones that are not independently observable.
Note that if you assume that the objective universe is the only universe
worth talking about, then Science is exactly the procedure that determines
what is and is not in the universe, because it is the defining protocol
for that universe.
(b) While science(c) has not disproven the existence of God(s), it has made
it greatly implausible. [Def: Science(c) is the current state of scientific
knowledge]
No object or event has been objectively observed which requires that the
existance of some sort of God be assumed. Thus there is no God within
the objective universe defined by Science.
Whether it exists in any other universe is a separate question.
Which universe you personally care about is another.
(c) The proof for the existence or absence of God(s) falls outside of the
realm of science(b). [Def: Science(b) is the field defined by the scientific
method, considered by humans and any computers devised by humans]
God knocks at the doors of MIT and says "Hi, I'm God". "Prove it," say the
professors. "Well, watch me create a kangaroo." <poof>. "And here's
a whole new species, let's call them 'gmorfs'." <poof>. "And here's an
entire new universe!" <poof>. "Dang," say the scientists, "I guess you
might be God. Can I point this spectrograph at you while you do that?"
I don't see any reason why a God couldn't start being objectively
observable, but it would be a substantial departure from the patterns of
behavior God has exhibited in the past (or at least in the generally
accepted accounts of the past). I think this kind of behavior would
bother most churches at least as much as it would bother most scientists.
So long as God is something people feel subjectively, then it is not
observable by Science.
(d) The proof for the existence or absence of God(s) falls within the realm
of science(a).
Whether or not God exists in the objective universe is up to Science,
by definition.
(e) For free will to exist, there must be a significant random element to
a successful scientific model which attempts to incorporate human behavior.
When I toss a dice, the outcome of the roll is completely determined by
the velocity, direction, and spin of the toss, the properties of the local
atmosphere and gravitational field, and the shape and material properties of
the surface upon which it will fall. The outcome of such a toss is
completely and exactly predictable, if we know all the inputs. There is
no difference between tossing a dice and dropping a coin into a parking
meter. "Random" is simply a description of a process where we do not know
enough about the influencing factors to predict its outcome exactly. Thus
"randomness" is a description of the inadequacy of our knowledge of a
process, not in any way an attribute of the process itself. Processes with
a lot of inputs are more likely to appear to have "randomness" simply
because we are less likely to know all the inputs. There are certain
theoretic limits to our knowledge (eg, the Heisenberg principle) which
mean that some processes will never be predictable, no matter how smart
we get.
Sometimes incomplete information doesn't matter. Random variables in
mathematics and scientific models are a way to describe partial information,
and sometimes still get partial or complete answers. These tools too are
about describing our knowledge of a process, not intrinsic characteristics
of the process itself.
The behavior of a human is the result of a staggeringly huge number of
inputs. Quite likely some of the brain processes are in quantum places
that no observer could even theoretically predict. I'd say there are
lots of reasons to believe human behavior is both practically and
theoretically not fully predictable. That's all the free will you're
going to get, and it's all you need.
Are you asking if I made an exact copy of the universe as it is now,
would the two copies of me do the same things, or would they diverge
into doing different things, thus exhibiting "free will"? I should
refuse to answer that because it's a silly question. It is impossible to
have enough information about the state of the universe to duplicate it.
I think if you somehow did it, but of me would do exactly the same thing,
clearly exhibiting determinism. But what this proves I can't imagine,
since the experiment necessary to prove determinism is provably impossible.
Thought experiments that can't happen don't prove anything. That is why
this question (e) of yours has nothing to do with science. The philosophical
concepts of free will and determinism are indistinguishable in Science.
So I disagree with everything about this statement. The need for
free will to exist has no impact at all on science. Randomness as understood
by science has nothing to do with free will.
(f) human response falls within the realm of science(a), but science(c) has
far from an accurate picture of it.
Human responses are observable. There is room for improvement in the
current description of science.
(g) There is a substantive difference between a fact which is the description
of a datum and a fact which is the result of a set of scientific assumptions,
which are (in their turn) the result of data (that is, between "first degree
facts" or "strong facts" and "second degree facts" or "weak facts").
Are you talking about the difference between observations and inferences
made from observations based on accepted scientific principles?
Any observation has a degree of uncertainty to it. Any scientific
principle has a degree of doubt attached to it. If you string them together
you can either get an inference which is less certain than the observations
or that is more certain than the observations. If you string them together
in a long thin chain, you lose certainty. If you gang them together in
parallel, accumulating independent supports for the same conclusion, you
can get conclusions that are more certain than any of your observations.
Science is very much about the second approach. That's part of why we
demand lots of independent observations and try to test the same theory
many different ways.
So "first degree" facts are emphatically not "stronger" than "second
degree" facts. We can build theories that are more reliable than any
observation.
Oops, time for dinner. Maybe I'll answer the rest later.
|
janc
|
|
response 12 of 50:
|
Nov 1 00:38 UTC 2000 |
(h) There is a substantive difference between a theory which is accepted
by the overwhelming majority of a field, and which is based exclusively on
scientific data, and a theory which is based on a certain degree of
supposition and prediction as well as data.
I can't figure out what you might mean by "a theory which is based on
a certain degree of supposition and prediction". Predictions are what you
get when you apply a theory, they aren't the basis of any theory. I suppose
theories can be based on supposition, like "If the rock doesn't fall
when I drop it then perhaps gravity has been shut off by gnomes." But I
don't have any theory on what this statement might mean.
(i) The delineation of all possible scientific(c) statements about the
universe is not so clear as implied by (g) and (h)... there are many fuzzy
states.
Well, I was only guessing at what you might mean by (g) and had no idea
what (h) meant, so it's hard to answer this one. Certainly different
theories and observations have different degrees of confidence to them.
|
drew
|
|
response 13 of 50:
|
Nov 1 01:11 UTC 2000 |
We really need a whole conference for this. M-net has a theology conference,
though it is as dead as the rest of m-net's conferences. I see none listed
on Grex.
As for my "take" on religion, I'll have to get back to you later on it.
|
brighn
|
|
response 14 of 50:
|
Nov 1 18:11 UTC 2000 |
Jan's response on free will and randomness answered my question suitably, and
the rest of his responses gave plenty of food for thought. Thank you. (And
thank you, Rane, for playing along with the questionnaire even though you
indicated you didn't prefer to.)
A question for Jan: I generally hold that, while an objective universe exists
(that is, a universe independent of human observational bias), that universe
is less relevant to human existence than the subjective one that each of us
lives in. How would you respond to that belief?
|
senna
|
|
response 15 of 50:
|
Nov 1 18:28 UTC 2000 |
Perhaps. This is interesting reading, though. Besides, we get more
mainstream traffic. :)
|
gull
|
|
response 16 of 50:
|
Nov 1 20:21 UTC 2000 |
Re #9: The concept of a fact having different degrees of certainty reminds
me of an essay I once read. I don't recall the author, or title, but it
involved a basic suggestion that scientists "keep their bead on the wire."
Imagine you have a piece of straight wire, representing a specific fact.
One end is labelled "completely false," the other end is labelled
"completely true." On this wire you have a bead that represents your opinion
of the fact. Depending on evidence you get, you can nudge the bead one way
or another. The point was that a true scientist should always "keep the
bead on the wire" -- never push it so far to the "completely false" or
"completely true" end that it falls off completely.
Examples of the kinds of statements we get when scientists forget to keep
their bead on the wire would be, "rockets are incapable of flying in a
vacuum" and "God does not play dice with the universe." Scientists who do
keep their bead on the wire often are more careful with their language:
"Cold fusion is a phenomenon that has not been successfully reproduced."
This person's bead is quite close to the "false" end of their "cold fusion"
wire, but it hasn't fallen off -- if new data comes along, they're still
open minded enough to give the bead a nudge the other way.
The participants in this debate may want to consider whether the bead has
fallen off one end or the other of their "God exists" wire. While I don't
think it's a subject that can be reasonably debated scientifically, if
you're going to try you should be careful to think like a scientist.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 17 of 50:
|
Nov 1 20:28 UTC 2000 |
I'll answer that question too, brighn: the "subjective" universe that we
experience is, in the subjective sense, the *only* universe that is
relevant to human existence, since it is the only universe we experience,
but it cannot be relevant without the objective universe to contain our
existence. (There is a problem here in regard to what is meant by
"relevance". Both the objective reality and the subjective experience are
so tightly coupled that the latter cannot exist without the former: take
away the objective universe, and "poof", we are history).
I have no doubt, of course that there is an objective universe that we
experience through our senses (including instruments to enhance our
senses).
|
rcurl
|
|
response 18 of 50:
|
Nov 1 20:31 UTC 2000 |
Has your bead fallen off the wire in regard to the statement that "the
moon is made of green cheese"?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 19 of 50:
|
Nov 1 20:38 UTC 2000 |
Here is a response I wrote for Item 121, which landed in 123. I apologize
for the repetition if you are reading both items. This follows from in
the discussion of "randomness" in Free Will:
#9 of 13: by Rane Curl (rcurl) on Tue, Oct 31, 2000 (23:57): Ultimately I
would think "randomness" (degrees of statistical independence) in events
arises from what we observe in quantum phenomena. The Heisenberg
uncertainly principle is well established, and anything that leads to
inherent unpredictability introduces a true statistical element into
processes. I believe that physicists accept that an *absolute*
unpredictability is associated with quantum phenomenon, illustrated by the
so-called non-locality experiments. Einstein struggled with the "hidden
values" alternative (that there is something deterministic going on to
cause quantum effects), but from what I have read, "hidden values" have
been essentially totally rejected.
Thermodynamic irreversibility follows from this, even at the macroscopic
level. Even if you knew all the positions and vector velocities of the
atoms in a gas in a box, you would *not* know what radiation is going to
do next, since every atom emits photons apparently with absolute quantum
unpredictability, and each photon is likewise captured (conveying
momentum) with similar total unpredictability.
Then, there is chaos (and related fractal phenomenon) that arise in even
absolutely determinisitic systems. In a way, chaos is a pseudo-random
process, as if one rounds to some finite precision, the chaos will repeat.
But in nature, *there is no rounding*.
So, the absolutely symmetric cow stands between the absolutely symmetric
piles of hay...while the sun moves, the wind blows aromas, flies buzz
around, birds tweet (unsymmetrically), etc. There are, in effect, an
infinity of bases for a deterministic choice cow-system to choose one pile
of hay or the other by "free will", depending upon how the symmetric mind
of the summetric cow appreciates these unsymmetric inputs.
|
flem
|
|
response 20 of 50:
|
Nov 1 21:14 UTC 2000 |
Some assorted thoughts:
There was, at one time at least, a "reality" conf floating around.
Re: something rane said: deductive logic has nothing to do with
prediction. "Inductive logic", which is (IMO) an oxymoron, would be
precisely science, if it existed. (Sorry to pick nits, but I react
to the word "logic" in most conversations much as well-educated
computer types react to the word "hacker" in the media. :)
My responses to the questionnaire would parallel Jan's rather closely,
were I to spend as much time and have as much writing skill. :)
On the notion of an "objective world", defined by science. Hmm.
Interesting. Let's ride this thought train for a minute.
As you (Jan) point out, there is a degree of doubt to
any scientific principle, and a degree of uncertainty to every
observation. So "objective" isn't a binary thing, it's a continuum,
from completely subjective to completely objective. Or better yet,
from false to true; the extremes being the sole provinces of
deductive logic.
Even with the (semi-)formalism of science, the problem is only
sharpened somewhat. The disagreements between people are subtler,
more precise ("this gene or that one", as opposed to "evolution or
strict creationism"), but nonetheless ubiquitous.
Imagine a giant Venn diagram, with lots of big blobby closed curves,
kind of long and skinny, each of which intersects various others in
various small areas. Towards the middle of the diagram are areas
where large numbers of blobs intersect to varying degrees. Right
smack in the middle is a tiny area where all of the blobs intersect.
The blobs continually twitch slightly.
It's crude, but that's how I think of reality. Each of us has our
experienced universe, our own personal blob. As part of our blob,
there are things that give some indications of possessing their own
experiential universes: people. After a few years of basically just
sitting there observing, we discover 1) that if we try, we can
do things that change parts of our experiential blobs in some ways,
and 2) that there is a predictable relationship between certain
observations associated with these other people (sounds) and
some events in our blob: language! Over time, we work out the
correlation pretty carefully, and are able to trade descriptions
of events with these people. Meanwhile, we also learn to control a
subset of our blob reasonably effectively.
Eventually, for kicks, some of us record lots of descriptions of
other people's events that, from the descriptions, seem to be similar.
They use what they've written down to try to predict how still other
people will describe their observations of future events. With
various degrees of success, for whatever reasons. (I once heard
it convincingly argued that the only reason people's descriptions
of their observations agreed with each other to such a great
extent was that they had been trained since birth, that this is
how their observations *ought* to be.) But still, all these
so-called "scientists" are doing is finding (possibly
self-perpetuating) patterns in the way people describe their
various inherently irreproducible subjective experiences.
Myself, I think that's all well and good, but no matter how far
science goes, I can still only exist in my own personal experiential
blob. Science provides me a pretty good way to describe small bits of
my blob in such a way that other people can (presumably) relate them
to bits of their own blob, and vice versa. Bit I think it's key to
remember that observations themselves are not only inherently not
repeatable, but totally impossible to share with anyone else. All we
can ever share are vague descriptions of observations. In spoken
or written language, of all things. (Another contribution of science
is to provide some extensions to language that are a little more
precise, so descriptions aren't quite as vague.)
One of the oddly interesting side effects of my description of
science (a search for patterns in secondhand descriptions) is that in
it, religion falls quite naturally into the scope of science! There's
no problem at all with attempting to find patterns in people's
descriptions of religious events. The task is much harder, however,
because (and this is key) language is, if possible, even more poorly
suited to describing religious experiences than scientific ones.
This is not surprising; scientific experiences are pretty much
everyday events, while religious experiences are relatively rare.
It's pretty easy to manipulate our blobs in such a way that other
people have an opportunity to observe, at the same time or in the same
way, some kinds of events that we observe. With other kinds of
events, it's very hard. The easy kind are the ones that tend to get
analyzed by scientists, because it seems more likely that the
observations being described are observations of similar events. (Not
the *same* event; remember, "events" are just subsets of experiential
blobs, and cannot be directly shared.) So it's not that religious
experiences are any less subject to the kind of analysis that produces
science, it's just that it's more obvious with religious experiences
that we really don't have any effective way to compare notes.
And now I'm going to do some of the work that I've been putting off. :)
|
flem
|
|
response 21 of 50:
|
Nov 1 21:15 UTC 2000 |
Wow, *four* responses slipped in ahead of that. :)
|
brighn
|
|
response 22 of 50:
|
Nov 1 21:30 UTC 2000 |
I believe Einstein's GOd/dice quote also reflects my earlier statement of the
argument that a fully scientific model is necessarily deterministic (without
a "quantum" effect).
The probability that the moon contains any significant portion of lactose is
approaching nil. While I like the "Bead" description to a point, I would also
say that statements about the universe which are directly observable by anyone
who cares to observe them can have truth values which are (rounded, at least)
0 or 1... with a BIG HONKING proviso: The words that make up the statement
may have subjective value.
There's a common-ish argument that seems to come out in movies when the
characters are stoned: You and I may agree that (healthy, common, summertime)
grass is green. We may even take out our spectrographs or whatever it is you
measure light waves with and get the same readings off of grass. However, it
is possible that my mind interprets "green" in a slightly different fashion
that you do -- that is, were it possible to transplant eyes, and we swapped
eyes, the world might look discolored.
Furthermore, and more commonly, we may disagree about fringe examples of
green, and what "pure" green is. There may be an aqua-colored couch that I
insist is green and you insist is blue.
Indeed, there are some people who can't distinguish "green" items (besides
being subtle shades), and are left to community opinion about what things are
and aren't green.
That said, the statement "The moon is not made of green cheese" is true (truth
value of 1) under these assumptions:
(1) The astronauts weren't lying
(2) The statement is taken to be a non-metaphorical one
(3) We can agree on what "moon" and "cheese" refer to (since the content of
cheese on the moon is apparently nil, we don't need to agree on "green" and
"made of" -- although those would be relevant in the statement "the earth is
not made of green cheese," whose truth value is very close to 1, but not 1).
Accepting (1) and disregarding(2) as moot, then, a statement may have a truth
value of exactly 1 (or 0), with the proviso about language.
(flem slipped in, but I don't have a response to it yet... my system keeps
freezing, and it's becoming an irritant =P ).
|
drew
|
|
response 23 of 50:
|
Nov 1 21:58 UTC 2000 |
As might be guessed from some of my responses in previous items,
I am a Catholic elementary school survivor. The religious aspects of
my growing up consisted mainly of everyone in the family attending
one of the church services on Sunday, and an hour or so of the history
of Christian beliefs during the school day. I had a First Communion
(2nd Grade) and a Confirmation (8th Grade) along with the rest of
the class. There were also some Confessions - don't remember exactly
when the first one was - which I found the hardest to get through.
The primary function of religion in this environment seemed to be
behavior control. Without going into too much detail, my version of
the 10 Commandments which Brighn disputed was pretty much what the
powers-that-be were trying to coerce. It had only marginal success.
Around 6th Grade, my mother got involve with some of the Virgin
Mary stuff. This involved supposed appearances of the Virgin Mary
at scattered times and places around the world, and, uhh, some Y2K
issues of its own. She'd visit various shrines in the Michigan-Ohio
area, and tried briefly to get me interested in rosaries and novinas
and such.
After 8th Grade, it was intended that I goto a Catholic high
school in my area. However, a major event in my life which I call
the Great Move precluded that, and I instead went into the public
school system of a well-to-do community, and ceased getting the
religion classes, though church attendance on Sunday (or Saturday
evening) was still expected.
As far as my beliefs go, I am very much in favor of trying to
*find out* what the deal is with regard to gods, an afterlife, and
other such things. Given a bit of luck, I might be able to delay
it for a few decades, or even a few millenia; but eventually I - and
everyone else - are going to end up in whatever that is. So it
behooves us to try to get good information on the matter. And failing
that, I believe in at least doing the best we can to cover all the
bases. While Rane could very well be correct about there being nothing
out there, I'm not willing to make plans that depend on this for
success.
Rather, I take the Heaven and Hell bit in the same spirit that
the FBI would take a bomb threat. Probably a hoax, but nonetheless
not to be ignored. And in no way to consider anyone involved, including
the source of the information, as necessarily one of "the good guys".
(I do know someone who has participated in non-Christian temple
ceremonies who claims that he's seen supernatural effects - and when
I mentioned Houdini's fake seances, told me that he was aware of this
sort of thing and had gone looking for the strings and other tricks.
He is only a Human, and therefore can be deceived; but he's also
been one of the most level headed people that I have known.)
I'll add that I am serious about my suggestion to keep accounts of
deceased grexers, PGP keys, etc. intact and functional and accessible
to future incarnations of these people.
As for science, it has its limitations which real scientists are
the first to point out. But it's still a lot better than most of the
alternatives, especially including just swallowing the first story that
comes along.
There is more that could be added; but like I said, this topic
really ought to have a whole conference dedicated to it.
|
brighn
|
|
response 24 of 50:
|
Nov 1 22:26 UTC 2000 |
I recognized your Commandments, in gist at least, as "how they're frequently
interpreted." For instance, I had a friend who scolded me for breaking a
Commandment everytime I said "crap!" -- whence my line about not being aware
of any Gods called Crap, and trying to remember to pray to Crap next time I'm
in a Christian church.
Perhaps the vehemence of my response was out of disgust that the Christians
(not you) can't even get ten simple rules right, and go about distorting
nearly every one out of the original mold.
|