The Sudden Dawn of the Cosmos and the Constancy of Physical Laws

quote:

---

There, fixed this one, too.

​

What our present reality is telling us is that no minds, not yours, mine or your non-existent spook, are required for this universe to exist.

​

Again, C7(77), your logic is piss poor and your facts aren't even close to anything substantive. Your sillygisms are not valid.

​

You do realize, C7(77), that none of your fantasy musings in this threat hold any effect on anything. The only things we know exist are those things physics shows us. All else is unknown, conjecture, speculation, superstition. And you cannot show otherwise.

---

You don't even know what validity in a syllogism is. All my arguments should be valid. You have not proven their invalidity. You have only denied my premises.

You're not even looking at the validity of my arguments or examining their truth value. You're just quoting information from somewhere else and saying that whatever conclusion I came to is wrong because some other source contradicts it.

quote:

---

What BS. Minds are not required. They are the key to our understanding but our understanding is not necessary for the universe to exist. It was here before us. It will be here after us.

​

At this point your two therefores in the first sillyjism are dead.

---

Minds are not required for the universe to make sense. Wow. So, sense exists independently of minds, and is not mental? So, to whom would the universe make sense then?

quote:

---

Paraphrase Neil deGrasse Tyson, this universe is under no obligation to make sense to you or anyone else.

​

Remember both your meaning and your logic are human constructs. This universe has already defied our logic on numerous occasions for millennia. That is probably not going to change.

​

Since the universe does not make sense, and does not need to make sense to us mere mortals, then the universe is not required to comply with your sense of meaning or logic at all.

---

Then why are you doing science? That's a waste of time.

quote:

---

There, fixed this one, too.

​

What our present reality is telling us is that no minds, not yours, mine or your non-existent spook, are required for this universe to exist.

​

Again, C7(77), your logic is piss poor and your facts aren't even close to anything substantive. Your sillygisms are not valid.

​

You do realize, C7(77), that none of your fantasy musings in this threat hold any effect on anything. The only things we know exist are those things physics shows us. All else is unknown, conjecture, speculation, superstition. And you cannot show otherwise.

---

You don't know that the physical world exists. It could be a mental world that appears physical. It could exist is your subconscious mind. How do you know that the world is, in fact, physical.

quote:

---

Strange way of phrasing your question, hard to know what you're really asking. If you're asking why the laws of physics seem to be the same across all time and space, then the answer is, "We don't know." Religious people throughout history and prehistory have often taken deep questions whose answer is "we don't know" and replaced it with "God did it." Why seasons, why phases of the moon, why tides, why the weather, why thunder and lightning, etc., religious people throughout history have replaced "we don't know" with "God did it." You're not doing anything different from cavemen marveling at the awesome power of their gods to light up the sky during a storm.

​

Science doesn't know what caused the Big Bang or caused the laws of nature to be constant across time and space. Neither do you, and it chokes off discussion for you to repeatedly insist without evidence that God did it.

---

That's why, in the end, you have faith, either in God's word, or in something else.

quote:

---

What does it mean for the universe to move? Is English a second language for you, or are you just expressing yourself unclearly so no one can tell what you're saying and therefore can't argue with it.

​

If you just mean motion of matter within the universe then say so. If you mean something else then say so. But at least string words together in an intelligible way.

---

I mean to change, or to run, or to operate according to its animate nature.

quote:

---

For knowledge is certainty of truth.
"Truth" isn't really a scientific concept.

---

Then is science based on truth, or is truth based on science?

quote:

---

Not sure what you're trying to say here, but it is certainly true that within science there is no certainty. It's called tentativity.

---

Then evolution is not certain.

quote:

---

Our scientific knowledge is not certain but tentative, yet it *is* knowledge. For example we know that the gravitational constant is 6.674×10−11 m3⋅kg−1⋅s−2, but only to four significant digits. We don't *know* it's actual exact value. Our knowledge of it is tentative, in this case meaning in an inexact or imprecise sense. Yet our tentative knowledge of its value is sufficient to guide rockets into space and to distant planets. Though our knowledge isn't certain or perfect, it is still knowledge.

---

But does this knowledge get you anything beyond this life? Will it mean anything once the universe is dead?

quote:

---

Maybe you should become a mystic.

---

Why?

quote:

---

And that destroys your sillyjisms.

---

My syllogisms are destroyed because you deny my premises?

quote:

---

Ahh, well, yeah. That is the way reality works. I quote our science and when it says you're wrong then you are wrong.

---

Then science is not self-correcting. For if science were self-correcting, then where it says I am wrong, I could be right. Otherwise science cannot ever be wrong. Therefore it cannot be self-correcting.

quote:

---

What a twisted dumbfuck of an argument.

​

Science is not religion. We don't ascribe to stone age concepts disproven long ago.

​

And when it comes to your specific brand of bullshit, when the science says you are wrong, it means, C7(77), that you, personally, are wrong. No corrections required.

---

Then instead of resorting to vulgar language, which proves nothing, why don't you refute the argument?Science didn't always say what it says now. They would have said the same thing to those who contradicted where it was wrong, whether experts or laymen. And either one of them could have been right, the scientific knowledge being wrong.Edited by Christian7, : No reason given.

Edited by Christian7, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Your sillyjisms are bullshit. They were wrong from inception.
That appears to be a major problem with you. You're so in love with your sense of logic that you can't see the flaws embedded.

---

You still haven't refuted my argument.

How do I do the blue box quotes?

Here are two simple syllogisms. Can you refute them, by proving the falsity of the premises, or the invalidity of the argument, not by denying the conclusion based on some other source. For if the premises are true, the conclusion must follow, if the form of the syllogism is valid, proving the other sources false. Otherwise logic is illogical.A: If the universe does not make sense, it violates the laws of meaning and logic.
B: The universe cannot violate the laws of meaning and logic.
C: Therefore, the universe makes sense according to meaning and logic.A: For the universe to make sense according to meaning and logic, it must make sense to a mind.
B: The universe makes sense according to meaning and logic.
C: Therefore, the universe cannot exist without a mind.When I used to present tense, I refer to the tense of the factual always. (Sorry for the bizzare term.)

But there is no certainty is science, as Percy said, and therefore nothing is proven, and nothing can be certain to anyone.Thank you.

What I'm trying to say is this: We know that certain things are true about the universe, not because we have evidence, but because what we believe is true. If we have evidence, but that evidence if faulty, yet we believe that evidence to be solid, then though we believe the conclusions, we do not know the conclusion as truth, though we have what seems to be solid evidence. This is because knowledge requires truth, not just evidence. And even without evidence, as long as the thing trusted in is true, then it is knowledge. For if I hear that something has happened, and I believe it, though I have no evidence for it, yet if it did happen, then I know what I believe to be true.

How do you know that evidence proves anything, or that anything can be learned from it?

quote:

---

In other words you are allowed to attribute beliefs to me just because you think I might believe them? That does not seem either good or sensible - or in the interests of honest discussion.

---

No, I made a mistake. Sorry.

quote:

---

Then it wouldn’t be contrary to the “laws of math” for you to have more or fewer apples. It’s the behaviour of apples that matters, not your “laws of math”.

---

I'm talking about when it's not the behavior of apples, but a clear violation of math and logic. From now on, I will just say logic, (although I'm not sure if we can say that math is a form of logic. What do you think)?

quote:

---

Obviously it’s not that simple or translators would do it all the time (your new word might not be accepted or might change in meaning). More importantly the whole idea is in line with my beliefs, not yours. If language is a tool we use to represent reality then changing it to better reflect reality is obviously good. But if language governed reality changing the language would change reality - whic( it obviously doesn’t.

---

But not every mind needs to understand the universe; but the universe must make sense according to meaning and logic, otherwise it is violating the laws of meaning and logic, in whatever mind is capable of understanding it. Therefore, seeing the universe cannot violate these laws, it must make sense according to meaning and logic, and therefore one mind must exist for the universe to exist.No doubt not every language is capable of expressing everything. And no doubt there are different minds, among humans, among animals, with various forms of consciousness and senses to see the world, but they all make sense of the same universe, and it make sense to them, and we all operate in one world, in one global ecosystem, where, although there is conflict, there is no failure to recognize the other life form, whether the observer knows what that life form is or not. Every creature with tactile senses, whatever their touch may feel like to them, can feel a rock. If not, it doesn't matter, because the human mind understands the universe to a great degree, as we are the most intelligent life forms on this earth. And I imagine that, the most intelligent and most capable being in the universe, if they were to fully understand the universe, would make perfect sense out of all of it. And if this were not so, then the universe would not make sense according to meaning and logic.

quote:

---

is not known to be true (at the least it has required a lot of investigation to make sense of many things and some are still not understood)

---

But would you not admit, that things not understood one hundred years ago are now understood, and that things that now are not understood may later be understood? And therefore, to that future mind which is to understand it, the universe must make sense. But it does not yet make sense to them, and yet, it cannot violate the laws of meaning and logic, from which it follows, by means of another premise, that the universe makes sense according to meaning and logic. Seeing then as nothing can make sense while not making sense to someone, one must mind exist.

quote:

---

B seems to be very likely false - certainly there is no good reason to believe it or to think that the mere
existence of an observer could force the universe to “make sense according to reason and logic”

---

I didn't say that the minds were forcing them. These syllogisms speak nothing of force.

quote:

---

Further if minds must themselves “make sense according to reason and logic” (and I would suggest that they do at least as much as the universe does) then your argument creates a vicious circularity.

---

I think God, perhaps, understands his own mind, though we do not. Therefore, there is no problem here.

quote:

---

Indeed all you can say for B is that in the absence of an observer there would be nobody to make sense of the universe - but that does not suggest that the observer makes the universe behave differently at all.

---

If there is no one to observe the universe, then the universe does not make sense, as there is no one to whom it can make sense. Therefore, it would be violating the dictates of sense, which means, it would not operate in the same fashion, because there is only one possible greatest mind, to whom, when it exists, the universe must make sense.Edited by Christian7, : No reason given.