I suppose there will be other universes. I don't know this, of course, but after all, how many things are one of a kind? How many events? How often is a thing the sole example of its class? This argument is not conclusive, but it has a certain appeal.
Re: You don't have to be a Christian to object to the physical explanation of everything
Faith writes:
Science can study anything physical to good purpose, including the human body, but it has nothing to say of any value about us as thinking feeling moral creatures.
Morality concerns consequences. Only science has proven itself capable of weighing consequences with any accuracy. A morality that eschews our sharpest picture of the world is blind.
It's all about moral agency in the end.
That's where we agree, although the world largely finds that notion quaint, the religious and the irreligious alike.
That is what makes us the image of God, our moral failure is how we Fell, it's what explains all the horrible things in our history, it's why we die, it's why we suffer.
And that, of course, is where we disagree.
The physical creation is subject to OUR moral failures. It's why animals die.
Yes. Sometimes. If we don't find our way to a moral stewardship of the world and each other, we will not ony die but die out, and take the animals with us.
God says clearly He doesn't desire the death of the wicked, He desires that all repent and come to salvation. But we have to choose. Sometimes I wonder how anyone could be happy in heaven knowing people we care about aren't there. I know the theological answer but from our point of view here it's hard to grasp.
I don't want to get sidetracked into a critique of God or theology in this thread, either [please, everyone, don't], but I know the theological answer, too, and as a child found it wanting. I still do: hell is an immoral proposition. Were it real, that's where I would belong, shaking a moral fist at immoral heaven.
You and Sartre intersect on the necessity of choice, near where you and I intersect on moral agency. We must choose; there is no exit from that. I appreciate your thoughts, Faith, while I'm sorting these questions out again for the umpteenth time.
My apologies to anyone who finds this all too self-important. It's important to me, for sure, and a proper task for an aging man:
"Work, for the night is coming..."
"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."
Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto. -Terence
It drove the hyper inflation when the universe was less than one-trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second old. Then it stopped when the universe was one/one-hundred billionth second old. Well it didn't exactly stop but it decayed and the universe split and broke away into perhaps an unlimited-universe type of multiverse as the decaying particle kept going on and splitting up the (then small amount of)space. Our universe was one that split off at that time but it kept going/decaying/splitting in the other remaining parts (a single space part before all the splitting).
The math works if the initial universe is much smaller than previously thought. If you have the universe infinitesimally small, then there is enough time for the heat to equalize, throughout the universe, equally, while it is less than one-trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second old, then the rapid expansion, from the (early hyper)inflation, caused by the inflaton particle, will drive the universe from much smaller than the size of an atom to the size of a grapefruit by the time it is one/one-hundred billionth of a second old.
The CMB picture around 2001-2003 (?) backed up the theory. The prediction wasn't falsified but strongly backed up.
A "big crunch" (universe previous to our presently existing 13.7 billion year old)universe is considered to be contra-indicated by the evidence that supports the Guth inflation theory. The respective views seem to be highly antagonistic toward each other. Once rises as the other falls.
Re: You don't have to be a Christian to object to the physical explanation of everything
I'm objecting to science's pretending to explain phenomena outside that sphere: mind, consciousness, human creativity, feeling, even life itself, all the stuff that gets wrongly reduced to "emergent properties" of physical systems.
I don't see much pretending. The scientists that I know will all openly admit that we know little about these topics.
Perhaps you pay too much attention to science journalism, which tends to exaggerate research findings in these areas.
Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
Re: You don't have to be a Christian to object to the physical explanation of everything
1.6 writes:
Regardless of ones religious belief or lack thereof; all but the most ardent nihilist can see that there is more to us than the sum of our parts.
I don't understand this argument. We are the sum of our parts. The fact that one part is consciousness doesn't change that.
Nonsense or not we choose the bed of our making. Some are comforted by the thought of heaven and some are comforted in the belief of a life well spent.
Sure we get through this veil of tears one way or another.
It is perhaps the regretful man that must face his twilight looking into the emptiness of his own absurdity and thus comfort himself that none of it really matters.
It's pretty obvious that none of this really matters, that doesn't mean that whilst we're around, we can't live fulfilling lives - by whatever measure you care to use.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
Re: You don't have to be a Christian to object to the physical explanation of everything
Omni writes:
And we can replicate all those things with technology. All nature has to do is show the monkey something...
We're smart critters for sure, but we're still critters built of the same stuff and destined for the same oblivion.
I don't understand what is mooted by the commonality of life.
The fact that we're special. We're a product of a natural, 'unthinking' process that produced both the beetle and the banana. In 100 years we could be gone. There isn't even any one to miss us. We're that special.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
Re: You don't have to be a Christian to object to the physical explanation of everything
Hi Tangle,
Tangle writes:
I don't understand this argument. We are the sum of our parts. The fact that one part is consciousness doesn't change that.
Yes I realize that. But when I see something beautiful I do not see just the chemical composition of it. And if in your mind we are nothing more than ape-shaped bags of water you probably didnt get the least bit misty eyed during this scene in Soylent Green.
When I see a tree it is more to me than 50% carbon, 42% oxygen, 6% hydrogen, 1% nitrogen.
"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs
Re: You don't have to be a Christian to object to the physical explanation of everything
1.6 writes:
But when I see something beautiful I do not see just the chemical composition of it.
Nobody does, but if they did, they'd probably find that beautiful too
And if in your mind we are nothing more than ape-shaped bags of water you probably didnt get the least bit misty eyed during this scene in Soylent Green.
I'm not sure what to do with this, it contains too many falacies and assumptions. You seems to be saying that because you - and, as it happens, I - find some things beautiful and emotional, that makes any difference to the reality of our existence. Why should it?
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
Re: You don't have to be a Christian to object to the physical explanation of everything
Tangle writes:
You seems to be saying that because you - and, as it happens, I - find some things beautiful and emotional, that makes any difference to the reality of our existence. Why should it?
I will venture forth a guess ol' chap and say...quality of life"?
"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs
Re: You don't have to be a Christian to object to the physical explanation of everything
1.6 writes:
I will venture forth a guess ol' chap and say...quality of life"?
Nope, still don't get it.
Are you suggesting that you have a better quality of life than - I don't know - a honey bee? How could any possible comparison be made? And if true what does it matter? Perhaps a dolphin has a better quality of life than a cod. So what?
We're just a different animal species, and of course our evolved brain has made us conscious agents which we feel is special - and it is - but so what? We're just as biodegradable as a bluebottle.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
Re: You don't have to be a Christian to object to the physical explanation of everything
But when I see something beautiful I do not see just the chemical composition of it.
Is that all there is, a dichotomy? Can't I intellectually recognize that this oak tree is composed of star stuff while simultaneously enjoying the aesthetics of its over arching branches?
Can I not understand that love is a reaction of specific chemistry and neuronal activity while simultaneously being happy and fulfilled in being bathed in its warmth?
Just because we know the composition and study the physical interconnectedness of brain lobes does not mean we cannot revel in the use of our own human conscience.
Just because all things are, in fact, the sum of their parts does not preclude recognizing and, more so, appreciating the beauty and wonder of their emergent properties without evoking the absurdity of some supernatural silliness.
Re: You don't have to be a Christian to object to the physical explanation of everything
Tangle writes:
It's pretty obvious that none of this really matters.
It's not obvious to me. I agree we can live fulfilling lives regardless, but whether or not all this really matters-- in some larger way that we would care about if we knew--is an open question.
"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."
Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto. -Terence
Re: You don't have to be a Christian to object to the physical explanation of everything
AZPaul3 writes:
Just because we know the composition and study the physical interconnectedness of brain lobes does not mean we cannot revel in the use of our own human conscience.
Just because all things are, in fact, the sum of their parts does not preclude recognizing and, more so, appreciating the beauty and wonder of their emergent properties without evoking the absurdity of some supernatural silliness.
Bravo. Well said.
"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."
Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto. -Terence
Re: You don't have to be a Christian to object to the physical explanation of everything
Omni writes:
I agree we can live fulfilling lives regardless
Ok so we can put that argument aside
but whether or not all this really matters-- in some larger way that we would care about if we knew--is an open question.
If we do not and can not know, what are we supposed to do about it except make shit up like religion to confirm how special we are and then fight over who made up the best one?
Why not enjoy life and live it in the best way we can without fear, favour or hubris? You know, 'do as you would be done by' while smelling the roses and admitting they share the same DNA.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
™ Version 4.2
