Anyone up for picking something apart..metaphysics...

[Max]

scientific method...burden of proof...it's all here.. YAY! My eyes started to bleed after the initial part of this post, so I actually didn't make it all the way through. So I don't really know how I would address it, it is very...off the wall, to me.

Well, nearly any major scientific revolutions begin with suppositions as yet unproven, lacking all evidence. Eventually you build the evidence with the tools you have at the time, and sometimes you need to wait a long time before the tools are even available.

Limiting to the scientific world, people believe in the warping of Einstein's space-time by mass. We can observe the effects of bent light by bodies with mass. But does that mean that whatever space-time actually is, is warped by mass? They're still going over the results of Gravity Probe B. Also, they suspect that space-time gets "dragged" along and distorted by mass, too. These things are only now perhaps receiving solid evidence. Before that, it was a very well-informed theory. To add gremlens to the pot, we're not even sure what space-time is, if it is anything at all. The quantum disciplines, which Einstein never really believed in, with sound logical arguments against, suggests that space-time may be quite strange, particularly when you bring gravitational effects into quantum theory. There are many beliefs happening in this arena right now -- many camps. They follow their ideas and intuitions through until some kind of evidence is found -- which is very very difficult if not impossible for us now, with our current technolgies. Nevertheless, they carry on, not knowing if they're right or wrong. This includes such things as parallel existences and multiple universes. Many scientists love to speculate on the larger-reaching implications of such things, too, even though they may be radically wrong and are very far from ever having any empirical proof. Personally, I encourage such things, because the imagination can lead you to some very unexpected and good places (as well as bad, of course).

Into the religious, I believe it's the Hindu Brahma age that seems to be very close to the age of the universe. It doesn't seem like we'll be collapsing back into a big crunch, though -- so they may be very wrong on their end point for the universe. And it could well be (and to me is very likely to be) coincidence. But there are many things we do not understand. And I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, particularly when there is no way for me to definitively say they are wrong, or have arrived at conclusions wrongly.

One of my favorite things right now is the potential existence of dark matter and dark energy. If they exist, then it's very true that the majority of our universe is completely invisible and undetectable to us currently, except by observing some effects. And who knows what is going on with it? Dark matter would not be comprised of baryons. So even knowing if such a thing exists is next to impossible to prove right now. But many believe in it. And with some decent reasons.

But when we're talking about the origin of existence, it's a whole other matter. We have a problem in science (if not reason) when we reach nothingness. At that point, in science, we reach boundary conditions. It is not likely we will ever have tangible evidence past these boundaries -- though I can't dismiss the possibility as we continue to expand our understanding of everything we are capable of perceiving. Some would say that it is downright wrong to speculate because of the lack of anything to prove it. Others would say it is good to speculate. I am one who thinks it is good to speculate. Any speculation is wild speculation at this point.

In science, there is the person (or people) who must speculate without knowing for certain, working on their own to prove or disprove, then later, positing that something that will later be turned out to others to confirm or disprove. It's true that in religion the proof is not always important. In theology it is more important, but it rests upon unproveable ground.

One thing I think we should make sure we're understanding about each other is that science is one thing, and reason is another. Philosophy encompasses science, and theology. That is not to say that there are no philosophers who who are atheists. There exists lately a popular notion of having to choose science or religion. It's unfortunate, because philosophy covers more ground than either (though adherents to just science may claim that such ground is invalid or wrong). I'll say again that reason is not science. But science depends upon reason. Philosophy does not begin with a default claim that something is wrong. Philosphy begins in reason. It cannot say that something is wrong unless it is shown, inescapably, to be so. Nor can it say something is right, unless it can be show, inescapably, to be so. On the issue of God, there appear to be many escapes.

................
Actually, according to what you've been saying previously, atheists claim that God does not exist -- they do not claim that God "most likely doesn't exist". If they claimed that God "most likely doesn't exist" they'd be more like agnostics. I do acknowledge there are many forms of atheism, as there are many forms of agnosticism and theology. That's one reason I don't like to call myself agnostic.

It is weird. You gave the theists a little wiggle room there. That was generous of you -- and more open, logically. And less prone to error.


..............
Well, you've hit upon another reason, in fact, the main reason, why I don't like to call myself agnostic. I recognize that things change over time. We may be able to know definitively at one point or another. Currently, we cannot know with absolute certainty that god(s) exists or do not. So call me agnostic if you like. I'm fine with it. I suppose you could say that is a claim, in and of itself, even. But in the terms of reason, not scientific evidence, neither atheists nor theists could refute it, as far as I've experienced.

.........

Actually, there is a discipline of metaphysics. It is mostly the study of the principles of reality. There is some very interesting discourse between scientists and philosophers, particularly in the area of cosmology and quantum mechanics (and even string theory).

If you'd like some example of blurry lines, you have to take what science tells us, and then apply the ramifications. Check out quantum gravity, and imagine some of the ramifications. You'll be entering into the metaphysical when you do so. It's ok to. Even stranger, check out quantum loop gravity. Look at M-theory. Or just stick with the classics and consider the seeming unreasonableness of singularities.

You're looking a little scruffy there, here, try an Occam's Razor.

Predictive, sweetie. And many possibilities can be simpler. Explain the origin of everything, and then tell me that is the simplest.

[Wyrm]

Well, nearly any major scientific revolutions begin with suppositions as yet unproven, lacking all evidence. Eventually you build the evidence with the tools you have at the time, and sometimes you need to wait a long time before the tools are even available.

Bullshit. The revolutions invariably start as small puzzles in physics that eventually become full-blown crises as the only solutions to those initial, small problems have implications beyond its original scope. Quantum physics, for instance, started off with the quite humble attempt to explain blackbody radiation, and was only handled successfully by a model that assumed quantized absorption and reemission of EM waves. The photoelectric effect followed (where the exact same funny constant cropped up), followed by the discovery of the nucleus (which had important implications to the stability of atoms), and atomic spectra. What had started as an effort to clean up the last remaining puzzles of physics turned out to be a revolution. NONE of which was unsupported by the evidence: indeed, the evidence forced the revolution — classical physics had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the quantum worldview.

Limiting to the scientific world, people believe in the warping of Einstein's space-time by mass. We can observe the effects of bent light by bodies with mass. But does that mean that whatever space-time actually is, is warped by mass? They're still going over the results of Gravity Probe B. Also, they suspect that space-time gets "dragged" along and distorted by mass, too. These things are only now perhaps receiving solid evidence. Before that, it was a very well-informed theory.

Wrong. It was a very well-confirmed theory by 1925. General relativity was the only theory to explain the perihelion shift of Mercury without the addition of fudge factors. It correctly predicted the gravitational redshift of spectral lines in Sirus B. It correctly predicted the gravitational deflection of light, which is twice that of the Newtonian figure.

As the only theory that explains not only what Newtonian gravity can, but also what it can't, all of the implications of GR are considered a given until proven otherwise. The small, indirect, yet important verifications of GR at the beginning of the century pointed to it as the theory of gravity. It will therefore not be surprising if frame dragging and Gravity Probe B confirm GR once again; only if either does not pan out do we have something interesting to do again.

To add gremlens to the pot, we're not even sure what space-time is, if it is anything at all.

Bullocks. Spacetime is just the way nature uses to keep everything from happening at once and in the same place. It's nothing more than assigning different times and places to different events. The only thing Einstein added was the (non-euclidean) rotations in time and space due to boost, and that spacetime bends in response to the stress-energy tensor — that is, the local distribution and motion of mass and energy.

They follow their ideas and intuitions through until some kind of evidence is found -- which is very very difficult if not impossible for us now, with our current technolgies. Nevertheless, they carry on, not knowing if they're right or wrong.

Some evidence for one camp may be impossible to get now, just like some evidence of GR was unavailible until the 1960's. Other evidence may have already presented itself for that camp, and all the camp may need to do is flesh out their pet theory into a prediction they can test now. But this misses the point. All camps need some sort of evidence before they may proceed with the next step. (The GR equivalent is the perihelion shift of Mercury, spectral line evidence and gravitational deflection of light.)

This includes such things as parallel existences and multiple universes. Many scientists love to speculate on the larger-reaching implications of such things, too, even though they may be radically wrong and are very far from ever having any empirical proof. Personally, I encourage such things, because the imagination can lead you to some very unexpected and good places (as well as bad, of course).

Such grandeose speculations are nice, but scientists still need predictions before their speculations graduate to real implications.

[Patrick Degan]

'Tis more akin to the ramblings of the pharmaceutically unadjusted.

[Darth Wong]

This person makes a lot of declarative statements which are horrendously untrue (just to take one example, he casually declares that philosophy rejects any statement which is not "inescapable"), and then builds upon those statements. This is common practice among people who spout philosophy babble but don't actually know anything about it.

[Rye]

Well, nearly any major scientific revolutions begin with suppositions as yet unproven, lacking all evidence.

I think this is inaccurate; observations and problems in existing theories that are solved by newer ideas usually prompt shifts in scientific thought, from the individual across to everyone else. The way this is written makes it sound like someone just comes up with something new whilst drunk or something, tests that and lo and behold, new scientific theory when it's actually a much more laborious system of standing on the shoulders of giants, as Newton(?) said.

Into the religious, I believe it's the Hindu Brahma age that seems to be very close to the age of the universe.

You're wrong, the Hindu cycle is limited to thousands or hundreds of thousands of years, not billions. The Hindu universe also starts with a milky ocean, not a tiny speck of expanding space.

It doesn't seem like we'll be collapsing back into a big crunch, though -- so they may be very wrong on their end point for the universe. And it could well be (and to me is very likely to be) coincidence. But there are many things we do not understand. And I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, particularly when there is no way for me to definitively say they are wrong, or have arrived at conclusions wrongly.

They are wrong, their gods are pretend and the world is several billion years old and originated from accretion around our sun, not divine intervention over a milk-laden planet.

But when we're talking about the origin of existence, it's a whole other matter.

You can't have an origin of existence itself, that's a categorical error, since the origin would exist and thus existence would have to, too. Unless you have funky causality, causing existence is nonsensical since there has to exist a "before" existence, which is contradictory, unless you mutilate time so ostensibly that the cause exists after the effect.

I am one who thinks it is good to speculate. Any speculation is wild speculation at this point.

Milk oceans and magical men with inexplicable, unaccountable intelligences are still fucking stupid speculations. They explain nothing and raise a million problems and issuesthat are only resolved by making up more bullshit.

One thing I think we should make sure we're understanding about each other is that science is one thing, and reason is another. Philosophy encompasses science, and theology. That is not to say that there are no philosophers who who are atheists. There exists lately a popular notion of having to choose science or religion. It's unfortunate, because philosophy covers more ground than either (though adherents to just science may claim that such ground is invalid or wrong). I'll say again that reason is not science. But science depends upon reason. Philosophy does not begin with a default claim that something is wrong. Philosphy begins in reason. It cannot say that something is wrong unless it is shown, inescapably, to be so. Nor can it say something is right, unless it can be show, inescapably, to be so. On the issue of God, there appear to be many escapes.

Perhaps this is true if you're only talking in metaphysical absolutes, the same ones that say my mystical arse created the universe is a sensible speculation. If you manage to fit God into as convincing a situation as my arse, good for you, but I doubt it'll do your sophistry any good. Philosophy at large doesn't reject decent argumentation where there are still shades of grey and unanswered questions. I would say that to believe my arse didn't create the universe is a reasonable belief, and the same about any gods or magical entities.

Actually, according to what you've been saying previously, atheists claim that God does not exist -- they do not claim that God "most likely doesn't exist". If they claimed that God "most likely doesn't exist" they'd be more like agnostics. I do acknowledge there are many forms of atheism, as there are many forms of agnosticism and theology. That's one reason I don't like to call myself agnostic.

Agnosticism is not a third position, it is a statement about how knowable God's (non)existence is, and de facto any unfalsifiable entities. Huxley himself said he would quite rightly be called an atheist and infidel. You would be too, unless you believe in at least one god. There are agnostics that believe in at least one god, too, of course, which proves my point.

[Max]

Well, nearly any major scientific revolutions begin with suppositions as yet unproven, lacking all evidence.

I think this is inaccurate; observations and problems in existing theories that are solved by newer ideas usually prompt shifts in scientific thought, from the individual across to everyone else. The way this is written makes it sound like someone just comes up with something new whilst drunk or something, tests that and lo and behold, new scientific theory when it's actually a much more laborious system of standing on the shoulders of giants, as Newton(?) said.

Into the religious, I believe it's the Hindu Brahma age that seems to be very close to the age of the universe.

You're wrong, the Hindu cycle is limited to thousands or hundreds of thousands of years, not billions. The Hindu universe also starts with a milky ocean, not a tiny speck of expanding space.

I had a question about this. Didn't Sagan say that Hinduism,"is the only religion in which the time scales correspond... to those of modern scientific cosmology. Its cycles run from our ordinary day and night to a day and night of the Brahma, 8.64 billion years long, longer than the age of the Earth or the Sun and about half the time since the Big Bang."? Or did you mean something else by that? I'm just curious, I don't want to be pointed out as having wrong information when I reply to the argument.

[Rye]

I'm sure it's like 120,000 years or something.

[Darth Wong]

Does Hinduism even have an authoritative Scripture that you can read in order to determine what it definitely does and doesn't say?

[Dooey Jo]

Does Hinduism even have an authoritative Scripture that you can read in order to determine what it definitely does and doesn't say?

They have the Vedas, and I think they are pretty specific on those kinds of things, although I have not read them myself.

[Ariphaos]

The Hindu texts are freaking huge, dwarfing the Bible by a good order of magnitude. The Rigveda alone has something like 350,000 words - about half the size of the Bible.

[Darth Wong]

Does Hinduism even have an authoritative Scripture that you can read in order to determine what it definitely does and doesn't say?

They have the Vedas, and I think they are pretty specific on those kinds of things, although I have not read them myself.

But is it considered authoritative? The Greco-Roman religion had Homer too, but he wasn't considered "authoritative"; it was a tradition-based and orally transmitted belief system.

[Dooey Jo]

They have the Vedas, and I think they are pretty specific on those kinds of things, although I have not read them myself.

But is it considered authoritative? The Greco-Roman religion had Homer too, but he wasn't considered "authoritative"; it was a tradition-based and orally transmitted belief system.

Ah, I see. I think most Hindus consider it authoritative, even though the belief system is orally transmitted to some degree. At least in the more traditional forms of Hinduism. I can imagine that if a Hindu has a religious question, he might go a guru, who in turn will reference the Vedas (or some other texts; they have more). I don't think very many see it as the literal truth many Christian fundies see the Bible, though.

[Rye]

Does Hinduism even have an authoritative Scripture that you can read in order to determine what it definitely does and doesn't say?

Hindiusm wasn't really considered a single religion until the brits labelled it one in colonial India; but the Vedas are usually taken as the authoritative texts as there's a lot of religions and cults within the religion that are related in a pantheon style.

Looking at the wiki and assuming it's accurate; Kali Yuga, which is the era we're in now according to the majority of hindus, it's meant to last 432,000 years and we're 5000 years into it. (I apologise for my previous post, I was on my way out and made it really hurriedly.)

Looks like I was wrong, though, on the yuga page, "As per Indian astronomy and Hindu Mythology the world is created, destroyed and recreated every 4,320,000 years (Maha Yuga)." The way they determined this, I assume is related to the vedas and the descriptions of the time units described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maha_Yuga