Philosophy: Debating Science [!OT]

[mrwiseman]

From the Philosophy: Is death the answer? thread.

Quoting Raij:

????????
I too agree that death is not a means of rectifying any issues in one's own life. Personally I'm catholic, so basically, i suppose I do believe in a "God", however I am very open-minded about this. I too am aware of what Wiseman mentioned regarding the fact that God may have been a concept devised simply as a means of reassuring those too frieghtened about what happens after death.
But contrasting to this, in my opinion saying that a God of some description just doesn't exist just isn't satisfactory. I often find myself staring into the sky, marvelling at the beautiful colours of the early sunset against the white clouds, and I begin to really appreciate this life with which I was bestowed, but in doing so I ask "Why does all that exist, exist?". "This sky which I see, I truly appreciate. What is it here for? What am I appreciating for it?"

There are many unexplained concepts associated with our reality, but the most profound of all: "How did out universe come to pass?". I simply can't believe that the condensed mass of molecules which was the beginnings of the universe (before the Big Bang) was just there. Why was it there? How did it accumulate?
So many inexplicable questions, of which have no justified answer.

I study sciences, and many theories of the happenings of life around us have been proposed, and many proved highly valid, but science is simply a series of proposed concepts for unfamiliar situations. These concepts and theories are contradicted and corrected all the time, so science is just too unreliable, and logically based to be used as a means of explaining overall life.

Life after death is a completely different situation in itself, for biologically, death is simply the expiration of one's physical body, resulting in the "malfunction" of the body, and eventual decompostion. "Dust to dust."
But what of the proposed "soul" of human beings?
We humans percieve ourselves as complex beings, and that we are, exhibiting self-awareness, altruism, ambition, all the emotions commonly associated with a human being. We've come to consider ourselves as being so complex, that death simply can't be the "end", and that our being perseveres somehow. But if it does, how so? scientifically it is impossible, but yet people have witnessed supernatural events which, although questionable with regards to it's overall reliability, still provides suitable evidence to contradict all that we know.

Overall, life is just so profound, and everything related to it is just too difficult to fully comprehend. All we can do is utilise and cherish what we do know. We exist, now, and it is this certainty that we must embrace. Live in the now, and experience life to the fullest.
????????

Quoting Dreamer:

????????
Well, let's say, I have my own beliefs, but I don't believe in god, nor supernatural stuff, as I don't believe aliens either... until I see/feel/sense it, and this goes for the after death happenings as well. Until I don't know what will come, I wanna be alive and enjoy THIS life I live here on the Earth...
????????

<font color="#345E81" size="1">[ December 16, 2004 10:47 AM: Message edited by: -Wiseman- ]</font>

[mrwiseman]

IRT Raij: You're one of the smartest, most open minded believers I've talked to.


I often find myself staring into the sky, marvelling at the beautiful colours of the early sunset against the white clouds, and I begin to really appreciate this life with which I was bestowed

I agree that the world is overall beautiful. However, beauty is an arbitrary concept, and it's expected the life forms will learn to see their environment beautiful. Consider people, for example. We're relatively greasy, hairy beings. If we weren't human, and especially if we were much larger and looked at humans through a microscope, we may think humans stink, just like most humans (including myself) think bugs stink. However, perceiving creatures of the same species and opposite sexes as beautiful not only happens, but it's vital for our survival as a species. It was a natural selection consequence that the surviving especies find themselves beautiful.


I ask "Why does all that exist, exist?". "This sky which I see, I truly appreciate. What is it here for? What am I appreciating for it?"

It exists because of the laws governing the Universe; it's the most stable and easiest configuration of elements under them. For example, if you throw a hundred spheres in a box at random, you'll see how they tend to accomodate in a rather optimal, harmonious configuration. This just happens because it's the state of minimal potential energy due to gravity. We've learnt to appreciate it as "order" and "beauty" because it's the environment we live in. We also seem to have genetic predisposition towards symmetry, simple geometric forms, and complex combinations of objects following some simple rule.


I simply can't believe that the condensed mass of molecules which was the beginnings of the universe (before the Big Bang) was just there. Why was it there? How did it accumulate?

I don't really believe it, I just think it seems to be the most likely thing to happen. Energy just always existed; it's hard to face this idea for creatures that live during an insignificant time period relative to the unvierse's age, but the first cause that originated this effect (the Universe) will never have a "why", no matter how much we'd like to find a why for everything. In fact, if you think there must've been an omnipotent being who did it, you're just moving the why (and complicating it) - the next step would be to wonder why that being existed, how it came to be.


These concepts and theories are contradicted and corrected all the time, so science is just too unreliable

Science works by improving itself according to what we know. It's the most advanced, intelligent investigation system we ever conceived. The fact that scientists constantly challenge their own theories and perfect them, doesn't make it worse than belief - in fact it makes it better. An invariant fact won't be any more reliable than a dynamic, constantly adjusted and improved theory. But you shouldn't ever believe on it; it would be unnatural to believe in scientific theories. Theories are just"thought to be true until we find a definitive proof that it's true and we can state it as a fact - or a definitive proof that it's false and we can find a theory that works better. What you can be sure of, however, is that everything science states as a definitive fact and not a theory, is indeed an irrefutable fact you don't believe but know, and everything else is a theory that explains all observed phenomena (unless stated otherwise), so you can be sure it works in your normal framework, and again, you don't have to believe it as a generalization; you just know it works, at least within the range you operate.

For example, relativity. Pre-Einstein theories work wonders as long as your speed is under 1/10 of the light's. As technology and observation evolved, we discovered it's not quite so when objects are moving at greater speeds, and Einstein came with a theory that works, at least, for all the cases we can observe with our current technology. Thus, consider these three points:

1. You can safely use the older theory for everything you do as long as you don't require modern atomic precission and speeds comparable to the light.
2. If you do, you have theory which explains everything you can do and observe with our current technology, so you can go and think it's true - for now it won't matter if it doesn't work in strange circumstances we never bumped onto.
3. And if we do find them, it won't be any problem for scientists to add to, modify, or replace Einstein's theory with something that works better for these strange circumstances, which won't invalidate points 2 and 1 under their frameworks. Because scientists don't believe, they just use what works, and they won't be personally challenged by faith if their theory just doesn't work.


But what of the proposed "soul" of human beings?

We haven't had any solid evidence that there's more to life than what we know, like unexplained effects or anything of the sort. Regardless of how comforting or nice the idea of having a soul is, especially because we tend to consider ourselves special because well, we're us [img]smile.gif[/img] , it doesn't have to be so, and it doesn't seem to be so for now.


We've come to consider ourselves as being so complex, that death simply can't be the "end", and that our being perseveres somehow.

One has to differentiate between what's nice and desirable, and what's actually possible. Something nice/important/just/likeable doesn't necessarily have to exist just because it's nice/important/just/likeable; wishful thinking doesn't make reality.


but yet people have witnessed supernatural events which, although questionable with regards to it's overall reliability, still provides suitable evidence to contradict all that we know.

I can assure you that scientists and myself being a scientist of a different branch (information/computers), would pay everything we have for a reliable demonstration that something happens that breaks current theories. It's the way science has gotten to be what it is - instead of stating as a matter of fact 15th century thoughts and observations, it constantly challenges everything we know to see if we're really explaining everything there's to the Universe.


We exist, now, and it is this certainty that we must embrace.

I agree. I think we must concentrate on what's certain and take advantage of it the best we can.

<font color="#345E81" size="1">[ December 16, 2004 10:53 AM: Message edited by: -Wiseman- ]</font>

[Xhell]

I must say that I do agree to most of the points you conveyed above Wiseman. Heh, but overall this issue really does get complicated, and I'm confusing myself here! Although you mentioned that humans are predispositioned to percieve each other and the environment in which we live as "beautiful" (which I agree with), this still doesn't offer any plausible explanation to how such things accumulated and why they exist. Heh, I realise that by stating this I am merely repeating what I already said, but I'm not saying that the reason for everything existing is "because God must exist because an old man and my mum said he did and he made everything and I'm right and so THERE!!! (as some people I know may say)". What im saying is simply that it is something of which it seems we shall never really be able to fully comprehend, regardless of anything anyone ever proposed as a means of explaining, becuase it is probably just educated speculation.
As you said Wiseman, it really doesn't seem to important, and the question "why", although is asked (simply due to the natural desire of humans to gain more of an understanding concerning their environment),it isn't something that should be discussed to much, since an answer won't be found.

I definately agree with what mentioned about science and the benefits it offers us as a race. Although, you say that because of the way in which science is constantly adapting to new situations we encounter, that it is better than beliefs. This is true to a degree, in the sense that it enables us to establish an understanding of what occurs within our environment, but yet enables us to adapt our own perceptions of what is suggested depending on any new information found to contradict the pre-determined theory.
However, in my opinion this is just too inconsistent. On a wide scale, people would eventually lose "faith" in the suggested concepts, if new, inexplicable evidence occasionally arises to suggest that a theory is wrong. People, however complex, are still simple simple creatures, and by experiencing such fluctuating truths and justification associated with what they "believe", they'll eventually be cast into constant disequilibrium, and wont be content with whatever else is suggested.
Heh, I suppose what I mentioned above just supports your argument Wiseman, since the perfect means of resolving the issue of discontent would be to impose a "belief"(or religeon...) that is so incomprehenisible and stubborn to contradiction, that nothing said could fully disprove this belief since people hold such strong confidence in it. This would mean that the people would live in ignorant bliss, liberated from all concerns, being reassured that they can fathom the reality in which they live since it is something perpetuated by a being of which they worship. How naive.

Hmm, intriguing. Meh.

Overall, life is crazy, lotsa great stuff to acknowledge and enquire about. EEeee, fascinating.


IRT Hyper: the existance of aliens is almost a certainty. However, I reckon the reason for your reluctance to believe in aliens is because your definition of "alien" is too simplistic. An alien being is defind as an organism (be it multicellular (like a human) or unicellular (like a bacterial cell)) of which exists within an environment on a different planet. It doesn't necassarily need to be a little green man covered in tentacles. It could be something as simple as a new species of fungus located somewhere on mars. The term "alien" is very ambiguous, and the universe is huge, and constantly expanding, filled with countless stars, around which coruscate planets. Each planet is a possible habitat for alien life. Although we may not be aware of any physical aliens within our solar system, it is almost certain that in one of the other millions of galaxie located outside our own, there would exist a planet which possessed a habitat suitable to instigate the development of life.

Recent scientific research associated with what we know about our planet can even suggest the conditions necassary for life to grow (since it is simply out of luck that Earth retained the conditions required for life to develop. All it needed were the appropriate temperatures (for the planet to be the correct distance from the Sun), for a source of nitrogen, carbon, and most importantly of all, water. With all these conditions accounted for upon a planet, the chances of life occuring are huge (like with reagrds to our own planet, and how we came to pass). It is highly likely that in one of the planets in one of the galaxies in the universe, there is a planet which has cultivated the conditions upon which life can exist.

Aliens do exist!! Fact! Just not in our solar system....probably

[mrwiseman]

IRT Raij:

overall this issue really does get complicated

At first, it does get complicated and you start to feel dizzy when you want to picture the whole Universe working. It was the same for me, until I started thinking of the Universe as a state machine so to speak. A machine consisting of state (properties of all of the sub-atopic particles there exist - including position and velocity), and invariant rules. In a given instant, the current state determines the next state (and vice-versa) by applying the rules. This way of thinking was fed by Information Science, and I've seen it fits pretty much anything, and really makes your life simple, as long as you think of it step by step. It's just a model to understand deterministic (and, to a certain extent, non-deterministic) machines.


this still doesn't offer any plausible explanation to how such things accumulated and why they exist

After whatever happened in the beginning of the universe, and because of the action of gravity and other laws, matter condensed in several spots of space, which gave birth to stars. The remaining matter around stars sometimes grouped in a similar fashion, but formed planets instead, due to its mass and composition. The Earth had lots of iron and carbon, which concentrated in the center, and nitrogen and oxygen, which due to their natural features remained in the outside layers in gas form. Matter gathering together to form a planet like this, burning, and gas staying around can be seen as either the easiest, most balanced, lower entropy configuration, or a consequence of the laws governing the universe after 35+ billion years of iterations; both models are complementary. The configuration of hte Universe wasn't crafted by a consciousness, it just happened because of the laws of physics, blindly, if you want to think of it that way. Just like when you throw random objects to the floor, they'll end in a position where they are stable - not a position you necessarily designed, just a balanced state after applying the laws of nature in each instant.


I realise that by stating this I am merely repeating what I already said

Oops [img]smile.gif[/img] [Did the same]


the natural desire of humans to gain more of an understanding concerning their environment

That's a good thing (and important aspect of intelligence) as long as it doesn't become an obsession to the point people invent all sort of things to explain everything. Ancient people thought the stars were painted in some background by god or they were hanging from some ceiling. That was excessive. It's intelligent to inquire, but it's also intelligent to admit you can't possibly know and decide on the relevance of things.


it isn't something that should be discussed to much, since an answer won't be found.

Yup, yet it's one of people's favorite subjects. I guess it's just fun, and IMO fun is the proper objective in life, so it's ok.


However, in my opinion this is just too inconsistent. On a wide scale, people would eventually lose "faith" in the suggested concepts, if new, inexplicable evidence occasionally arises to suggest that a theory is wrong.

Yup, and that's what's intended. You don't have to have faith in Einstein's theory, just know that it works. Maybe it's the ultimate truth on relativity. Maybe it's not, and we find it's broken; then we'll fix it, and loop. What's important is that in any given time you can know what to do and how will it turn out, as long as you're under the studied frameworks. There are some things, however, that scientists haven't found a working theory for, but that's why they still have a job. If they can't find a working theory, they just state the known facts (observations, etc.), and use the simplest theory that explains the most, while working for something better, but they don't really feel any bad because the current theory doesn't work, in fact it's much more fun.


People, however complex, are still simple simple creatures, and by experiencing such fluctuating truths and justification associated with what they "believe", they'll eventually be cast into constant disequilibrium, and wont be content with whatever else is suggested.

That'd happen if we changed already established stuff. But things go more like:

19th century: You know if you run forwards at 10 Km/h inside a train which moves at 10 Km/h, to an external, still observer, you're running at 10+10 = 20 Km/h. You can bet your ass it'll be this way [img]wink.gif[/img] .

20th century. What if you run forwards at 100000 Km/s, and the train moves at 100000 Km/s? It looks like 100000+100000 = 200000 Km/s just won't work. Good Einstein discovered it just by thinking (!), and formulated a better theory which explains both the 10 Km/h case, and the 100000 Km/s case. We don't know if this is the ultimate truth in this area, but it's sure closer to truth than what we knew before. However, the discovery of this doesn't make your 10+10 = 20 Km/h calculation any less valid; you can assume it's still true as long as you don't move at extreme speeds, and it still works, which is what matters.


the people would live in ignorant bliss

They say ignorance is a bliss, and I think it's true with some people. But I think you can develop more and take full advantage of life if you choose the harder path. I've never felt like I wish I didn't knew something; I've learnt to appreciate all information regardless of if it's happy or sad. Besides, information is power, and power is fun.

????

the existance of aliens is almost a certainty

Most surely so. In such a huge universe, why would the self-reproducing forms in Earth be unique? It's easier to assume life forms of any sort may have developed elsewhere. Even if they happen to exist in just one in every billion of stars because it's such a coincidence of states, that'd mean we have lots of life.


your definition of "alien" is too simplistic

Oh, if you mean the little green men who come to hit it (*) and speak English, of course they don't exist.

(*): If you get this you've seen the 4chan pic.


All it needed were the appropriate temperatures (for the planet to be the correct distance from the Sun), for a source of nitrogen, carbon, and most importantly of all, water.

And that's just for our kind of life. There may be other ways of self-replication. For example, it's roughly thought that silicon-based life (as opposed to carbon) could be possible. And who knows what else. Lots of things could work.


Ultimately, if life were so hard to happen, why do we exist at all?

[squirrelboy]

ooog....deep thoughts....

*sound of brain imploding into itself, creating a miniature black hole in my head*

...as such, only my ideas can now escape as they lack any real substance

[Xhell]

Ultimately, if life were so hard to happen, then why do we exist at all?

And again, this is where I believe an omnipotent being of some type enforces it's influence, however there are, of course, many other possibilities (i.e. it all occurred since molecular matter always existed (scientific perspective), God made it (religious perspective), We're in a gaaaaaaame neo, a prison for our miiiiiiiind, this is.....THE MATRIX (idiot) ), but overall this is again a theory which just cannot be explained, and is simply a matter of personal belief.

But what I wonder, is whether or not humans shall ever be able to be content with themselves, if we'll ever spurn our ambitious desires and just settle for the simple, mandatory things needed to satisfy oneself (i.e. a nice home, a comfortable job, a perfect wife with awesome children). Why must corruption, malice and deciet be such a distinct attribute of the human race as a whole?

[mrwiseman]

IRT Raij:

if we'll ever spurn our ambitious desires and just settle for the simple, mandatory things needed to satisfy oneself

Philosophically-wise, I do. I simplify as much as possible, happily accept any limitations in my knowledge, and don't bother with time-wasters like "Where do we come from?" or "Where are we going?", outside the hobby of discussing at message boards.

As for material and power, this won't ever happen in a generalized manner, because it's life's nature to expand and conquer, to have as each individual's and each species' ultimate goal the conquest of the Universe and power over everything. It's everybody's honest, rightful pretension to want more, in the seek for extreme happiness. As long as we play by the rules, and know that our rights end where somebody else's begin, it'll be fine.


Why must corruption, malice and deciet be such a distinct attribute of the human race as a whole?

Because we are intelligent, but (most of us) not that much. We're intelligent enough to have the capability of being evil, yet not all are smart enough to realize evil actions usually aren't convenient - and that's beyond the concept of morals, which is harder to explain and falls in the same field as common sense - which is not too common.

[Xhell]

aww man, in my opinion this is a great thread! but alas, there have been no "discussion-provoking" posts in a long time. but this thread must not die!
i'll introduce a concept to discuss....

science, knowledge, and the benefits these afformentioned achievements have granted us.

although intelligence is a trait we all possess, we are all constantly endeavouring to utilise, adapt and develop our intelligence. thus, the development of science and human's awareness of our environment and the reality in which we live was inevitable.
concerning the knowledge and information compiled over the many centuries within humankind, do you think that the consequences of such significanr advances has overall good implications on the progression of our species, or do you perhaps believe that despite the seemingly positive results, we're gradually instigating the diminishment and extinction of mankind?

[Aernatus]

I'd love to read this. It's exactly my sort of topic, but jeez...So much bloody text @_@

[mrwiseman]

Science has been nothing but positive for humanity. It's the natural consequence of our intelligence and culture (i.e. the intelligence of our ancestors), and it has helped humankind in countless ways. Compared to scienceless people, we:

- Have twice the life expectancy
- Can treat illness with more than wishful thinking and superstition, and can cure diseases thought to be absolutely mortal
- Work 8~9 hours a day (vs. 16)
- Can all have a luxurious home
- Can know about the world and everything without moving
- Can move 60 times faster than we walk, without getting tired
- Can communicate with people from any place in the world
- Have the most advanced means of entertainment
- Can have safe sex
etc...

A downside to it are the fact that in the early (20th century) development of it, we've hurt the environment more than we should, but we didn't really know about that, and thanks to Science, now we do, and thanks to Science again, we know how we can fix it and pretty much every developed country except the United States is doing something about it.

But what will probably be the main problem of our civilization regarding the purpose of life in the long term is the end of natural selection. We ended it by curing the diseased and helping the handicapped. Of course, I'm not saying we shouldn't do any of this, I'm just pointing out the way we evolved is by the weak and less skilled dying and the strong and better adapted reproducing, and this is not happening right now thanks to our compassion. In the future, we WILL need to establish a means to authorize and deny reproduction based on DNA analysis, skills, and health, if we want to control the population and resume evolution. This will be vital in future autonomous colonies in other planets or satellites.