Sagan and anyone who care toreply (page 6)

Pole

:Interesting take, Pole. Do you also subscribe to the notion of a disk earth?

Floating effortlessly on a cushion of air.

:I believe that the milesic pilosophers moved too swiftly and utterly away from mythos and into logos, and they failed to recognize that there may be a point where the two converge. That the Pythagorean thinkers cleaved to logos is not surprising, it is appealing to put our capacity for thought as the paramount vehicle through which reality can be described and understood, however there remain other means by which we understand (or "know") reality than simply cognition and theoretical exercise.

:Theory helps us explain, but we each know more than any of us can put into words.

I believe something to the contrary. There is a reason why many consider Thales and his Miletian buddies as the fathers of western philosophy. It may just be that you have a taste for mystics which I don't share. BTW, have you just worded a meta-theory ;-) ?

Cheers,

Pole

AuldSoul

Experiential knowledge can only be communicated as perfectly as the language used facilitates. Language is a limiting factor. I know things you will never know and vice versa. QED, we each know more than any of us can put into words.

I am not opposed to logos, I am opposed to excluding mythos. There is a significant difference. And yes, it was a meta-theory. But it wasn't a "gotchya!" to point the fact up, because I believe there is room for both/all kinds of thought and communication and knowledge.

Respectfully,
AuldSoul

EAGLE-1

42

spawn2u

Don't know how we were spawned, think we will have to wait until they roll the credits.

parakeet

jw, Having observed both sides of the question for a long time (intelligent design vs. big bang/evolution), I've come to the conclusion that there is no satisfactory way to be certain of either theory, although big bang/evolution has more going for it in terms of physical evidence. Since there is no way I can be certain about how we got here, my personal working theory is that it doesn't matter. The only thing I can be sure of is that I am alive now, and regardless of how I got here, I intend to deal with real, here-and-now problems (and there are plenty) and let the past and future take care of themselves. Each day's evil is sufficient; no need to go looking for more. parakeet

press any key

If God made all the beautiful little creatures, and us, he sure dont seem to be bragging about it. He keeping pretty quiet for the last few millenium. Which is quite understandable imho given the world is a bit of a mess.

On the other hand if there was no creator we would expect to hear ... ... . .. .silence which is what we've got, and a messy stumbling around kind of world.

So unless our disinterested creator wants to put his hand up in a meaningful non-crap way (which naturally excludes 2000 year old compilations of scrolls) I have to go with the blue pill.

But fwiw I think that noone really knows as we weren't there.

The highest probability is that we are part of a self-aware (although delusional) computer simulation.

Cheers

AuldSoul

Where's the "any" key?

Welcome to the forum!

funkyderek

AuldSoul:

Without first knowing how complex life emerged we cannot possibly arrive at its spontaneous emergence by any mechanism, under any number of constraints, or the inevitibility of such an emergence.

We can postulate likely scenarios and use what we do know to extrapolate what we don't. At the very least, we can cut down the number of possibilities.

The smallest number of initial constraints I know of is 1. Special design by an intelligence that has always existed. Can you come up with a model that requires less than or equal to one constraint?

Nice try. Only one constraint but it's the most powerful, intelligent being imaginable, unlike anything known to exist. If we want to play games like that, imagine the exact same scenario but without the intelligent designer. Zero constraints, according to your count, and the same universe.

You are missing that you use the Scientific Method to prove knowns and unknowns,

I don't think so. In fact, that was my whole point.

coupled with the human tendency to label and define the properties of that which we do not understand, and then we call it understood, proven, or known, when in fact, it is only understood withing the framework we attributed to it.

It's quite easy within the scientific method to allow for margins of error. We have varying degrees of certainty about different beliefs. The scientific method can help reduce the degree of uncertainty to a level close to zero.

If something exists outside the realm of Scientifically demonstrable human knowledge, does that mean it automatically exists outside attainable human knowledge? I urge you to cautiously answer that question. I don't think you are going to like that tidbit of reality.

No, of course not. I don't know if that's meant to be a trick question or if it's just poorly worded, but as it stands, I've no problem answering in the negative.

There are no other "known" (proven) universes, which makes their possible existence no more likely than the possible existence of anything else that is "supposed" to exist.

There is one known universe. We know (in broad principle) how it formed. There seems to be no reason that other universes couldn't form in a similar manner in other parts (places/times/dimensions) of the "multiverse".

There are no known gods. Nobody seems to have the remotest idea how such a being could come to exist. Every argument has a trivially easy counter-argument:

He's always been there. The universe (or multiverse) has always been there.

He just popped into existence. The universe (or multiverse) just popped into existence.

He evolved from a simpler entity. How did that entity come into existence?

I accept that the "many universes" scenario is postulating whole universes not known to exist, and it may not be necessary at all, but it's a fine example of a hypothesis which requires less explanation than the existence of anything we would call a god.

AuldSoul

Nice try. Only one constraint but it's the most powerful, intelligent being imaginable, unlike anything known to exist. If we want to play games like that, imagine the exact same scenario but without the intelligent designer. Zero constraints, according to your count, and the same universe.

Cause? There cannot be existence of life with zero constraints causing existence. (1) Abiogenesis has no workable model and (2) you reverted back "known to exist" as opposed to "proven to exist". There is no requirement of a capacity to demonstrate or prove in order for something to be known, otherwise no one loves anyone, no one respects anyone, etc. ad infinitum.

Respectfully,
AuldSoul

AuldSoul

It's quite easy within the scientific method to allow for margins of error. We have varying degrees of certainty about different beliefs. The scientific method can help reduce the degree of uncertainty to a level close to zero.

Hm. And how do these margins of error get established? How do they get reduced? Until something is proven the margin of error is subjective. In fact, until potential (the likelihood of a certain hypothesis being proven) becomes reality (a certain hypothesis being proven) the margin of error is 100% in either direction, meaning there is always a 50/50 chance of a hypothesis being proven. Anything else you have always told yourself is an unfounded belief. But don't feel badly, humans can't help but develop beliefs, it is almost as though we were hardwired for it.

Like I stated earlier, the Scientific Method is just another belief generator. With every post you lead me more and more firmly to that conclusion.

Respectfully,
AuldSoul

Sagan and anyone who care toreply

Share this