Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Philosophy, in all its guises. => Topic started by: Sriram on December 11, 2016, 04:09:00 PM
-
Hi everyone,
In another thread, torridon has argued that while strange natural phenomena are merely 'unexplained', anything that is a logical impossibility is...'Magic'.
What do we mean by a logical impossibility? Many things are logical impossibilities till such time that we get used to them and they become logical in our minds.
The fact that we are living on a rock that is flying through space around the sun at 67000 miles per hour and the sun itself is flying around the galaxy at 220 kms per second... is not very logical. I am sure most people, even philosophers and scientists of that day when it was discovered, would have found this a logical impossibility. But it is nevertheless a fact.
There are many other such logical impossibilities....
Wasn't X-ray a logical impossibility before it was discovered?
Isn't a chemical molecule DNA) replicating itself and containing the entire information for formation of complex organisms, a logical impossibility?
Aren't parallel universes existing just inches from us a logical impossibility?
Isn't the entire universe arising out of a String vibrating in eleven dimensions a logical impossibility?
Isn't the Singularity arising from nothing, a logical impossibility?
Isn't the idea of the universe expanding dramatically in an instant, a logical impossibility?
Isn't the fact that elementary particles influence one another instantaneously across the universe (non local action) a logical impossibility?
None of these things are very logical...but we regard them as facts or at least as meaningful theories. All of them are bizarre and completely against any logic. But once we know that they are fact or that some respected scientists have accepted them as a possibility, we start accepting them as logical.
So...using torridon's interpretation, most of the universe is really and truly....Magic!
In other words, what we consider as 'logic' is not something written in stone or something that is fixed in time. It is not simply 2+2=4. Logic is much more than that and much more flexible too.
Logic also evolves, adapts and expands to fit the requirements of our mind. It is just a product of our intellect and as our experiences expand our intellect expands and....our logic also expands.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Hi everyone,
In another thread, torridon has argued that while strange natural phenomena are merely 'unexplained', anything that is a logical impossibility is...'Magic'.
What concerns me is the assumption that inexplicable or unexplained 'strange natural phenomena' have to be natural.
-
get back in your box, you two.
-
I don't get why those things are illogical. It may surprise us that we are on a rock whizzing round a star, which is itself part of a galaxy, which contains billions of stars, but it doesn't seem to defy logic.
-
Hi everyone,
In another thread, torridon has argued that while strange natural phenomena are merely 'unexplained', anything that is a logical impossibility is...'Magic'.
Cheers.
Sriram
Cheers to you sir. I think a lot of the problems of logic stem from it's appropriation by the atheist fraternity.
The popular science journalist, and let's face it many on here swear by them, Arthur C Clarke stated that any sufficiently advanced technology must equate, to those who don't possess it, to magic.
I sometimes suggest to them that one day science might be raising people from the dead (in outpatients clinics?) and human virgin births are already possible.
-
Cheers to you sir. I think a lot of the problems of logic stem from it's appropriation by the atheist fraternity.
The popular science journalist, and let's face it many on here swear by them, Arthur C Clarke stated that any sufficiently advanced technology must equate, to those who don't possess it, to magic.
I sometimes suggest to them that one day science might be raising people from the dead (in outpatients clinics?) and human virgin births are already possible.
are you for real?
-
Good heavens, Sriram - it seems to me this is an example of what the philosopher Stephen Laws would describe as 'going nuclear': to start with you've fallen into the fallacy of equivocation in relation to terms such as 'magic' and 'logic' which are being wrongly used and with different implications or meanings.
It would probably be best to drop 'logic' since you aren't talking about logical contradictions: the open door that is shut or the square circle. In this respect you seem to be talking about things that are underpinned by justified but provisional knowledge, albeit some knowledge will be dependable enough - such as the science supporting aviation.
Then there is 'magic', but you aren't talking about stage magicians where we know there is an explanation even if we can't work out what it is. Neither are we talking about stuff we don't yet fully understand but there are sufficient provisional theories or knowledge to drive forward incremental on-going study: the development of some aspects of medical science is an example. So, if we borrow the Forum time machine (handy for thought experiments like this) and bring someone from, say, the first half of the 17th century forward to now and they saw this computer or a jumbo jet going overhead it may well seem to them like 'magic' - but we know otherwise, hence the well-known quote from Arthur C Clarke.
So, when the term 'magic' is used here it probably as a pejorative term, like 'woo', to imply that there is sufficient knowledge to rebut whatever the claim is, or that the claim is simply fallacious or incoherent and can be rejected.
So:
The fact that we are living on a rock that is flying through space around the sun at 67000 miles per hour and the sun itself is flying around the galaxy at 220 kms per second... is not very logical.
It isn't 'logical', as noted above, and the speed of the Earth as it orbits the Sun is around 1,000 mph (not 67,000 mph) - this is an example of justified knowledge.
I am sure most people, even philosophers and scientists of that day when it was discovered, would have found this a logical impossibility. But it is nevertheless a fact.
Indeed it is - but to establish such facts is an incremental process via theories, methods and investigation (in this case despite the interference of religious thinking in earlier times).
There are many other such logical impossibilities....
Wasn't X-ray a logical impossibility before it was discovered?
Isn't a chemical molecule DNA) replicating itself and containing the entire information for formation of complex organisms, a logical impossibility?
Not illogical, but while these might be surprising to earlier generations of scientists who weren't around to see the incremental progress involved they are unremarkable today.
Aren't parallel universes existing just inches from us a logical impossibility?
Isn't the entire universe arising out of a String vibrating in eleven dimensions a logical impossibility?
Isn't the Singularity arising from nothing, a logical impossibility?
Isn't the idea of the universe expanding dramatically in an instant, a logical impossibility?
Isn't the fact that elementary particles influence one another instantaneously across the universe (non local action) a logical impossibility?
Not 'logically impossible' but these are areas where there is more to be done, which may involve either rejecting these ideas should the basis for doing so become clear: meantime the work goes on and 'we don't yet know' applies.
None of these things are very logical...but we regard them as facts or at least as meaningful theories. All of them are bizarre and completely against any logic. But once we know that they are fact or that some respected scientists have accepted them as a possibility, we start accepting them as logical.
Leaving aside your mild hysteria, these theories aren't just guesses: they are hypothesis based on provisional knowledge that will either be rejected where the evidence contradicts them, leading to revised theories, or they will be provisionally supported. As yet there are insufficient grounds to accept them but investigations continue in much the same way that, for example, miasma theory was rejected in favour of germ theory in the late 19th century.
So...using torridon's interpretation, most of the universe is really and truly....Magic!
Nope, and I doubt your interpretation of what Torridon has said in numerous posts is correct.
In other words, what we consider as 'logic' is not something written in stone or something that is fixed in time. It is not simply 2+2=4. Logic is much more than that and much more flexible too.
Logic also evolves, adapts and expands to fit the requirements of our mind. It is just a product of our intellect and as our experiences expand our intellect expands and....our logic also expands.
Nope - your use of 'logic' is wrong: I think you mean 'knowledge'.
-
What do we mean by a logical impossibility? Many things are logical impossibilities till such time that we get used to them and they become logical in our minds.
This is incorrect. A logical impossibility is something that deductively cannot be true. It is logically impossible to write out the square root of two as a ratio of two whole numbers. We know this because there is a cast iron deductive argument that proves it.
I don't think Torridon was correct in his definition of magic. By "logically impossible" he probably meant "contrary to physical law".
The fact that we are living on a rock that is flying through space around the sun at 67000 miles per hour and the sun itself is flying around the galaxy at 220 kms per second... is not very logical. I am sure most people, even philosophers and scientists of that day when it was discovered, would have found this a logical impossibility. But it is nevertheless a fact.
You seem to be confusing ignorance and logic. People might have thought of this as impossible, but for it to be logically impossible, they would have needed to come up with a proof.
There are many other such logical impossibilities....
Wasn't X-ray a logical impossibility before it was discovered?
Isn't a chemical molecule DNA) replicating itself and containing the entire information for formation of complex organisms, a logical impossibility?
Aren't parallel universes existing just inches from us a logical impossibility?
Isn't the entire universe arising out of a String vibrating in eleven dimensions a logical impossibility?
Isn't the Singularity arising from nothing, a logical impossibility?
Isn't the idea of the universe expanding dramatically in an instant, a logical impossibility?
Isn't the fact that elementary particles influence one another instantaneously across the universe (non local action) a logical impossibility?
Most of those things are not logical impossibilities. Most of them are just you expressing incredulity.
-
get back in your box, you two.
Which one, the 'physically impossible to fit into' box, or the 'logically possible' box? ;)
-
Which one, the 'physically impossible to fit into' box, or the 'logically possible' box? ;)
don't get smart, just get in your box. ;)
-
Cheers to you sir. I think a lot of the problems of logic stem from it's appropriation by the atheist fraternity.
The popular science journalist, and let's face it many on here swear by them, Arthur C Clarke stated that any sufficiently advanced technology must equate, to those who don't possess it, to magic.
I sometimes suggest to them that one day science might be raising people from the dead (in outpatients clinics?) and human virgin births are already possible.
I agree with you...Emergence -The musical! :)
-
Hi everyone,
Logic is about reasoning. It is not a panacea. Reasoning (and logic) obviously depend upon our background information, cultural base and social acceptance (in the group where we belong). Reasoning or logic is not therefore something independent of our natural limitations and background. What may seem reasonable to one person may seem unreasonable to someone else.
Logic and reasoning could be mathematical and precise in certain situations but this need not always be true. Reasoning and logic could be very general and depend on ones experience, culture and what we are ready to accept as true.
The idea of God itself is very logical and reasonable to most people in the world...while our atheist friends find it completely illogical and unreasonable. Most atheists and materialists think that the universe arising by chance from nothing, and the ideas of Emergence are very logical and reasonable...while most other people find these ideas completely unreasonable.
So...something can seem completely illogical and still be true. Something could seem perfectly logical and still be untrue. The examples I have given above are relevant here. You can add some more examples if you want.
My point is that...most of our current ideas of the universe would have seemed completely illogical and unreasonable to people (even scientists) of centuries ago. Einstein himself considered some of the QM ideas as bizarre. He did not accept and jokingly called the instantaneous non local influence of elementary particles as 'Spooky action at a distance'.
It is therefore naive to have a very rigid view of what can be true and what cannot be. The world can be far more complex and 'weird' than we can imagine. 100 years from today, many of our ideas could change dramatically. Many more bizarre ideas that we cannot even imagine today may be a normal part of our understanding of the world.
You never know... maybe even spirit, soul, after-life, reincarnation, karma and God...could become normal, well accepted, logical and very reasonable explanations for phenomena, hundred years from today. ;) Maybe all scientists at that time will be following the well accepted science of Spirituality and doing yoga, chanting mantras, visiting churches/temples, meditating...like there is no tomorrow! I seriously think this is a distinct possibility given the direction new science is taking in some quarters! :D
Cheers.
Sriram
PS: Gordon...the earth is orbiting the sun at 18.5 miles per second (30 kms per second). this works out to 67000 miles per hour. Not 1000 mph as you mention.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/41-our-solar-system/the-earth/orbit/91-at-what-speed-does-the-earth-move-around-the-sun-beginner
-
Hi everyone,
Logic is about reasoning. It is not a panacea. Reasoning (and logic) obviously depend upon our background information, cultural base and social acceptance (in the group where we belong). Reasoning or logic is not therefore something independent of our natural limitations and background. What may seem reasonable to one person may seem unreasonable to someone else.
Logic and reasoning could be mathematical and precise in certain situations but this need not always be true. Reasoning and logic could be very general and depend on ones experience, culture and what we are ready to accept as true.
You seem to be arguing for 'subjective logic', which sounds like an oxymoron to me.
PS: Gordon...the earth is orbiting the sun at 18.5 miles per second (30 kms per second). this works out to 67000 miles per hour. Not 1000 mph as you mention.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/41-our-solar-system/the-earth/orbit/91-at-what-speed-does-the-earth-move-around-the-sun-beginner
Yes - you're right and I was wrong: I was (wrongly) thinking of the speed of the Earth's rotation on its axis whereas you made it clear you were referring to its orbital speed around the Sun.
-
The whole thread is based on a misunderstanding and misuse of logic. What is a "logical impossibility"? - usually just a mundane error - nothing like magic.
-
You seem to be arguing for 'subjective logic', which sounds like an oxymoron to me.
Yes - you're right and I was wrong: I was (wrongly) thinking of the speed of the Earth's rotation on its axis whereas you made it clear you were referring to its orbital speed around the Sun.
I have already said that there is nothing universal about logic. It depends on our background and training. Whatever we have been taught to accept as reasonable.
God and after-life can seem perfectly logical and reasonable to many people. Chance and random events may seem perfectly logical to others.
-
I have already said that there is nothing universal about logic. It depends on our background and training. Whatever we have been taught to accept as reasonable.
God and after-life can seem perfectly logical and reasonable to many people. Chance and random events may seem perfectly logical to others.
So logical syllogisms are just cultural?
-
I have already said that there is nothing universal about logic. It depends on our background and training. Whatever we have been taught to accept as reasonable.
That is illogical.
God and after-life can seem perfectly logical and reasonable to many people. Chance and random events may seem perfectly logical to others.
As it the above.
-
Hi everyone,
In another thread, torridon has argued that while strange natural phenomena are merely 'unexplained', anything that is a logical impossibility is...'Magic'.
What do we mean by a logical impossibility? Many things are logical impossibilities till such time that we get used to them and they become logical in our minds.
You are simply unclear on the difference between 'unexplained' and 'inexplicable'. We don't understand dark matter yet, but nobody claims it is magic, nobody claims it is inexplicable; what we do say is that it is currently unexplained.
....
-
I have already said that there is nothing universal about logic. It depends on our background and training. Whatever we have been taught to accept as reasonable.
God and after-life can seem perfectly logical and reasonable to many people. Chance and random events may seem perfectly logical to others.
Just plain wrong. You are mixing up logic with apparent reasonableness. Here is some logic : two plus two equals four; now that expresses a logical truth that is universal, applicable in all languages, in all cultures, in all times.
-
Yes, Sriram is using the word 'logic' in an odd way. Well, he can do that, but it just produces confusion.
-
I have already said that there is nothing universal about logic. It depends on our background and training. Whatever we have been taught to accept as reasonable.
That's clearly false.
God and after-life can seem perfectly logical and reasonable to many people. Chance and random events may seem perfectly logical to others.
"seem logical" and "is logical" are two different things.
-
Just plain wrong. You are mixing up logic with apparent reasonableness. Here is some logic : two plus two equals four; now that expresses a logical truth that is universal, applicable in all languages, in all cultures, in all times.
Eh? "2+2 ..." is not logic. It is a tautology from number theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_logic
-
Most atheists and materialists think that the universe arising by chance from nothing, ............................very logical and reasonable...
Which atheists and materialists think that?
-
Mathematical logic is only one type of logic. It is not everything.
Logic is about reason. As I have mentioned, many things may be logical but not necessarily true...and many things may be illogical but could be true. All the instances I have mentioned in the OP are examples.
-
Mathematical logic is only one type of logic. It is not everything.
Logic is about reason. As I have mentioned, many things may be logical but not necessarily true...and many things may be illogical but could be true. All the instances I have mentioned in the OP are examples.
You are just massaging the meaning of the word 'logic' to suit your own private view. That things might appear logical or illogical to us is more about the deficit in our comprehension. A logical proposition is either valid or it is not valid, it matters not a jot what the cultural context of people arguing about it is. Truth is not relative in the end.
-
You are just massaging the meaning of the word 'logic' to suit your own private view. That things might appear logical or illogical to us is more about the deficit in our comprehension. A logical proposition is either valid or it is not valid, it matters not a jot what the cultural context of people arguing about it is. Truth is not relative in the end.
But Truth is not necessarily 'logical'. That is the point.
Logic is a product of the human intellect. Truth need not fall within those parameters.
-
But Truth is not necessarily 'logical'. That is the point.
Logic is a product of the human intellect. Truth need not fall within those parameters.
That is not right. The truth of any given scenario, or the logic underlying it, is for us to discover, we do not invent it. We merely invent the language with which to describe it. That the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides of the triangle is something we had to discover and mathematical logic is just a particular case of logic applied to geometric and numerical concepts. Triangles were always triangles were always triangles long before humans evolved to ponder their underlying logic.
-
That is not right. The truth of any given scenario, or the logic underlying it, is for us to discover, we do not invent it. We merely invent the language with which to describe it. That the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides of the triangle is something we had to discover and mathematical logic is just a particular case of logic applied to geometric and numerical concepts. Triangles were always triangles were always triangles long before humans evolved to ponder their underlying logic.
You are just going round and round around the same point....but not admitting that there could be many aspects of reality that we may never understand through our logic and our technology.
You are scared that once you do that...someone will immediately push God down your throat...right?! :D
-
You are just going round and round around the same point....but not admitting that there could be many aspects of reality that we may never understand through our logic and our technology.
You are scared that once you do that...someone will immediately push God down your throat...right?! :D
No the reason we are going round in circles is because you don't seem to be able to grasp what logic actually is.
-
You are just going round and round around the same point....but not admitting that there could be many aspects of reality that we may never understand through our logic and our technology.
Could there: how could you ever know (as opposed to just asserting).
You are scared that once you do that...someone will immediately push God down your throat...right?! :D
Wrong.
-
Fortunately, once you have got logic out of the way, you can make up any rubbish you like with no need to account for it!
-
That is not right. The truth of any given scenario, or the logic underlying it, is for us to discover, we do not invent it. We merely invent the language with which to describe it. That the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides of the triangle is something we had to discover and mathematical logic is just a particular case of logic applied to geometric and numerical concepts. Triangles were always triangles were always triangles long before humans evolved to ponder their underlying logic.
If a String (supposedly) vibrates in eleven dimensions and 'creates' the world...there is no logic that you can possibly apply to it. It is just something you accept as a possibility.... on the authority of some scientists and their mathematics.
When someone says that Parallel universes could exist inches from us but still be inaccessible to us....there is no logic you can apply to it. It is just a possibility that you accept....again on the authority of some scientists and their mathematics.
However, if someone says that Spiritual Worlds could exist inches from us and still be inaccessible to us...that would seem absolutely illogical to you! :D
That is the problem.
-
If a String (supposedly) vibrates in eleven dimensions and 'creates' the world...there is no logic that you can possibly apply to it. It is just something you accept as a possibility.... on the authority of some scientists and their mathematics.
When someone says that Parallel universes could exist inches from us but still be inaccessible to us....there is no logic you can apply to it. It is just a possibility that you accept....again on the authority of some scientists and their mathematics.
However, if someone says that Spiritual Worlds could exist inches from us and still be inaccessible to us...that would seem absolutely illogical to you! :D
That is the problem.
Humans did not evolve to think rationally; what you describe is our growing pains as we learn to think outwith our anthropic intuitions. At one time people would have found the idea of a spherical Earth completely illogical. That is not because it was illogical it was merely because of the deficit in human comprehension at that time. You are still confusing our level of comprehension with logic.
-
Humans did not evolve to think rationally; what you describe is our growing pains as we learn to think outwith our anthropic intuitions. At one time people would have found the idea of a spherical Earth completely illogical. That is not because it was illogical it was merely because of the deficit in human comprehension at that time. You are still confusing our level of comprehension with logic.
Yes.....'At one time people would have found the idea of a spherical Earth completely illogical.'......that's it...Period! Now...don't immediately say 'it is not illogical' as though logic is something Absolute out there that decides all reality. Nothing of that sort.
Logic is not absolute. It is relative and connected to our current understanding.
Parallel Universes today seem perfectly logical merely because of scientific authority. We just nod along and get used to certain concepts.
Similarly, tomorrow we could accept and get used to the idea of an After-Life or Spiritual Worlds or Intelligent Creation and so on....and that would be perfectly logical. And this point is what you don't seem willing to grasp.
-
Similarly, tomorrow we could accept and get used to the idea of an After-Life or Spiritual Worlds or Intelligent Creation and so on....and that would be perfectly logical.
Only if this outbreak of 'logic' is accompanied by the abandonment of both reason and rational enquiry. You seem to be using 'logic' as a synonym for woo.
-
If a String (supposedly) vibrates in eleven dimensions and 'creates' the world...there is no logic that you can possibly apply to it. It is just something you accept as a possibility.... on the authority of some scientists and their mathematics.
That is a fundamentally inaccurate presentation of what string theory is. Please stop using it.
When someone says that Parallel universes could exist inches from us but still be inaccessible to us....there is no logic you can apply to it. It is just a possibility that you accept....again on the authority of some scientists and their mathematics.
However, if someone says that Spiritual Worlds could exist inches from us and still be inaccessible to us...that would seem absolutely illogical to you! :D
That is the problem.
Under current theories of the Universe, other parallel universes are a possibility. If you apply logic to the laws as we understand them, parallel universes are not excluded. Spiritual Universes suffer from the problem of being not well enough defined for science to say anything at all about them.
-
Yes.....'At one time people would have found the idea of a spherical Earth completely illogical.'......that's it...Period! Now...don't immediately say 'it is not illogical' as though logic is something Absolute
Logic is an absolute. Sorry, but you are wrong.
Logic is not absolute. It is relative and connected to our current understanding.
Wrong. How we apply logic to the real world is connected to our understanding of it, but logic itself is absolute.
Philosophers talk about two properties of logical arguments:
An argument is logically valid if it is internally consistent. To take an example from Wikipedia
1 All organisms with wings can fly.
2 Penguins have wings.
Therefore,
3 penguins can fly
This is a logically valid argument. If the premises are true (1 and 2), the conclusion (3) is also true. Your understanding of penguins, wings and flying are irrelevant, the argument is logically valid.
An argument is sound if is valid and its premises are true. Clearly, the above argument is not sound because premise number 1 is false. However, just because we know premise number 1 is false doesn't mean the logic is wrong.
-
Yes.....'At one time people would have found the idea of a spherical Earth completely illogical.'......that's it...Period! Now...don't immediately say 'it is not illogical' as though logic is something Absolute out there that decides all reality. Nothing of that sort.
Logic is not absolute. It is relative and connected to our current understanding.
Well you are wrong, and stubbornly wrong to boot. See Jeremy's post above for a much clearer understanding of logic. You are just continuing to mistake comprehension for logic. Not the same thing at all.
-
...
An argument is logically valid if it is internally consistent. To take an example from Wikipedia
1 All organisms with wings can fly.
2 Penguins have wings.
Therefore,
3 penguins can fly
This is a logically valid argument. If the premises are true (1 and 2), the conclusion (3) is also true. Your understanding of penguins, wings and flying are irrelevant, the argument is logically valid.
An argument is sound if is valid and its premises are true. Clearly, the above argument is not sound because premise number 1 is false. However, just because we know premise number 1 is false doesn't mean the logic is wrong.
hmm.. but you have not considered spiritual logic and yogic flying ... one day Jonathan Livingstone Penguin will rise to a higher level ... and fly!
Wings or no wings, premises be damned! I'm just worried about how his chicks will find him.
-
Sriram
woo woo = woo woo
no matter how much you want it to be true true
-
That is a fundamentally inaccurate presentation of what string theory is. Please stop using it.
Under current theories of the Universe, other parallel universes are a possibility. If you apply logic to the laws as we understand them, parallel universes are not excluded. Spiritual Universes suffer from the problem of being not well enough defined for science to say anything at all about them.
Why do you think Parallel Universes postulated by scientists are different from the more popularly understood Spiritual worlds?
-
If a String (supposedly) vibrates in eleven dimensions and 'creates' the world...there is no logic that you can possibly apply to it. It is just something you accept as a possibility.... on the authority of some scientists and their mathematics.
"If" is the key word. Some people, and some scientists may accept that such things are a possibility. I've heard some other scientists assert that seven dimensions are all that are required to resolve certain problems that arise in the current state of play in the "quantum" and "relativity" argument.
However, imagining six impossible things before breakfast does absolutely nothing to firmly advance scientific understanding. One can imaging all kinds of pseudo-scientific woo, from wormholes to the warp-drives in Star-Trek. Speculative hypotheses can be thrown up all the time. You seem to take a peculiar delight in saying "Wow" about every fantastical thing you've ever read. But I understand that the gap between speculative hypothesis and valuable scientific theory requires a lot of hard work.
-
"If" is the key word. Some people, and some scientists may accept that such things are a possibility. I've heard some other scientists assert that seven dimensions are all that are required to resolve certain problems that arise in the current state of play in the "quantum" and "relativity" argument.
However, imagining six impossible things before breakfast does absolutely nothing to firmly advance scientific understanding. One can imaging all kinds of pseudo-scientific woo, from wormholes to the warp-drives in Star-Trek. Speculative hypotheses can be thrown up all the time. You seem to take a peculiar delight in saying "Wow" about every fantastical thing you've ever read. But I understand that the gap between speculative hypothesis and valuable scientific theory requires a lot of hard work.
I agree the Sting theory is speculative and not likely to be proved at any time soon...(if at all at any time). But it is nevertheless accepted as a possibility and as a valid hypothesis by most people around the world. And it is included in many derived theories of the world.
How can this be so...when it defeats logic? If String theory and parallel universes and Singularity and Dark Matter and many other such ideas can be accepted as possible even though they are hardly logical ...why should ideas of an after-life, spirit, reincarnation and such, be dismissed as illogical?!
The problem is the mindset against religion and the confusion of spiritual philosophies with religious mythology. Because certain mythological ideas are dismissed as illogical or untrue, all spirituality is dismissed. This is incorrect!
-
I agree the Sting theory is speculative and not likely to be proved at any time soon...(if at all at any time). But it is nevertheless accepted as a possibility and as a valid hypothesis by most people around the world. And it is included in many derived theories of the world.
How can this be so...when it defeats logic? If String theory and parallel universes and Singularity and Dark Matter and many other such ideas can be accepted as possible even though they are hardly logical ...why should ideas of an after-life, spirit, reincarnation and such, be dismissed as illogical?!
The problem is the mindset against religion and the confusion of spiritual philosophies with religious mythology. Because certain mythological ideas are dismissed as illogical or untrue, all spirituality is dismissed. This is incorrect!
I understand the meaning of the individual words but can make no sense of them in this order.
-
Why do you think Parallel Universes postulated by scientists are different from the more popularly understood Spiritual worlds?
It's explained in the post you quoted.
-
I agree the Sting theory is speculative and not likely to be proved at any time soon...(if at all at any time). But it is nevertheless accepted as a possibility and as a valid hypothesis by most people around the world. And it is included in many derived theories of the world.
How can this be so...when it defeats logic?
It doesn't defeat logic. If string theory defeated logic, it would have been thrown away by now.
If String theory and parallel universes and Singularity and Dark Matter and many other such ideas can be accepted as possible even though they are hardly logical ...why should ideas of an after-life, spirit, reincarnation and such, be dismissed as illogical?!
I don't dismiss them as illogical, I dismiss them as useless. They are not useful as a tool for understanding the World. String theory and parallel universes also aren't that useful yet, but they show some potential.
The problem is the mindset against religion and the confusion of spiritual philosophies with religious mythology. Because certain mythological ideas are dismissed as illogical or untrue, all spirituality is dismissed. This is incorrect!
No the problem is your willingness to conflate myth and scientific speculation.
-
It doesn't defeat logic. If string theory defeated logic, it would have been thrown away by now.
I don't dismiss them as illogical, I dismiss them as useless. They are not useful as a tool for understanding the World. String theory and parallel universes also aren't that useful yet, but they show some potential.
No the problem is your willingness to conflate myth and scientific speculation.
What is logical about a tiny thing like a String vibrating in eleven dimensions and creating the universe? If religious people had come up with that...you guys would have laughed your heads off! ::)
There is much more evidence for spirit and after-life (through NDE's) than there is for a String or parallel universes. And yet....Argument from Authority (Scientists) seems to be the name of the game...rather than evidence.
-
String theory is perfectly logical. It is just maths. It provides building blocks from which we are in the process of deriving the maths of quantum physics and relativity.
Other implications include the multiverse and, so far, other un-testable predictions. It cannot be accepted as correct science unless it can predict and explain significant verifiable experimental findings which don't have simpler explanations.
In contrast, nothing about "spirit" and "after-life" will ever be verifiable. it is not even possible to define them in ways that aren't nonsense.
-
String theory is perfectly logical. It is just maths. It provides building blocks from which we are in the process of deriving the maths of quantum physics and relativity.
Other implications include the multiverse and, so far, other un-testable predictions. It cannot be accepted as correct science unless it can predict and explain significant verifiable experimental findings which don't have simpler explanations.
In contrast, nothing about "spirit" and "after-life" will ever be verifiable. it is not even possible to define them in ways that aren't nonsense.
According to you..maths is enough evidence then?! But direct experience isn't?! Nice!
-
Maths is certainly not enough evidence - I did not say it was. However it does mean that it is logical.
Why should maths apply to the real world/universe? That is a different question.
No model can be accepted as correct except where it is verifiable to the limits of our measurement abilities. .. And it may be discarded when these improve.
-
...
But direct experience isn't?! Nice!
...
Direct experience - meaning certain emotional and mental states - everyone has these, in various flavors and forms, however because of their subjective and intimate nature science has made minimal progress in building causal/predictive models. We can and will continue to investigate using neuroscience and psychology.
If people want to investigate using meditation and religious practice - that is fine by me as long as they don't call it science.
-
Direct experience - meaning certain emotional and mental states - everyone has these, in various flavors and forms, however because of their subjective and intimate nature science has made minimal progress in building causal/predictive models. We can and will continue to investigate using neuroscience and psychology.
If people want to investigate using meditation and religious practice - that is fine by me as long as they don't call it science.
have you ever seen that program on telly with Yvette Fielding called Most Haunted . After many years of ghost hunting , they've NEVER found one , funny that.
-
What is logical about a tiny thing like a String vibrating in eleven dimensions and creating the universe? If religious people had come up with that...you guys would have laughed your heads off! ::)
What is logical about it is that the mathematical model does not lead to a contradiction. Whether it is a good description of reality (which is what you are really complaining about) is another matter.
There is much more evidence for spirit and after-life (through NDE's) than there is for a String or parallel universes. And yet....Argument from Authority (Scientists) seems to be the name of the game...rather than evidence.
There's zero evidence for the afterlife. It's difficult to understand what evidence there is for "spirit" (yes he did sir) because there is no coherent definition of what it is.
-
What is logical about it is that the mathematical model does not lead to a contradiction. Whether it is a good description of reality (which is what you are really complaining about) is another matter.
There's zero evidence for the afterlife. It's difficult to understand what evidence there is for "spirit" (yes he did sir) because there is no coherent definition of what it is.
There is plenty of evidence for an after-life. Many people just don't want to see it...that is all. Instead of seeing the phenomena for what it is...you want the phenomena to present itself to you in a manner that you think is acceptable. That is not going to happen.
The more the scientific community ignores such evidence, the more it is likely to be ignored by the people in the years to come. Many people today are educated and confident enough to know how far science can go and where it cannot. The word of the scientific community will no longer be 'God's' word, that it hitherto was.
-
There is plenty of evidence for an after-life. Many people just don't want to see it...that is all. Instead of seeing the phenomena for what it is...you want the phenomena to present itself to you in a manner that you think is acceptable. That is not going to happen.
The more the scientific community ignores such evidence, the more it is likely to be ignored by the people in the years to come. Many people today are educated and confident enough to know how far science can go and where it cannot. The word of the scientific community will no longer be 'God's' word, that it hitherto was.
This is a simple honest request
please show the evidence
that's it. That's all I ask , no arguments .
-
There is plenty of evidence for an after-life. Many people just don't want to see it...that is all. Instead of seeing the phenomena for what it is...you want the phenomena to present itself to you in a manner that you think is acceptable. That is not going to happen.
Stop besmirching the word 'evidence'. Whatever has it done to you that you should treat it thus ?
-
There is plenty of evidence for an after-life. Many people just don't want to see it...that is all. Instead of seeing the phenomena for what it is...you want the phenomena to present itself to you in a manner that you think is acceptable. That is not going to happen.
No, because there is no phenomenon to be presented. And I am being pedantic, but remember I listen to posts and when words are consistently used wrongly, it does make me wince after a while.
The more the scientific community ignores such evidence, the more it is likely to be ignored by the people in the years to come. Many people today are educated and confident enough to know how far science can go and where it cannot. The word of the scientific community will no longer be 'God's' word, that it hitherto was.
Not only is that wrong, but in my opinion that post has a strong air of pomposity about it.
-
There is plenty of evidence for an after-life.
Nope.
Many people just don't want to see it...that is all. Instead of seeing the phenomena for what it is...you want the phenomena to present itself to you in a manner that you think is acceptable. That is not going to happen.
The manner I want the phenomenon to present itself in is verifiable. That's all I ask.
The more the scientific community ignores such evidence, the more it is likely to be ignored by the people in the years to come. Many people today are educated and confident enough to know how far science can go and where it cannot. The word of the scientific community will no longer be 'God's' word, that it hitherto was.
[/quote]