Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Philosophy, in all its guises. => Topic started by: Sriram on October 09, 2020, 02:49:54 PM
-
Hi everyone,
Here is a very interesting video about existence. Infinite Regress is also addressed here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2DyvF03isM
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Hi everyone,
Here is a very interesting video about existence. Infinite Regress is also addressed here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2DyvF03isM
Cheers.
Sriram
Apart from the fact that I don't watch videos, just a small hint or idea of what might be in it just possibly might attract comments ...
-
Hi everyone,
Here is a very interesting video about existence. Infinite Regress is also addressed here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2DyvF03isM
Cheers.
Sriram
I’m definitely in favour of existence, especially in relation to me.
-
I’m definitely in favour of existence, especially in relation to me.
Though if you didn't who would care?
-
Apart from the fact that I don't watch videos, just a small hint or idea of what might be in it just possibly might attract comments ...
You only need to listen. There isn't much to see visually in any case.
Its an interesting video/audio and brings out many views of scientists and philosophers on the nature of existence and the new ways of looking at it.
-
Hi everyone,
Here is a very interesting video about existence. Infinite Regress is also addressed here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2DyvF03isM
Cheers.
Sriram
Doesn't start well in immediately using the 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' question. It's not clear that it's a meaningful question and the use of 'why" imports a purposiveness that immediately begs the question.
Also in these absolute terms, I have no idea what 'nothing' is. There's a lazy assumption that there being absolute nothing makes sense.
-
Doesn't start well in immediately using the 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' question. It's not clear that it's a meaningful question and the use of 'why" imports a purposiveness that immediately begs the question.
Also in these absolute terms, I have no idea what 'nothing' is. There's a lazy assumption that there being absolute nothing makes sense.
If 'nothing' doesn't make sense...'something' makes even less sense. Problem is that we are trying to understand the world based on our limited human perspective. These are only perspectives and not Absolute knowledge by any means...(like Plato's 'shadows in the cave').
-
If 'nothing' doesn't make sense...'something' makes even less sense. Problem is that we are trying to understand the world based on our limited human perspective. These are only perspectives and not Absolute knowledge by any means...(like Plato's 'shadows in the cave').
There is no less sense than no sense. There is something. We are part of that. If nothing 'existed' then it would be something - which is where it makes no sense.
Your idea that there are only perspectives just ends up at the going nuclear option, see link below, that all ideas are equally valid At that point, you have degraded discussion to the extemt that you are saying it is pointless
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/believing-bull/201109/kaboom-going-nuclear-in-argument
-
There is no less sense than no sense. There is something. We are part of that. If nothing 'existed' then it would be something - which is where it makes no sense.
Your idea that there are only perspectives just ends up at the going nuclear option, see link below, that all ideas are equally valid At that point, you have degraded discussion to the extemt that you are saying it is pointless
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/believing-bull/201109/kaboom-going-nuclear-in-argument
Well...maybe so. But then ...most of the science arguments about 'not reason to assume a why' or the many fallacies that you keep throwing at people, are all...'going nuclear'. Just arguments to end arguments.
-
Well...maybe so. But then ...most of the science arguments about 'not reason to assume a why' or the many fallacies that you keep throwing at people, are all...'going nuclear'. Just arguments to end arguments.
It is not a 'scientific' argument, it's a logical and philosophical one. If you want to get rid of logic, then you end up saying that everything you say is worthless
-
It is not a 'scientific' argument, it's a logical and philosophical one. If you want to get rid of logic, then you end up saying that everything you say is worthless
'Logic' is just what seems reasonable at one point of time with a certain knowledge base. It need not be valid for all time.
To think that the stars are lights in heaven would have been a perfectly logical idea to someone 1000 years ago. Today it is perfectly logical to think that they are huge balls of burning hydrogen. Some centuries ago, it would have been illogical to think of an electron as both a particle and a wave...or getting influenced by observation. But QM changed all that.
Logic itself is not absolute.
-
'Logic' is just what seems reasonable at one point of time with a certain knowledge base. It need not be valid for all time.
To think that the stars are lights in heaven would have been a perfectly logical idea to someone 1000 years ago. Today it is perfectly logical to think that they are huge balls of burning hydrogen. Some centuries ago, it would have been illogical to think of an electron as both a particle and a wave...or getting influenced by observation. But QM changed all that.
Logic itself is not absolute.
And again your post is just saying your post is worthless.
-
If 'nothing' doesn't make sense...'something' makes even less sense. Problem is that we are trying to understand the world based on our limited human perspective. These are only perspectives and not Absolute knowledge by any means...(like Plato's 'shadows in the cave').
I think only a fool would conclude that their personal perspective on anything was, in isolation, of any great value if they also recognise that their own perspective can involve personal biases and the limits of their personal experiences and acquired knowledge: and if they don't recognise that these issues apply to them then their perspective is too constrained to be taken seriously for they might be wrong.
Anyone who recognises that 'human perspective' varies across humans, history, events, cultures etc and is affected by social change and responses to new knowledge would, I hope, also recognise that 'perspective' is a moveable feast that should always be treated with caution, especially so if their perspective includes the notion that there can ever be absolute knowledge of anything.
-
Well...maybe so. But then ...most of the science arguments about 'not reason to assume a why' or the many fallacies that you keep throwing at people, are all...'going nuclear'. Just arguments to end arguments.
Citing a fallacy isn't itself an argument though: it is simply a case of pointing out that what is being presented as an argument contains reasoning and/or logical errors and, as such, is a failed argument.
-
And again your post is just saying your post is worthless.
No...I said that something cannot come from nothing, as in the video. You questioned that.
-
No...I said that something cannot come from nothing, as in the video. You questioned that.
You are entirely missing the issue - and misrepresenting the discussion. I have been talking about the question 'why is there something rather than nothing?' and pointing out what the issues with that are. In your replies you have used the nuclear option of saying it is all just perceptions which then means you are stating that your posts are worthless as you have no basis to have an argument.
-
You are entirely missing the issue - and misrepresenting the discussion. I have been talking about the question 'why is there something rather than nothing?' and pointing out what the issues with that are. In your replies you have used the nuclear option of saying it is all just perceptions which then means you are stating that your posts are worthless as you have no basis to have an argument.
That is because we have no basis to argue either way. Reality can be bizarre.
These are philosophical issues in which perspective is important. Neither of us can prove it one way or the other. Logic doesn't work in matters in which we have no knowledge.
-
That is because we have no basis to argue either way. Reality can be bizarre.
These are philosophical issues in which perspective is important. Neither of us can prove it one way or the other. Logic doesn't work in matters in which we have no knowledge.
Logic is not based on knowledge, knowledge is based on logic. That you don't understand that leads you to make the empty posts you have been posting here.
-
Logic is not based on knowledge, knowledge is based on logic. That you don't understand that leads you to make the empty posts you have been posting here.
Ok...ok. Lets leave it at that.....
-
Ok...ok. Lets leave it at that.....
Why?
-
Though if you didn't who would care?
I think there are a few people in the World who would be saddened by my failure to exist anymore.
Of course, if I never existed at all, they wouldn't care but then neither would I.
-
Sriram,
That is because we have no basis to argue either way. Reality can be bizarre.
Yes we do have a basis to argue either way. It’s called logic. Without it argument isn’t possible – it’s all just assertion (which brings us back to the problem you give yourself with your various assertions of fact with no attendant means of investigation or verification).
These are philosophical issues in which perspective is important. Neither of us can prove it one way or the other.
Only to a degree. Logic is the only means we know of to test arguments – if they’re logically sound they’re considered valid, and if they’re logically unsound they’re considered invalid. In many cases we can test this with practical examples to provide a corroborative feedback loop.
Logic doesn't work in matters in which we have no knowledge.
Yes it does, at least in principle. If, say, a hitherto unknown object was discovered in space then we’d use methods of logic and the tools it’s given rise to try identify what it was. What else could we do?
There’s a basic issue here you don’t understand, namely that our concept of truth itself works perfectly well without necessarily mapping to an “out there” reality. When you referred to historic beliefs about stars being lanterns in the sky, if the people concerned had developed logic only to the extent that that made sense then that was their truth. That we now have logic and tools that show them to be wrong does not though mean that, one day, future people might not look at our explanations for stars and find them to be just as wrong.
Where you keep going wrong is to think that our inability to know when we have an absolute truth means that any truth claim is as valid as any other. That’s wrongheaded though – we distinguish logically cogent truths from just guessing and we use that process to determine demonstrably real from not demonstrably real without having to make any claims to absolutes. My logic-based belief that jumping out of a 10th storey window will not end well and yours that we’d just float to the ground are distinguishable as true/not true on the basis of their logic and illogic respectively. That’s not to say though that there isn’t a deeper truth at play – maybe a celestial omnipotent deity just fools us into the false experience of hitting the deck hard for example – but nonetheless we still have a perfectly satisfactory, functional, workaday means of allocating true/not true values to our ideas.
Your problem about your beliefs about supposed "patterns" etc is that, so far at least, you have no logically valid mean to justify them.
-
Clearly many of you have more 'God' sitting in your heads than I do. I have not made any claims of a God as a celestial being (even though that is possible!).
Just watch the video in the OP. That is what I am talking about.
About 'logic'.....I am only saying that there is nothing called a universal immutable logic that is valid for all time and all issues. Logic is just whatever seems reasonable given our level of knowledge, perception and beliefs at any given point of time. Just as the idea of Consciousness being fundamental and the generator of the universe, seems illogical to you.....whereas it seems perfectly logical to me and many others.
-
About 'logic'.....I am only saying that there is nothing called a universal immutable logic that is valid for all time and all issues. Logic is just whatever seems reasonable given our level of knowledge, perception and beliefs at any given point of time. Just as the idea of Consciousness being fundamental and the generator of the universe, seems illogical to you.....whereas it seems perfectly logical to me and many others.
In what way is your " the idea of Consciousness being fundamental and the generator of the universe" a logical proposition?
-
In what way is your " the idea of Consciousness being fundamental and the generator of the universe" a logical proposition?
In the same way that the universe arising out of nothing....or the emergence of complexity through random variations...appears logical to you. It is a matter of perception. Not something that can be explained.
-
In the same way that the universe arising out of nothing....or the emergence of complexity through random variations...appears logical to you. It is a matter of perception. Not something that can be explained.
I think you're falling into equivocation here: what appears to you to be 'logical' isn't the same thing as 'logic'.
Moreover, if logic were a matter of perception then 'logic' would not only become subjective but would also vary depending on what was thought to be being perceived - if so, then perhaps could I convince myself that I perceived an open door that was closed.
-
Sriram,
Clearly many of you have more 'God' sitting in your heads than I do. I have not made any claims of a God as a celestial being (even though that is possible!).
Just watch the video in the OP. That is what I am talking about.
I corrected you about this a while ago, you ignored the correction and now you’ve repeated the same mistake. What’s the point?
Once again: it’s not about “god” – it’s about any faith claim. Someone’s god, your auras, someone else’s leprechauns, it doesn’t matter – these are all faith claims. Why? Because there’s no method to investigate and verify them.
About 'logic'.....I am only saying that there is nothing called a universal immutable logic that is valid for all time and all issues. Logic is just whatever seems reasonable given our level of knowledge, perception and beliefs at any given point of time.
Maybe, though it’s hard to see how basic logical precepts at least could be undone. So what though? Logic gives us perfectly useful truths with no appeal to universal immutability. When it does that we call these truth statements “objective”, and when it doesn’t we call other truth statements “subjective”. In epistemological terms, they’re different categories of truth.
Just as the idea of Consciousness being fundamental and the generator of the universe, seems illogical to you.....whereas it seems perfectly logical to me and many others.
Ah, now you’re abusing the term “logical”. “Consciousness being fundamental and the generator of the universe” seems “logical” to you only in the colloquial sense that it makes sense in your head. You have no logic at all though in the formal sense of a set of rules of inference that you can employ to justify this persona belief. Just because something “seems” to be logical to you doesn’t mean it actually is logical. That’s your problem – you cannot build a bridge from the subjective to the objective.
Perhaps if you stopped ignoring this problem you might just find yourself on the first step at least toward learning something?
-
If you watch the video you'll understand that it is not about subjective mystical experiences. There are plenty of reasons to thing in terms of Consciousness being fundamental. Difficult to prove of course, just like multiverses or Strings.
You are however ignoring it because you are old school and have clear prejudices against certain concepts and therefore don't want to see the 'logic'.
-
Sriram,
If you watch the video you'll understand that it is not about subjective mystical experiences. There are plenty of reasons to thing in terms of Consciousness being fundamental. Difficult to prove of course, just like multiverses or Strings.
Wrong again. Consciousness as “fundamental” is just a speculation. It rests on no knowledge we’ve obtained so far. It also presents the problem of explaining where this supposed consciousness came from to start with. In other words you could as well speculate about phlogiston or Jack Frost.
Multiverses and string theory on the other hand start with established precepts and hypothesise from there. In short, you’re attempting a false equivalence again.
You are however ignoring it because you are old school and have clear prejudices against certain concepts and therefore don't want to see the 'logic'.
It’s not “logic”, it’s just logic. And the reason I have a “prejudice” is that there isn’t any of it to justify your assertions. I keep explaining this to you and you keep ignoring the explanation. Why?
Each of us can speculate about anything we like – “fundamental consciousness” and leprechauns alike if the fancy takes us – but you’re still light years from finding any logic at all even in principle that would justify your claim. Scientific hypotheses on the other hand – string theory included – at least in principle could be validated logically, whether or not evidence to support the explanation is ever found.
Even for a non-thinker such as yourself this isn’t hard to grasp. Really it isn’t.
-
You people are in severe denial....! ::)
It is however said to be useful psychologically, to absorb information we are not comfortable with....
-
You people are in severe denial....! ::)
It is however said to be useful psychologically, to absorb information we are not comfortable with....
Being uncomfortable with information does not magically make it right.
-
You people are in severe denial....! ::)
It is however said to be useful psychologically, to absorb information we are not comfortable with....
Perhaps, but when it comes to the idea of 'consciousness' being somehow independent of individual biology there seems to be no information to substantiate this claim. Therefore, it isn't a matter of not being 'comfortable' and is more the case that there are no good reasons, as things stand, to take the notion seriously in the first place.
-
Sriram,
You people are in severe denial....!
Denial of what? When the arguments attempted to justify a belief are wrong, why would anyone not “deny” that belief?
It is however said to be useful psychologically, to absorb information we are not comfortable with....
No doubt. Your problem though remains to establish first that it is information at all rather than asserted guesses supported by wrong arguments. To take your OP, you seem to think “why something and not nothing?” is a legitimate question. That’s dubious at best, but ok let’s go with it for now. Fundamental consciousness would be a “something” too. So, why fundamental consciousness rather than not fundamental consciousness then?
You see – you’ve been hoist by your own petard. You can’t claim it to be a legitimate question for one phenomenon and just special plead it away for a different one. Game over.
-
You people are in severe denial....! ::)
It is however said to be useful psychologically, to absorb information we are not comfortable with....
I watched the video.
The first part is devoted to the idea that existence and consciousness are somehow fundamental and inseparable. Unfortunately Mr Nelson(who made the video) makes no attempt to define consciousness or even discuss its relative (un)importance compared with the unconscious/subconscious. Ditto with the idea of existence, no attempt is made to define what existence actually entails. The video somewhat blithely goes on to discuss ideas of how the two are interlinked. It poses the philosophical question of what came before the big bang(as others on this board have alluded to), but makes no real attempt to answer that question at all. Yes, it does pay lip service to the idea expressed by Stephen Hawkins that if one starts with a no boundary universe the idea of what came before makes no sense because of the lack of a time element, but it simply dismisses that by saying 'and yet for many this answer fails to satisfy' without expanding on this statement at all.
He asks questions such as why our universe should be constrained by the laws of quantum mechanics and does at least realise that any proposed answer to such a question leads to the problem of infinite regress. He also realises that the same reasoning applies to consciousness. However he makes no attempt to tackle this problem at all, simply going on to quote from selected scientists, philosophers, etc. to emphasise his main point, which is the proposed importance of consciousness to existence. One point he makes was his dismissal of 'the material understanding of science' as being unable to deal with 'how and why consciousness exists'. Actually, science has arguably made great progress in this direction and unsurprisingly he is unable to put anything of substance in place of this. Instead he seems to rely on ideas and conjectures selected from various scientists and philosophers arguing for the fundamental importance of consciousness to reality, with particular emphasis on the circularity idea of consciousness being some sort of feedback phenomenon, views which are certainly interesting but lacking totally in precision and open to considerable debate.
He does make the point that perhaps there is no such thing as 'nothing' and therefore we should seek a self existing something as a base which obviates the need for something coming from nothing. Whilst I have considerable sympathy for the idea, he then suggests that the laws of quantum mechanics could not be such a base as they need further explanation, and that explanation, he suggests, is the state of consciousness. Of course, as Blue has said, it leads to exactly the same problem, because the idea of consciousness surely needs further explanation also.
The basis of his argument about the relationship between consciousness and quantum mechanics lies in the idea of the observer effect, that is that a quantum wave form seems only to collapse when observed, or more accurately, measured. Hence the idea is that consciousness affects the quantum basis of reality. The problem with this, of course, is that the observer does not have to be conscious at all, but can be simply a piece of apparatus. Also observers can be observed, leading to the paradox of Wigner's Friend. And then there is the subject of decoherence which mainstream science generally accepts as the natural way in which quantum effects swiftly disappear as classical physics takes over. Neither of these require a state of consciousness to be present, and neither is referred to by Mr Nelson in his video. As the physicist, John Bell inquired:
Was the wave function waiting to jump for thousands of millions of years until a single-celled living creature appeared? Or did it have to wait a little longer for some highly qualified measurer—with a PhD?
To sum up, I can understand why the video can be appealing to some. It has lovely graphics and, as long as one isn't too critical, has an appealing message which resonates well with us as human beings where consciousness is held in such high regard. However, personally I found it all rather shallow and vague.
-
'Logic' is just what seems reasonable at one point of time with a certain knowledge base. It need not be valid for all time.
Drivel.
To think that the stars are lights in heaven would have been a perfectly logical idea to someone 1000 years ago. Today it is perfectly logical to think that they are huge balls of burning hydrogen. Some centuries ago, it would have been illogical to think of an electron as both a particle and a wave...or getting influenced by observation. But QM changed all that.
You're confusing logic with science.
-
In the same way that the universe arising out of nothing....or the emergence of complexity through random variations...appears logical to you. It is a matter of perception. Not something that can be explained.
Again you're confused about what logic is and what it does. Logic alone cannot tell us anything about reality except insofar as to rule out the self-contradictory or inconsistent. Logic is not a matter of perception any more than mathematics is. Logic can only deduce things from premises (assumptions or axioms), which, in the case of the real world (science), are based on evidence.
I know of nobody who thinks that the universe arose from (literally) nothing - in fact the idea appears to be logically inconsistent because there could be no time at which nothing existed because if time existed, that isn't nothing.