Kevin's Watch

Incompleteness theorem. You cannot prove a system from within the system. You have to go outside to do that. As we are trapped within this universe we are incapable of proving all truths in this universe.

Zarathustra wrote:I hope I won't be accused of being a troll by responding.

Then why do you open with a personal attack? That's the very definition of trolling.

Zarathustra wrote:Just because there remains a question doesn't mean the answer is God.

I didn't say "God". I said "Supernatural". For example, believing that there are "other, 'higher' laws of some higher nature" is a Supernatural explanation, (practically tautologically so).

To me, there is a wide range of Supernatural explanations, and invoking God is only some of them. Then again, I can't say that God is a less valid explanation than any other. Even "laws of a higher nature" is just magical thinking -- arguably no more reasonable than positing an Intelligent Creator. It even suffers from a zealous belief that science is omnipotent.

Zarathustra wrote:This is simply a failure of understanding and/or imagination.

No. Although that sleight was predictable. It's a declaration that there was a time when there was literally nothing in the universe which can be subject to understanding. There were no Laws. There was no Cause and Effect. Like Nothingness and Before Time Existed, some edge concepts are very hard to grasp, but the answer isn't to force them into something easier.

I can imagine the pure Undetermined Shapelessness of the Big Bang, and understand why it was that way. How is that failure?

SerScot wrote:Incompleteness theorem.

Agree. There are places that science just can't go.

I think, Z, that Wos sums up pretty well the futility of trying to fit God into the picture of causality etc as science would have it, by his distinction between 'temporal' and 'ontological'......... but that was not really what I was trying to get at with this thread. I can accept, possibly a higher degree of 'cognitive disonance' [if that is the correct term to use - acceptance of contradictory positions simultaneosly is what I mean] than most, and can flip between materialist/idealist thinking with little internal angst or embarresment, but what I was after here was to establish just how sound [?] are the statements that are put forward on the science side of the coin. The religious side is, while not easy, at least comprehensible without an advanced degree in physics/mathematics - but on the science side we must take what we are told on trust. What I was seeking here was to establish that the desire to remain aloof from anything that smacks of irrationality, does not cloud the thinking [or even worse the actual work] of those upon whose judgement and assurances we are forced to rely. There are those few scientists after all [not many granted, but they do exist] who do not eschew the teachings of the spiritual traditions, and no doubt they would give good account of themselves if asked to do so. We owe it to ourselves not to take everything we are told as read and at least ask the awkward questions of science as we do of religion.

If no laws or properties of our universe were possible before Planck time, how can they calculate how long it was from BB to Planck time?

peter wrote:I think, Z, that Wos sums up pretty well the futility of trying to fit God into the picture of causality etc as science would have it, by his distinction between 'temporal' and 'ontological'......... but that was not really what I was trying to get at with this thread. I can accept, possibly a higher degree of 'cognitive disonance' [if that is the correct term to use - acceptance of contradictory positions simultaneosly is what I mean] than most, and can flip between materialist/idealist thinking with little internal angst or embarresment, but what I was after here was to establish just how sound [?] are the statements that are put forward on the science side of the coin. The religious side is, while not easy, at least comprehensible without an advanced degree in physics/mathematics - but on the science side we must take what we are told on trust.

The religious side is comprehensible, and you don't have to take it on trust?!?!?!?

Sorry Fist - I edited that while you were posting; can you refer to my post above again.

Well, you didn't change that part! To each their own, and whatever makes you happy. I don't have any problem with anybody's religious beliefs, as long as they don't try to force it into my life. But it is incomprehensible to me. Not the subject matter, although there are moments. What I find incomprehensible is the acceptance of it. It is ENTIRELY a matter of trust. Different people require different answers, and different people can accept different answers. For me, that is incomprehensible.

Science isn't saying "Trust me, I have all the answers." It is saying, "Trust me, I will never stop looking for answers."

And you don't have to trust the answers science offers. It's all reproducible. Pursue whatever field of study you want, and see it yourself. And if you find an error in some established knowledge? You'll be a hero! It's a clue to greater understanding. Nobody tries harder to invalidate established scientific knowledge than scientists.

Of course, you can also simply observe the fruits of science's labors. Like using computers and the internet, which are based on the things science claims to have learned about electricity, and other things.

This is applicable to what you are speaking about, FnF.

uoregon.edu wrote:Physics of the early Universe is at the boundary of astronomy and philosophy since we do not currently have a complete theory that unifies all the fundamental forces of Nature at the moment of Creation. In addition, there is no possibility of linking observation or experimentation of early Universe physics to our theories (i.e. its not possible to `build' another Universe). Our theories are rejected or accepted based on simplicity and aesthetic grounds, plus their power of prediction to later times, rather than an appeal to empirical results. This is a very difference way of doing science from previous centuries of research.

Sometimes science is a matter of faith as well.

Nah. Nobody considers that matter settled. How many people are still trying to figure out how to learn more about it, despite the extraordinary size of the roadblock? And "plus their power of prediction to later times" counts for something. If someone bases a prediction on the assumed state at that time, and doesn't find evidence to support that prediction, the assumption will be changed, if not discarded. But if that prediction is found, the assumed state is going to be taken even more seriously.

I can't imagine what predictions they could possibly have. If there aren't any, in lieu of the lack of ability to understand one damned thing about that moment, it's all just "simplicity and aesthetic grounds". And no scientist worth their salt is going to consider the case closed.

It's like Brian Greene says about string theory. It's a beautiful, elegant theory, and the math works. But there's not a shred of evidence to support it. It might be proven absolutely wrong. Nobody's saying it must be.

I don't disagree with the idea that one day we will probably know more than we know now.

However, the very idea that there is no aspect of the universe which isn't knowable through science -- and disregarding the fact that that science itself has shown that there are inherent limits to its own methods and that there are indeed some aspects which are impenetrable -- is itself a matter of faith. There are no facts that back it up. Progress in some areas of exploration doesn't guarantee progress in others, because the nature of the differences means that past success can be no guide.

Will we be able to know what happened before time began? Will we be able to know what's outside the universe? Or are these, as science indicates, inherently unknowable, because inherently unobservable and inherently untestable?

So who is more rational? The man who believes, through reason, that science has limits? Or the man who, on faith, believes that science is undefeatable?

SerScot wrote:Incompleteness theorem. You cannot prove a system from within the system. You have to go outside to do that. As we are trapped within this universe we are incapable of proving all truths in this universe.

I was thinking about that later today. Limits on knowledge don't imply supernatural causes. Maybe it's impossible to know everything about a system from within that system, but that doesn't mean that what's outside the system is supernatural--nor the unknowable things within the system. There are true theorems within any algorithmic system which that system can't prove. That doesn't mean those true theorems are of a different existential nature than all the other theorems.

WF, hoping that you don't call me a name isn't a personal attack, it's the hope that I don't get personally attacked. I've been informed that responding to you has gotten me labeled as a troll, so I've been conditioned to expect this label. And you didn't let me down.

Wayfriend wrote:I didn't say "God". I said "Supernatural". For example, believing that there are "other, 'higher' laws of some higher nature" is a Supernatural explanation, (practically tautologically so).

God is certainly part of the context here, even if you didn't say it. But substitute 'supernatural' in my statement and the point remains: just because there remains a question doesn't mean the answer is supernatural. As I pointed out above, lack of knowledge of natural causes doesn't imply knowledge of supernatural causes. For instance, perhaps the entire universe is a computer simulation, and as with any algorithmic system there are true theorems which can't be proven from within the system. That doesn't mean that theorems of higher mathematical systems are of a different existential nature than the ones below, they're just different; more complex. There is nothing supernatural about computer simulations or their creation.

I think perhaps we mean something different by the word 'supernatural.' I mean something that is beyond all possible physical laws (not merely beyond those of our particular universe), i.e. magic. If the universe can be explained by 'higher laws,' then this only moves the problem up one level to a larger meaning of "physical" and "natural." It doesn't mean that the explanation is unknowable, irrational, or nonphysical. It's just outside our universe.

Wayfriend wrote:No. Although that sleight was predictable.

It's not a personal sleight, it's a criticism of your position, a diagnosis of your error. It's the same criticism I levied against the smartest scientists of the last few centuries, the same criticism Deutsche made in his book. [He wasn't making a personal sleight against you, either.]

Wayfriend wrote:It's a declaration that there was a time when there was literally nothing in the universe which can be subject to understanding. There were no Laws. There was no Cause and Effect.

I get that, but I disagree. I think your declaration suffers from a lack of considering other contrary views. If you are open to changing your mind, I highly recommend Deutsche's book, THE BEGINNING OF INFINITY. A limit within quantum mechanics doesn't mean that Science Itself will forever preclude understanding, nor that there are no laws at that point. It only means that our current science can't pierce that veil.

Science moves on.

peter wrote:I think, Z, that Wos sums up pretty well the futility of trying to fit God into the picture of causality etc as science would have it, by his distinction between 'temporal' and 'ontological'.........

I don't think anyone cares about the timeline. "Ontological" is just as flimsy. Putting god outside time makes no difference.

peter wrote:The religious side is, while not easy, at least comprehensible without an advanced degree in physics/mathematics - but on the science side we must take what we are told on trust.

I think you've got it backwards. With science, you don't have to trust anyone. You can look up the info yourself. Yeah, it might take a lot of education, but in principle anyone can do it. But with religion, you've literally got to take it on faith, and it's not in the least bit comprehensible (with or without an advanced degree).

What I was seeking here was to establish that the desire to remain aloof from anything that smacks of irrationality, does not cloud the thinking [or even worse the actual work] of those upon whose judgement and assurances we are forced to rely.

It's not a matter of remaining aloof, it's that there is no difference whatsoever between one irrational statement and another. They have no meaning. I can't understand them. They explain nothing. If the goal is explanation, irrationality doesn't get you there. If it did, I wouldn't remain 'aloof.'

peter wrote:There are those few scientists after all [not many granted, but they do exist] who do not eschew the teachings of the spiritual traditions, and no doubt they would give good account of themselves if asked to do so. We owe it to ourselves not to take everything we are told as read and at least ask the awkward questions of science as we do of religion.

Those scientists aren't turning to spiritual traditions for explanations, but for comfort (usually in the areas beyond where current explanation stops). Those are two different needs. I guess we should decide what we want. I want to understand, not merely blind, uncomprehending solace. I get the latter from hugs from my wife [awww ...] and beer.

wayfriend wrote:I don't disagree with the idea that one day we will probably know more than we know now.

However, the very idea that there is no aspect of the universe which isn't knowable through science -- and disregarding the fact that that science itself has shown that there are inherent limits to its own methods and that there are indeed some aspects which are impenetrable -- is itself a matter of faith. There are no facts that back it up. Progress in some areas of exploration doesn't guarantee progress in others, because the nature of the differences means that past success can be no guide.

Will we be able to know what happened before time began? Will we be able to know what's outside the universe? Or are these, as science indicates, inherently unknowable, because inherently unobservable and inherently untestable?

So who is more rational? The man who believes, through reason, that science has limits? Or the man who, on faith, believes that science is undefeatable?

How do we know that it is impossible to ever learn what happened pre-Planck time? Science told us. If we believe science has limits, and that this is one of them, we will no longer pursue the matter. Why bother? This is an unknowable aspect of reality.

OTOH, if we believe we can always find ways to learn more, we will continue trying to solve this puzzle.

If there IS a way to learn more about this, we will not learn it with the former attitude. We may with the second. And if we never gain any more knowledge about this particular thing despite having the latter attitude... Well, how many times has unexpected, seemingly unrelated, knowledge been gained while pursuing something? Maybe a few trillion times? The latter attitude is the only attitude worth having. And it doesn't even mean, "Science is undefeatable." It means, "The human drive to learn is undefeatable." It means never assuming we are defeated. It means never assuming we have learned all we are capable of learning.

Zarathustra,

Oh, please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying the IT implies the supernatural. I'm simply saying it suggests knowledge of our Universe from our interal perspective will always be limited. That's what, in my opinion, David Deutsch means when he talks about "The beginning of infinity".

wayfriend wrote: So who is more rational? The man who believes, through reason, that science has limits? Or the man who, on faith, believes that science is undefeatable?

Having optimism in science isn't the same as having faith in it. Science has given us a multitude of examples of why we should believe it is the best explanatory tool we've ever discovered. We don't need faith, we have evidence.

Supernatural explanations, on the other hand, only have faith, because they aren't even proven to exist. You have to believe in the supernatural in the first place (on faith) to use them as explanations for things.

You don't need reason to know that (current) science has limits; you only have to look at it. It's a contingent fact. But you do need (fallacious) reasoning to conclude that science has impenetrable limits. That isn't shown by the evidence, and is itself a product of faith, not reason.

SerScot wrote:Zarathustra,

Oh, please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying the IT implies the supernatural. I'm simply saying it suggests knowledge of our Universe from our interal perspective will always be limited. That's what, in my opinion, David Deutsch means when he talks about "The beginning of infinity".

Yes, I was agreeing with you, stating how I was thinking along similar lines.

Fist and Faith wrote:If there IS a way to learn more about this, we will not learn it with the former attitude.

"Attitude"? What, did I say something like "Why even try?"

I just am disinclined towards hubris, that's all. We're not infinite.

Honestly, I don't know what you're saying. What is the practical difference between the two scientists? What is different in their behavior when they are both told that "science itself has determined that the origin of the universe cannot be explained by science"?

I hate to beat a dead horse here, but Deutsche addresses the fallacy of thinking we can't know something because we can't observe or test it. Most of the most important things we know about reality are of this kind. We've never seen the Big Bang and never will, but it has effect on other things (like the background radiation) which we can see. Who is to say that the conditions prior to the beginning of the universe aren't the same? We don't have to observe or test them to note that their effects are still visible, with enough specificity to determine what those conditions were.

Contrary to popular belief (and bad philosophy), knowledge doesn't really come from observation. Empiricism is wrong. It's simply not the way scientific knowledge happens, in practice. Knowledge actually comes from conjecture, which is then tested against observation and error-correcting mechanisms. Observing something isn't a prerequisite to knowing it.

Observation comes before conjecture. Observing something unexpected is the reason for the conjecture. Then there's experimentation and observation to confirm the conjecture. But no, the thing that becomes known might, itself, never be observed. Like the core of the sun.