| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> Well, then we're getting into the concept of infinity. And let
> me try to make this point clearer--the physical universe is
> finite.
>
> How do I know this? It's expanding -- as such, [it] can't be
> infinite. This isn't grade school, 'Well I say infinity + 1!'
> ...Infinity cannot expand
But actually, there are any number of mathematical infinities and they aren't
all equally infinite. The number of real numbers between zero and one is
infinite, and yet it is half that between negative one and one. An infinity
can be operated on, so infinity+1 is a valid construct.
> > Exactly! It makes great sense to plan for that which can
> > be planned
> What, you don't think we can plan for such contingencies? Is
> like saying to the people living along riverbanks--don't plan
> for the flood until your basement's full of water. It's like
> telling the students don't plan for the fire drills until the
> supply room's on fire.
Your mischaracterization of what I said grows wearisome. Look up there right
above your words. I wrote "It makes great sense to plan for that which can be
planned." Things like rivers flooding and fire potential are predictable
events, the ramifications of which can also be predicted. The afterlife is
simply not like that.
Do you disagree? How can we predict what the afterlife will be like? On what
are those predictions based?
> Again I say, you live your life the way you want. Have respect
> for the way I live mine. That is how this whole mess started.
But I'm not talking about whether Larry should capitalize the C, and neither
are you, really. You're just going back to it from time to time. I'm not
disrespecting your lifestyle, I'm just trying to explore ideas. Ideas like
science, sexual morality, and religion.
> reality is 'bigger' than what science can explain.
Show me. That's all I'm asking for! You keep on with this "my point, time and
again" stuff as if I didn't hear you and respond. But every time you claim
something I ask you to demonstrate, support, or explain it, you just reiterate
that it is so. I can't learn from that.
> Saying that reality is completely under the domain of science
> is reducing reality to science. It's the very wording that I
> find fault with.
Until someone explains which perceived phenomena are outside the domain of
science, I'm afraid I'll have to keep thinking what I think. If you want to
correct me at some point with an explanation, not just an assertion, I'd be
more than happy to be corrected.
> Belittling because of a bad experience in the past? Due to
> a few extemists posting to LUGNET? Due to what you read in
> the paper? If that's the basis for calling an entire section
> of people 'wacko Xians' then grow up--that's a chidish knee-
> jerk reaction.
Out of curiosity, If I told you about a coworker of mine who believed that
extra-terrestrials taught him a foreign language in his dreams, would it be
completely out of line for us to call him a whacko? What if he believed that
his uncle had risen from the grave? Some beliefs that are so counter to our
experience are commonly thought to be a little whacked out.
What if people think Christianity is a little whacky because it tells some
pretty tall tales? I agree that it's still rude to say it to folks, I'm not on
about that, but about the belief itself.
> > Are you saying that this has happened, or that it will? Even
> > a GUT isn't going to explain everything about the universe.
> > It won't explain why some people prefer purple shorts to red
> > trousers. There will be lots to explore further. I'm still
> > trying to map what exactly you think is outside science. In
> > fact, I would appreciate it if you could just tell me rather
> > than wax poetic about fish and fiction.
>
> Well, didn't you just do so? Your point about purple and red
> (i prefer purple btw) is outside the realm of science...but why
> do I like purple? I just do.
Not so. You like purple for a reason, or more appropriately, a complex set of
reasons. And it's a perfectly valid area for scientific exploration.
> You answered my very problem by saying 'even a gut isn't going
> to explain everything about the universe'. Thank you. That's
> all I wanted. Science is not King.
What I meant, and I hope you knew this and are just being obtuse, is that the
GUT isn't meant to explain _everything_, just some set of physical phenomena.
That doesn't mean that other scientific theories won't explain those other
things.
> > > Does schooling make you intelligent.
> >
> > Maybe. But it seems off-topic for this thread. Why?
>
> 'Cause somewhere in this thread someone asked if I took a
> science course above junior high. My point to that was 'does
> schooling give you a free pass for intelligence?'
Not intelligence, but hopefully, education. I'm not saying this to be mean at
all, I'm just explaining what I see. It looks to me like you're pretty bright
and read pop-literature (science, religion, fiction, etc) pretty voraciously.
But it has seemed time and again that you don't really 'get' science. You had
basic misunderstandings of a number of topics in which you have asserted
falsehood to be fact. Like I said, you seem bright, but not particularly well
educated.
Heck, I feel that way about myself, but I try hard not to assert as truth
things that I'm not capable of defending.
> > I won't say that, and I never have. What I would say instead
> > is, "*nothing* has existed, nothing exists today, and nothing
> > will exist that cannot be explored by science."
>
> And this I would say firstly contradicts the 'gut' idea above,
> and it goes against against the explanations I have mentioned
> time and time again-that saying that science can encompass
> *everything* is making science into a god.
I know you keep saying that. But it's not so.
> The scientific method, by it's very nature, cannot tell me
> why I prefer purple over red, why some like Mozard and some
> like M&M.
This is just simply false.
What is it about the SM that you think prevents it from addressing human
preference?
> our humanity isn't reduced to a column of facts and figures
So, is this the big fear that's driving this whole line of conversation?
> > I feel strongly that you can apply the scientific method to
> > preferential choice making as well as any other human
> > phenomena that you can describe. What makes you think that
> > the effects of candles on our psychology, or the preferences
> > of humans is outside the domain of science?
> science is finite...and as such, cannot be used to figure out
> the infinite.
But several lines up you belabored the point that our brains are finite. If
our brains dictate our preference for candles, and our brain is finite, then
surely the question, "why do we prefer these candles over those" is a finite
question. Right or wrong?
> science deals with the physical universe, which, as sociology
> and psychology will attest, isn't just about physics, chemistry
> and biology, but does have a human element in it.
"A human element?" Psychology is wholly a human study. But many psychologist
do believe that it essentially boils down to chemistry (which is a branch of
physics). It's just that we'll make better headway by using the field of
psychology than the field of chemistry for studying human cognition.
> It's the intelligent order that I have the issue with.
> Intelligent order takes just that--intelligence.
What counts as intelligent order?
> I like to be inconsistant--well, no, not really. Sloppy would
> be a word I'd use. And for that, I apologize. Some scientists
> set out to 'prove'.
Unfortunately, they might have a vested interest in the outcome when they are
testing their hypotheses. That's why inherent in the SM is the sharing and
reproduction of results. But real scientists are not out to "prove."
> > So you don't actually mean what you said? If not, then what
> > did you mean? Is God like an author who wrote a book and we
> > are the characters, or not?
I think this is an essential point. You skipped over it, but I'm still
interested.
> *I* made my arm move. *I* have free will. *I* can do as I
> please.
If it is already decided - if God already knows about it, then it only feels
like that. In reality, you don't have the ability to do something that isn't
in God's script.
> but to say that's everything? that that's the entire ball
> game? That's just reducing us to, well, animals. Some would
> say that's a good thing for that's just what we are--animals
> that react to various stimulus in various ways, like mindless
> automatons.
Not mindless, but animals nonetheless.
> For example, I say it's a moral absolute that you cannot take a
> hammer and whack the head of your kid. It's wrong
What if my kid is dying of a crippling disease and is in severe pain?
> It's like the athiests are walking around, thinking that the
> thiests are 'dellusional'.
Very much like that, yes.
> > > And doctors supposedly have performed just such surgeries and
> > > have removed the 'human' element--now isn't that
> > > interesting... a little hunk of meat that contains all that
> > > there is to be human. Well, there's a thought. As a science
> > > appreciator I would lump this into the same category as the
> > > Enquirer, 'My dog gave birth to human triplets!!'.
> >
> > Wait, so you're disbelieving serious learning based on...what?
>
> Again, I said way above about removing parts of the brain and
> the results thereof. Further to that particular point, if
> someone can remove a physical part of the brain which takes
> away the sense of right and wrong, the sense of *humanity*--it
> would be across all the newspapers!
What? Since when did neurology classify as front-page news? Has anyone out
there got a cite on this?
> I mean that would almost *prove* that we have no soul, and as
> such, what gives with that God guy telling us we have a spirit
> element?
So, if I could find a serious citation, you would think what about God and his
writing on your heart?
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: slight
|
| (...) The quest for knowledge will just dissipate when we get there? A fundamental human significance--the pursuit of learning--will promptly poof when all that science can teach us is known? Yes it is a Good Thing (tm). I have said so before, and I (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
225 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
