Does anything exist?

[SpuriusMaximus]

Oh yea ! well I started this discussion, and I have got all you brainy people discussing if nothing exist.

Not sure why some people think that trolling is some grand intellectual achievement. Since that's what "I got you to answer" means. If that's your goal, then that's by definition trolling.

And it's not an achievement because it's not particularly hard. If you're at least semi-literate and have a computer capable of connecting to the internet, or can find your way to an internet cafe, congrats, you too are capable of trolling the internet. Any idiot kid can <bleep>-post and cause a <bleep>-storm of answers, and FSM knows a lot take it as their duty to.

The hard part is actually applying some actual knowledge and intelligent thought to a problem, and coming up with an answer worth anything. Posting some nonsense to cause reactions is not hard.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Nothing means it's not a thing. This means you cannot imagine nothing, but I don't thing that it invalidates the question why something exists. Another related question is whether everything could be different, for example the laws of physics, fundamental constants, etc. Other question is why the laws of physics seem to be regular and why we don't have a chaos instead. Even if we knew all the laws of nature (which I doubt) we won't be able to explain why they exist and why they are as we know them.

Ah, the fine tuning argument. Well, even there it helps if you know some physics. It may or may not actually provide a final answer, but it still will beat some navel-gazing based on ignorance.

Because here's a fly in the ointment when you actually do know some physics: When you express them in Planck units, c is 1. G is 1. Planck's constant is 1. And so on.

Those funky, seemingly arbitrary values for those constants in SI or Imperial units (e.g., G=6.67408 × 10^-11 m³ kg^-1 s^-2) are just an artefact of the arbitrary units that we chose for those systems. In Planck units they're 1.

And Planck units are the units that the universe actually "works" with. E.g., the maximum information you can pack in a spherical bit of space (the maximum, as it turns out is a black hole) the number of bits of information equals its surface in Planck units. No conversion constant involved. Or rather, again, the conversion constant is exactly 1. You're probably starting to see the pattern already.

So, anyway, in Planck units those constants are exactly 1. Worse yet, because of how they're calculated, they'd still be 1 even if you picked a universe with a different value of c or G in our units.

So, hmm... CAN they be anything else? Because it's kinda nonsense to ask why is G=1 unless you can make a reasonable case that it could be anything else.

Similarly for stuff like particles, energy levels and the like, they're field resonances. So, again, CAN they be anything else? I mean, think of a guitar string. What resonances can it have, given its length? Yeah, no fine tuning will get you a 1/3.14 wavelength as a resonance.


Basically, unlike some other members, I'm not against philosophy or thinking about stuff per se. But I AM saying that ultimately you have to do the above: have science inform that thinking, if you want it to be worth beans.

 

[theprestige]

It is scientific if it's published in any of the main research journals!

"Infallible reasoning"? What's the point of saying that about any genuine scientists, when nobody has infallible "anything". You are trying to set up a straw-man.

You misunderstand my argument. Which is depressing, since I laid it out in some detail.

I'm making a distinction between labeling something as scientific, and actually doing something scientific. And I'm saying that "scientism" is the mentality of accepting claims because they have the "scientific" label, rather than accepting them because you've actually confirmed that they are scientific.

When someone accuses you of scientism, they're accusing you of accepting a claim on faith because it's got the science label, rather than doing your due diligence to make sure it's actually a scientific claim. Nobody is saying rational appreciation for the scientific method is a bad thing. "Scientism" is saying that blind faith in the "science" label is a bad thing.

 

[suren]

Ah, the fine tuning argument. Well, even there it helps if you know some physics. It may or may not actually provide a final answer, but it still will beat some navel-gazing based on ignorance.

I'm not religious or even theist, but I admit there are mysteries that probably won't have satisfying answers.

Because here's a fly in the ointment when you actually do know some physics: When you express them in Planck units, c is 1. G is 1. Planck's constant is 1. And so on.

Those funky, seemingly arbitrary values for those constants in SI or Imperial units (e.g., G=6.67408 × 10^-11 m³ kg^-1 s^-2) are just an artefact of the arbitrary units that we chose for those systems. In Planck units they're 1.

And Planck units are the units that the universe actually "works" with. E.g., the maximum information you can pack in a spherical bit of space (the maximum, as it turns out is a black hole) the number of bits of information equals its surface in Planck units. No conversion constant involved. Or rather, again, the conversion constant is exactly 1. You're probably starting to see the pattern already.

So, anyway, in Planck units those constants are exactly 1. Worse yet, because of how they're calculated, they'd still be 1 even if you picked a universe with a different value of c or G in our units.

So, hmm... CAN they be anything else? Because it's kinda nonsense to ask why is G=1 unless you can make a reasonable case that it could be anything else.

Similarly for stuff like particles, energy levels and the like, they're field resonances. So, again, CAN they be anything else? I mean, think of a guitar string. What resonances can it have, given its length? Yeah, no fine tuning will get you a 1/3.14 wavelength as a resonance.

Constants might be arbitrary by themselves, but their relations are not. The same with laws.

Basically, unlike some other members, I'm not against philosophy or thinking about stuff per se. But I AM saying that ultimately you have to do the above: have science inform that thinking, if you want it to be worth beans.

As I noted in other comment, I'm not against science, I only consider things that are compatible with it and I'm skeptical to dogmas and extraordinary claims such as miracles, ESP, etc without solid evidence. Also I'm not claiming that we should be addicted to philosophy to an extend of wasting most our time by fantasizing.

However philosophy is still relevant and has its important place.

 

[Scorpion]

Your words betray your thoughts: the real answer doesn't satisfy your need to be "more" than just boring physical stuff, so you believe otherwise.
Don't you think that's a childish need? When we grow up we're supposed to accept how things are rather than take shelter in fictions. We know thoughts can be altered chemically and mechanically, whereas "spirits" are not observed entities. So what if thoughts and consciousness are just chemical reactions? All life is chemical reaction, and life is awesome. Do you think an antlion, or a hummingbird, or a humpback whale, is more boring when you think of them in terms of what they're made of? Or is it more relevant and important to consider what they do? It's the same thing with humans.

Chemicals do not have the last word in our minds, We are free to think our own thoughts.

That raises the worrying possibility that you're not mentally well. You really should take care of yourself better. Lots of bad things happen to schizophreniacs off their meds, and their loved ones.

I have been surviving schizophrenia in various forms since the 1970's. I am not going to crack now.

You ARE your brain. You're creating a distinction where none exists. "You" has to be something, after all, right?

That's just your personal opinion. You believe you are your brain, but I do not.

 

[JesseCuster]

That's just your personal opinion. You believe you are your brain, but I do not.

 

[IanS]

You misunderstand my argument. Which is depressing, since I laid it out in some detail.

I'm making a distinction between labeling something as scientific, and actually doing something scientific. And I'm saying that "scientism" is the mentality of accepting claims because they have the "scientific" label, rather than accepting them because you've actually confirmed that they are scientific.

When someone accuses you of scientism, they're accusing you of accepting a claim on faith because it's got the science label, rather than doing your due diligence to make sure it's actually a scientific claim. Nobody is saying rational appreciation for the scientific method is a bad thing. "Scientism" is saying that blind faith in the "science" label is a bad thing.

Well who is it that is simply looking no further than the word "science" and automatically believing that it really is what science has shown/discovered/explained/published?

I've never met anyone whose done that. However, I have met countless people, perhaps even the majority of people, who habitually do the opposite and claim, as is also often the case on this forum, that "science can't explain everything" (as if philosophy or religion does explain it).

As far as I can see the term "scientism" is being used as a pejorative term to play down the value and success of science, and almost always because the aim is to promote something else like philosophy or religious faith or some new-age mystical healing or such-like.

 

[Belz...]

Chemicals do not have the last word in our minds, We are free to think our own thoughts.

How could you tell the difference?

Let's posit a world where you're wrong: it's all chemical reactions, and one's actions are entirely predetermined by previous states and laws of physics. Would those people in that universe not believe they have free will anyway? Of course they would. It's more convenient to their psyche. But they're wrong. It's the same in this universe, whether or not you are correct. So it's a dead argument.

Think of it this way: By what mechanisms could you conceptually make decisions? There are two possibilities: 1) you make decisions based on previous states or 2) you make decisions randomly. It could be a mix of the two. But what other possibility do you see? If you want to be able to make decisions that are NOT based on causality, and NOT on randomness, then what? I bet you can't even conceive of a third option.

I have been surviving schizophrenia in various forms since the 1970's. I am not going to crack now.

How would you know, since one of the defining characterstics of that disease is detachment from reality? You literally have no way to know.

That's just your personal opinion.

No, it isn't. It's a conclusion from the available evidence, one that goes against my instincts and why I'd prefer. Like I said earlier: being an adult means accepting uncomfortable realities. And the reality is that I am, unfortunately, mortal. It has nothing to do with my opinions or choices. If you disagree, then you can't just throw your own opinion on the table; you have to demonstrate some sort of support for it from objective evidence. You have none of that.

 

[bruto]

If you do not know how consciousness arises, you do not know its not from a spirit.

I also don't officially know it's not from a sevenheaded space reptile or my granfather's laboratory. Does not being entirely sure about something mean we must give weight to every other bit of nonsense someone suggests?

 

[LarryS]

I am not a liar , I am a truth seeker. I dismiss anything that does not make sense. But I have had psychic experiences all my life.

Science claims something is real if that object, force, field etc. explains observations, and is useful for predicting future observations. In this regard, science does not say this or that is true or real, nor does does science tell us what to believe - - science (simply) claims what is real in a scientific sense.
If you (or anyone) claims that spirits/God are real - you are claiming that spirits/God are real in some manner other than scientific . . . perhaps real in an intuitive way, or a faith based way.
This is a philosophical/religion thread - so that's fine. You are also free to provide reasons why or how you came to the claims.

 

[Trebuchet]

I've had a couple glasses of wine, and since I think therefore I am, I am only half in existence at the moment. Working on reducing that percentage.

 

[angrysoba]

I've had a couple glasses of wine, and since I think therefore I am, I am only half in existence at the moment. Working on reducing that percentage.

I think you are putting Descartes before Deshorse.

 

[arthwollipot]

As for drugs altering consciousness you are talking to someone who has fought a battle against being dependent on anti psychotic drugs from 1969 when I was diagnosed a schizophrenic. I long ago dispensed with the services of psychiatrists, because I tried to tell them things like, I had experienced telepathy, and they never believed a word I said.
But I know from experience telepathy exists, and if it does it means consciousness can project itself beyond the brain.

We've had this discussion before, Scorpion. Experiencing things that aren't real is a common symptom of untreated schizophrenia.

 

[IanS]

I'm not religious or even theist, but I admit there are mysteries that probably won't have satisfying answers.

Constants might be arbitrary by themselves, but their relations are not. The same with laws.

What mysteries do you think their are which do not currently have, or that you believe can never have, "satisfying answers"?

And when you say that you must be "satisfied by the answer", then that's just adding your own personal "get out of jail free card" isn't it ... ie on that basis you could claim to reject anything at all.

What you need to do is to accept that current answers are reasonable given the current circumstances. What I'm getting at is - there are lots of things where certain groups of people often say that science does not have the answers, or that it does not have good or detailed answers etc., but it's hard to think of any questions where science does not at least have various plausible ideas for the possible explanations ... you may not find that entirely satisfying, but we do have answers or explanations of that sort ... and that's useful ... those are also almost always answers that are early conclusions from ongoing research that aims to refine the answers to a point where they are satisfying to all reasonably informed people.

As I noted in other comment, I'm not against science, I only consider things that are compatible with it and I'm skeptical to dogmas and extraordinary claims such as miracles, ESP, etc without solid evidence. Also I'm not claiming that we should be addicted to philosophy to an extend of wasting most our time by fantasizing.

However philosophy is still relevant and has its important place.

Before science came along. Philosophers claimed that their place was to explain the world around us (they were not just asking questions for other people to solve!). What role do you think philosophy still has in explaining the world around us? What sort of research are philosophers doing, and what have they discovered?

That role has been entirely taken away & taken over by science. Philosophy has no role in that any more. It's original role has completely gone.

If the role of philosophers is now reduced to just asking questions, or for example claiming to hold science to account to see that it works according to the sort of requirements set out by people like Karl Popper, eg saying that the theories of science must be falsifiable etc., then science does not need Popper to tell it such things (that's why science has long had a system of peer review to hold all publishable work to account … we did not need philosophers to produce safeguards like that).

 

[abaddon]

No you don't. You're talking about near-death experiences. The keyword here is NEAR. It's well known that oxygen-deprived brains in that state tend to hallucinate. Happens in all sorts of situations.

I beg to differ. Scorpion knows me, and I have had the whole nine yards of the NDE/OOBE experience. Scorpion ignores me because he knows I can speak from direct personal experience of such matters. Scorpion knows that I can directly tell him he is flat out wrong, because I have been there and he has not.

And sorry to disappoint, but it is entirely mundane. Amusing, but entirely mundane. Much like any other drug trip.

 

[Belz...]

I beg to differ. Scorpion knows me, and I have had the whole nine yards of the NDE/OOBE experience. Scorpion ignores me because he knows I can speak from direct personal experience of such matters. Scorpion knows that I can directly tell him he is flat out wrong, because I have been there and he has not.

And sorry to disappoint, but it is entirely mundane. Amusing, but entirely mundane. Much like any other drug trip.

Where do you beg to differ, exactly?

 

[lomiller]

Descartes argued that the only thing that we can be certain in is our own existence, or more precisely the existence of our self / our thoughts / consciousness.
Cōgitō ergō sum

Not quite. Descartes was trying to develop a method that would allow us to evaluate our beliefs and determine which of those beliefs are true and which are not. He ultimately failed in that his own existence was the only thing he could actually prove.


This is a relevant topic wrt to skepticism because it tells us that "doubt everything we can't prove" isn't a way forward in understanding how the world works or which beliefs are justified.

Science deals with this issue by asking a different question. Instead of asking "can I prove this" it asks "does it work" or some variation. IOW science doesn't look for truth it looks for theories that best explain the existing data and make the best predictions of future events or future measurements. In this context "everything could be an illusion" may or may not be true but it doesn't explain existing observations nor does it allow us to make predictions about future observation.

 

[lomiller]

Before science came along. Philosophers claimed that their place was to explain the world around us (they were not just asking questions for other people to solve!). What role do you think philosophy still has in explaining the world around us? What sort of research are philosophers doing, and what have they discovered?

That role has been entirely taken away & taken over by science. Philosophy has no role in that any more. It's original role has completely gone.

I disagree. At it's base science is just another unproven belief. It's philosophy that justifies our preference for that unproven belief over other unproven beliefs.

Philosophy also encompasses logic, try reasoning out anything without that. Want to discuss what moral values or ethics we should follow without delving into philosophy? Good luck.

 

[IanS]

I disagree. At it's base science is just another unproven belief. It's philosophy that justifies our preference for that unproven belief over other unproven beliefs.

“Science” is a subject or method. It does not have any "beliefs", unproven or otherwise.

I think you must mean that the theories and explanations produced by scientists (i.e. human people) are just "unproven beliefs". But not all beliefs are equally justified according to the evidence. Claiming that humans appeared on Earth due to a miracle from a heavenly creator, is not supported by the evidence in the way that evolution is (for example).

As far as we can tell from quantum theory, it's probably not possible to actually "prove" anything. So scientists are not claiming actual "proofs" in the sense of completely unarguable certainty. They are trying to establish explanations to the level of "Theories". That's all we ever need to do.

Why do scientists need philosophers to tell us which "unproven beliefs" are better (more likely to be true/correct) than the established theories of science? Since when did scientists need philosophers to tell them that the theory of evolution is better than belief in miraculous creation?

Philosophy also encompasses logic, try reasoning out anything without that. Want to discuss what moral values or ethics we should follow without delving into philosophy? Good luck.

Philosophers are not the only people who are able to think "logically". Scientists would not have made the vast progress that we all enjoy today without being able to make logical deductions ... and they did not need to be taught that by any philosophers.

So-called "moral values & ethics" are subjective ideas developed by humans. They are not physical objects and physical events that we can observe and test in the same way as observing stars in the sky or fossils in the ground. They are subjective ideas created by human people.

 

[lomiller]

Claiming that humans appeared on Earth due to a miracle from a heavenly creator, is not supported by the evidence in the way that evolution is (for example).

To even have a notion of what "supported by the evidence" means or an understanding of why it's important requires philosophy.

Why do scientists need philosophers to tell us which "unproven beliefs" are better (more likely to be true/correct) than the established theories of science? Since when did scientists need philosophers to tell them that the theory of evolution is better than belief in miraculous creation?

Scientists and priests both think their methods are the best. Philosophy (or more specifically Epistemology) seeks to answer the question of who's actually right.

Philosophers are not the only people who are able to think "logically". Scientists would not have made the vast progress that we all enjoy today without being able to make logical deductions ... and they did not need to be taught that by any philosophers.

Actually, they did need to be taught this by philosophers. The rules of logic scientists need to follow come from philosophy either directly or indirectly. Saying otherwise is like suggesting scientist don't need mathematicians because they don't need mathematicians to do math.

So-called "moral values & ethics" are subjective ideas developed by humans.

And yet they play a central role in our lives.