Is Atheism based on Logic or Faith?

[annnnoid]

When you're talking about proof or evidence for God, yes, it's invalid, because people have believed in many different gods in many different ways. Some people believe in gods in very dangerous ways. People have disagreed on gods to the extent that they've slaughtered each other en masse. Disagreements persist today on the level of, "You'll burn in hell," and religion is frequently used as motivation to deprive groups and minorities of basic rights.

When you can definitively claim to know the truth of your existence…then you can claim some right to dismiss the choices others make about their own fundamental identity.

Have you reached this plateau?

And you keep putting words in my mouth. I never used the word ‘proof’. I used the word evidence. You would do well to make some effort to understand that life is not rational. You constantly persist in this fanatically narrow interpretation of meaning.

…and a useful…but somewhat tangential bit of trivia: About 10% of the conflicts in the entire history of the world can be attributed to religious causes. When it comes to slaughtering each other…any old reason will do.

So what objective criteria do you use to weigh one type of "anecdote" against another? The fact that a type of religious conviction exists is not a foundation for reality.

The point is…you do not use objective criteria. You use subjective criteria. The fact that a variety of religious conviction exists is most certainly a foundation for reality… for whomever that variety exists. It may not be for you.

Some people come to the conclusion that there are no gods. Does that surprise you?

Not in the slightest. What does surprise me is when a skeptical examination of our reality comes to the conclusion that we are not a function of something orders of magnitude greater than ourselves.

Humans once believed the Earth was flat and the sun revolved around it.

…and people back then made the same mistakes that they do now. Finding significance in that which is not. Whether the sun revolves about the earth or the other way around is utterly irrelevant to who you are or how you live your life. That was the case then (whether they understood that or not)…and it is still the case now (whether we understand that or not)

You completely missed my point. I said we could be the function of mundane natural processes without any aim or purpose whatsoever, meaning that the basic functions of life and the workings of nature don't care about our lives or existence. It is therefore up to us to give life meaning and purpose, not anything else. Not God, not the Bible, not any religion. Those are secondary reinforcing factors. You can't impose them on anyone.

…and where did I insist on imposing anything on anyone????? Should I waste my time…yet again…requesting corroboration for something I did not say????

Whether these so-called mundane natural forces have any aim or purpose is not something we have the ability to definitively adjudicate. Whether we do (have aim or purpose) is something that is within the realm of our understanding.

The obvious fact is (and anyone who denies this is a blatant fool)…that we are 100% a function of something that we did not create, that is a mystery, and that is of incomprehensible dimensions. Religion is nothing more than the formalized records of people’s encounters with various aspects of this mystery. Some find a great deal of comfort, support, and personal illumination in their involvement with religion.

It is not at all unreasonable to conclude…given that we are without exception occurring somehow somewhere for some reason in a situation that is the very definition of incomprehensible, inconceivable, impossible, and insanity …that it is helpful to find what appear to be guides and instructions that indicate that comprehension, sanity, hope, and even salvation are, in fact, possible.

So…when you have achieved a definitive understanding of your own involvement in this mystery, you will then be qualified to judge others choices. Since it is almost inevitable that you will die it is reasonable to conclude that you have yet to achieve this understanding.

Perhaps you'd be so kind as to furnish some of this so-called evidence. Maybe you'll have better luck than mikeb768.

Did you create you? Do you create you? What is a ‘you’? Don’t bother looking to science for the answers. Science can’t even ask the questions.

 

[annnnoid]

Philosophy is a very useful tool within its limitations; I've said this many times.

But that’s not what I’m saying here. What I said was that: “Philosophy is merely speculative guess-work based on existing knowledge”. It's basically just an academic exercise. It has no mechanism whereby it can obtain a verifiable true premise thus the conclusions it arrives at cannot be established as true – no matter how valid the argument.

Only science can acquire new knowledge. This assertion is readily falsifiable by you proving me wrong. What new knowledge has philosophy ever obtained which hasn't been based on existing knowledge as verified by science?

Where has it been established that knowledge is only valid if it can be confirmed by some scientific process? Scientists would do well to recognize that science cannot occur unless it does so within a confirmed philosophical paradigm (mathematics might be the exception….but then again…mathematics is the exception to just about everything). I could just as easily (and with far more credibility) assert …what new knowledge has science ever obtained that has not been based on existing knowledge as verified by philosophy? Science does not exist without philosophy. Philosophy does exist without science.

That is the point. Science is not the thing in itself. Science is a model. Science is knowledge. There is no science of knowledge. There is philosophy. That is why we have the word epistemology.

Philosophy is that which gives form to intellectual meaning. It explains why ‘Bitcoin’ is not ‘starfishcoin’. It is syntax and semantics. It is what we do. You could call it psychology…but human psychology is composed of two forms of intelligence. One is intellectual, the other is emotional. The emotional intelligence might be analogous to analogue systems. It is organic and proceeds according to its own vocabulary. The intellectual intelligence might be described as digital. It organizes meaning into bundles that are described by words and their relationships. Syntax and semantics. This is the world of philosophy. What else is there to call it since it is philosophy that formally explores and illuminates this landscape. In a very real sense…it is only philosophy that creates new knowledge…because knowledge is exclusively a philosophical condition and it is with, in, and through established philosophical paradigms that new knowledge is acquired, explored, and synthesized.. The practice of science is a form of philosophy…not the other way around. It is startling how many scientists fail to recognize this fundamental fact.

Science simply has a distorted sense of its own importance. We are creatures defined by our intelligence. The primary intelligence is the emotional. The secondary is the intellectual. The variety of knowledge that occurs within the intellectual sphere is exclusively philosophical (sometimes I wonder at that…whether there are other vocabularies of understanding [there are certainly suggestions that this is the case]...I suppose one would only know by discovering them). How either of these varieties of intelligence create meaning is anyone’s guess. Science certainly does not have the answer.

 

[annnnoid]

Nobody is saying that anecdotal evidence always points to the wrong conclusion, just that it does so often enough for it to be an unreliable guide to the nature of reality.

Anecdotal evidence convinced people that doing a rain dance made it rain, that homeopathy works, that aliens are abducting people and performing invasive medical procedures on them ... this forum is chock full of threads providing plenty of examples of just how unreliable a source of information subjective experiences can be. That's why the scientific method was invented.

Anecdotal evidence is, ultimately, all we’ve got. The point is that the nature of reality is trivial compared to the nature of human reality. Who you are. What matters…is what is real…what is honest. Whether we can build a faster CPU or develop a wheat strain that can be cultivated in the Sahara or perfect cold fusion etc. is all very interesting and helpful to one degree or another…but what matters…is what is real, and honest. That is where we discover that there actually is a meaning to the word ‘true’. No science textbook can teach you that.

This is why these constant attempts to eject subjective experience and adjudication are so offensive…not to mention contradictory. You are, ultimately, using subjective experience to conclude that subjective experience cannot be trusted. Try thinking about that for too long and not getting a headache!

 

[annnnoid]

So, your objection that it's not specific enough? Sure. That it's theology? Hardly. Either way, its primary function is pointing out that life arising under conditions where life can arise is not at all evidence of godly involvement or outside involvement of any kind. This should likely be fairly obvious, yet, the claim that only life can create other life is still far too common, despite issues with the logic.

What is obvious is that your reasoning is lacking in so many areas that a response is a waste of time.

Meaning that physics has already addressed the question that was being asked.

The question, if I recall, was what does matter (ultimately) arise from. I’ll just use Feynman…once again…to illustrate your ignorance.

The more you see how strangely Nature behaves, the harder it is to make a model that explains how even the simplest phenomena actually work.

Feel free to link the thread and papers, if you want. I rather strongly suspect that 'information,' if they were in fact credible papers, was not being used in a manner that implies the involvement of consciousness, much as a number of people do like to try to conflate things.

Of course it was not being used in that way. I suspect the authors really did not know what to do with their conclusions…except try and confirm them. Nobody has any idea what consciousness even is let alone how to use the word in relation to the ultimate mysteries of the universe. This in no way justifies the arrogant conceit that ridicule is an acceptable response to those who see pattern and purpose in this vastness. Especially when there is a great deal of evidence that seems to suggest that very thing. Science itself is founded on the premise that the universe runs on a set of natural laws that can be examined. “Why” is not a rhetorical question.

 

[Pixel42]

Anecdotal evidence is, ultimately, all we’ve got.

We also have the scientific method, which allows us to carefully and methodically eliminate all the ways in which we know that our fallible perceptions and cognitive biases can fool us and hence determine which anecdotal evidence stands up to such scrutiny and which does not.

You are, ultimately, using subjective experience to conclude that subjective experience cannot be trusted. Try thinking about that for too long and not getting a headache!

We are using the scientific method to find out which subjective experiences can be trusted and which cannot - to turn subjective experiences into objective evidence.

 

[Aridas]

What is obvious is that your reasoning is lacking in so many areas that a response is a waste of time.

In that it was pointedly incomplete, but focusing on what's the most direct usage? I'm sorry, you've not even remotely inspired me to write out everything, nor have you even begun to convince me that you understand more than a fraction of what you think you do.

The question, if I recall, was what does matter (ultimately) arise from. I’ll just use Feynman…once again…to illustrate your ignorance.

The more you see how strangely Nature behaves, the harder it is to make a model that explains how even the simplest phenomena actually work.

Yeeeeeah, no. Sorry, but as much as you like that quote, trying to use it inappropriately wins you no points. Quote mining is, unfortunately, absurdly common among people who really don't have an actual argument. Let's be quite clear here. While it is certainly possible that quantum foam and branes arise from something else, we have neither necessity, nor evidence that suggests that that's a reasonable proposition to accept. Either way, taking the nature of physics as a science into account, as was intrinsic to pointing out that equation, E=mc² counts as a reasonable start to answering the question asked. Your objections on this, so far, have been purely empty rhetoric, and thus can be simply be dismissed.

Of course it was not being used in that way.

Thanks for confirming that. That said, "information" as I've seen it used in what's likely the sense in question really does NOT even remotely imply intelligence or consciousness, your wishful thinking notwithstanding. Even trying to link those uses of "information" to intelligence and consciousness would be blatantly dishonest and invoke quite fallacious reasoning.

Nobody has any idea what consciousness even is let alone how to use the word in relation to the ultimate mysteries of the universe.

...Actually, the real question is how to define consciousness in a more objective fashion. That's what's been more of an issue. For arbitrary definitions of what consciousness is, science has uncovered a fair bit, at last check, which rather suggests yet again that you don't know what you're talking about as well as you claim to.

This in no way justifies the arrogant conceit that ridicule is an acceptable response to those who see pattern and purpose in this vastness. Especially when there is a great deal of evidence that seems to suggest that very thing. Science itself is founded on the premise that the universe runs on a set of natural laws that can be examined. “Why” is not a rhetorical question.

Oddly enough, I don't ridicule people "who see pattern and purpose in this vastness." I have most certainly disagreed that their arguments actually are valid ones when they try to support things that simply aren't supported, because they simply haven't been, and generally explained why. Admittedly, I have descended into ridicule on relatively rare occasions when stunningly terrible or dishonest logic is being used, with the note that that ridicule has nothing to do with them "seeing pattern and purpose in this vastness," and everything to do with how very terrible their arguments are.

 

[Navigator]

Have you ever heard of the equation e=mc²?

Yes. It surfaced from the same mind of the person who said:

“I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.”

So now, how does your question relation to my own?

 

[Navigator]

No. Stop doing that. Stop doing it immediately.

It was probably far to late for that John Jones.

The balloon analogy will suffice. Completely flat. No enter/exit point (like that of an actual balloon) and 'the big bang' represents the breath/hot air/helium which allows for the flatland to expand into a third dimensional representation.

The shape of this balloon is important, for pinpointing the exact center or wormhole or place of beginning or conscious interaction or whatever it was that propelled the breath into the area of its own making.

:uncovers eyes:

But not that important alongside the fact of the matter.

 

[annnnoid]

We also have the scientific method, which allows us to carefully and methodically eliminate all the ways in which we know that our fallible perceptions and cognitive biases can fool us and hence determine which anecdotal evidence stands up to such scrutiny and which does not.


We are using the scientific method to find out which subjective experiences can be trusted and which cannot - to turn subjective experiences into objective evidence.

Let me point out something very very very obvious. Nobody…save the occasional lunatic … wakes up in the morning and uses the scientific method to do anything…at all. The scientific method plays all-but zero part in the daily lives of each and every one of us. From the most mundane to the most meaningful…science does not happen. I have three professors of science in my family (genetics, computer science, and physics), and I can all-but guarantee they would agree with this statement.

Science is done by scientists when they’re doing science. That’s it!

When it comes to living….we use…we’ll call it the human method. Science plays bit parts in innumerable areas big and small…but when it comes to what matters, it’s the human method. Science not only does not function in this arena ….it cannot function in this arena. There is another epistemology at work. It can work really well…or really lousy…but it’s not science.

 

[annnnoid]

In that it was pointedly incomplete, but focusing on what's the most direct usage? I'm sorry, you've not even remotely inspired me to write out everything, nor have you even begun to convince me that you understand more than a fraction of what you think you do.

I understand far more than enough to conclude that many here are whistling out of their backsides and are simply too insecure or ignorant to admit it.

Yeeeeeah, no. Sorry, but as much as you like that quote, trying to use it inappropriately wins you no points. Quote mining is, unfortunately, absurdly common among people who really don't have an actual argument. Let's be quite clear here. While it is certainly possible that quantum foam and branes arise from something else, we have neither necessity, nor evidence that suggests that that's a reasonable proposition to accept. Either way, taking the nature of physics as a science into account, as was intrinsic to pointing out that equation, E=mc² counts as a reasonable start to answering the question asked. Your objections on this, so far, have been purely empty rhetoric, and thus can be simply be dismissed.

Yeeeeeeah ????

Are you unwell?

Quantum foam. Branes. Oooooh! Big, strange words. You must actually know what you’re talking about to be able to use such big, strange, words.

Let me know when you’ve come up with the TOE. Until then…dismiss all you want. Feynman could not have been more specific in his conclusion. Since your credentials so far add up to zero…we’ll just have to assume he’s the one who actually knew what he was talking about.

In the meantime…why don’t I throw in a few more quotes from the indefatigable Feynman…seeing as how you’re such a fan.

What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school... It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see my physics students don't understand it. ... That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does.

I think it is safe to say that no one understands Quantum Mechanics.

One does not, by knowing all the physical laws as we know them today, immediately obtain an understanding of anything much.

No doubt he was just joking around when he said these things.

Thanks for confirming that. That said, "information" as I've seen it used in what's likely the sense in question really does NOT even remotely imply intelligence or consciousness, your wishful thinking notwithstanding. Even trying to link those uses of "information" to intelligence and consciousness would be blatantly dishonest and invoke quite fallacious reasoning.

…since you’re such an expert on intelligence…perhaps you could answer a few insignificant questions:

Do any of these laws of physics exist outside our minds? Yes or no? Why does time proceed in one direction…and not the other? How did all the physical constants come into being….and how do our minds create intelligible models of them and the various laws they instruct? Come to think of it…how do our minds create intelligible models of anything at all? Why does subjective experience exist? What possible evolutionary purpose does it serve? Does math exist anywhere outside of our minds? Yes or no? Why is it our minds have the ability to create mathematical models that so accurately reflect and configure the reality of reality?

…and I rather think that it’s your ‘wishful thinking’ that excludes the word ‘intelligence’ from the equation. If, in fact, the meaning of the word ‘information’ (to the degree that we even have a meaning…and ultimately, we don’t)…does somehow describe what it is that occurs at whatever it is that are the primary levels of reality…then it is entirely reasonable to attach ‘intelligence’ to the equation.

Why?

Processing!

There is obviously no definitive understanding of these issues…but in many areas, the definition of intelligence is….information processing. What we have…on a grand scale… with this universe of ours…appears to be laws which govern it, patterns and constants which define and orient it, purpose which directs it, and information processing which underlies it. Intelligence by any other name. Dance around that all you like….they are all perfectly reasonable conclusions.

...Actually, the real question is how to define consciousness in a more objective fashion. That's what's been more of an issue. For arbitrary definitions of what consciousness is, science has uncovered a fair bit, at last check, which rather suggests yet again that you don't know what you're talking about as well as you claim to.

Arbitrary definitions??? What use to anyone anywhere are arbitrary definitions of anything?

Yet another lemming spitting out the company line…” science has uncovered a fair bit, science has uncovered a fair bit, science has uncovered a fair bit, science has uncovered a fair bit, science has uncovered a fair bit.” Big ***** deal!

Is that…like…your gospel or something? Do you even have the capacity to recognize that there are some significant areas where science simply has NOT uncovered a fair bit?

Here…let me give you a hand with that one. How about another summary of our current understanding of what we are and how our brains create it. This one by the current director of the most ambitious cognitive research undertaking on the planet…the Blue Brain project. Henry Markram.

For many neurons, we don’t understand well the complement of ion channels within them, how they work together to produce electrical activity, how they change over development or injury. At the next level, we have even less knowledge about how these cells connect, or how they’re constantly reaching out, retracting or changing their strength. It’s ignorance all the way down.

For sure, what we have is a tiny, tiny fraction of what we need,

Note the conclusions: ‘ignorance all the way down’…’ a tiny fraction of what we need ‘.

So we've uncovered a fair bit. Goody. We also haven't uncovered a fair bit. Don't try and say it too fast...you might choke!

Oddly enough, I don't ridicule people "who see pattern and purpose in this vastness." I have most certainly disagreed that their arguments actually are valid ones when they try to support things that simply aren't supported, because they simply haven't been, and generally explained why. Admittedly, I have descended into ridicule on relatively rare occasions when stunningly terrible or dishonest logic is being used, with the note that that ridicule has nothing to do with them "seeing pattern and purpose in this vastness," and everything to do with how very terrible their arguments are.

The most common feature of skeptic response to religious arguments is condescension. JREF reaks of it. Ironically….when the facts are in… it is blatantly apparent that science does not explain what this universe is, it does not explain how it works, it does not explain where it comes from, it does not explain what a human being is, it does not explain how a human being works, and it most certainly cannot give a human being what really matters.

Science does an awful lot of things…and it does them very well. Skeptics just can’t seem to handle the fact that there is an awful lot that it doesn’t do.

 

[Brian-M]

…since you’re such an expert on intelligence…perhaps you could answer a few insignificant questions:

I know these questions weren't directed at me, but I thought it'd be fun to try and answer them myself.

Do any of these laws of physics exist outside our minds? Yes or no?

No. These laws are descriptive, not prescriptive.

Why does time proceed in one direction…and not the other?

Time appears to proceed in one direction and not the other because the laws of physics (or rather, the behavior of the universe that the laws of physics attempt to describe) are asymmetrical in time. Physical changes are non-reversible. For example, if the wind blows a curtain hard enough to knock a vase over, which then rolls off the table and shatters on the floor, reversing the laws of physics wouldn't cause the vase to re-assemble itself, fly back up onto the table, roll back into it's original position and stand itself upright.

How did all the physical constants come into being….

No idea. Possibly they could have always existed, and therefore never came into being.

and how do our minds create intelligible models of them and the various laws they instruct? Come to think of it…how do our minds create intelligible models of anything at all?

Because we're capable of rational thought. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "how" in this question. Are asking how our brains function?

Why does subjective experience exist? What possible evolutionary purpose does it serve?

Subjective experience exists because objective experience is logically impossible due to us being limited to the information provided by our senses. Subjective experience is evolutionary useful because adapting our behavior according to our past experiences provides a survival advantage, and subjective experience is the only type of experience available to us.

Does math exist anywhere outside of our minds? Yes or no?

No. Math is a conceptual tool created by intelligent minds for utilitarian purposes.

Why is it our minds have the ability to create mathematical models that so accurately reflect and configure the reality of reality?

Our minds have the ability to create mathematical models because mathematics is a product of our minds, and consequently has been created in a manner that our minds are able to utilize to create models with. (If you're asking how our minds are able to create math in the first place, that's probably a question for neuroscience.)

We are able to create mathematical models that accurately reflect reality because mathematical models can be created to reflect any system with consistent behavior, and reality happens to behave consistently. (If it didn't, we probably couldn't exist.)

 

[annnnoid]

No. Math is a conceptual tool created by intelligent minds for utilitarian purposes.

As I'm currently approaching the end of a 1,000 page book I'm going to only reply to this response at the moment.

Math...or the appearance of math...is everywhere in our world and in the science used to describe, understand, and predict it.

A good example is the sunflower.

Are we seeing something that is not there? Or is there something there that we're not seeing? Is it simply coincidence that there are specific mathematical functions that correlate explicitly with so many aspects of reality?

Math has no existence...and yet...right there, it has a face. How? Only a fool would conclude there is no relationship. What is the relationship?

If...as you seem to definitively conclude...math is no more than a conceptual tool...what explains the sunflower (not to mention just about everything else)?

 

[MattusMaximus]

As someone who is a physics professor who is also pursuing a degree in philosophy, I simply don't understand those here who see some sort of dichotomy between science and philosophy. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

When you can definitively claim to know the truth of your existence…then you can claim some right to dismiss the choices others make about their own fundamental identity.

Have you reached this plateau?

Ah, the classic, "You don't know everything, therefore you have no right to judge or correct others when they're wrong." This forum is full of examples of bleevers who would love to have you advocate on their behalf, I'm sure.

And you keep putting words in my mouth. I never used the word ‘proof’. I used the word evidence. You would do well to make some effort to understand that life is not rational. You constantly persist in this fanatically narrow interpretation of meaning.

Wrong. Life is a constant balance of things, where rationality and irrationality are in flux.

The point is…you do not use objective criteria. You use subjective criteria. The fact that a variety of religious conviction exists is most certainly a foundation for reality… for whomever that variety exists. It may not be for you.

It didn't take long for you to miss my point again. Religions disagree on the nature of reality. A lot. That's why there are so many of them. Before you say that it's an individual choice, keep in mind that one's choices affect those around them.

Not in the slightest. What does surprise me is when a skeptical examination of our reality comes to the conclusion that we are not a function of something orders of magnitude greater than ourselves.

Which, by your reasoning, should be no less valid than the religious conclusions people come to. I suppose you only agree when it's convenient.

…and people back then made the same mistakes that they do now. Finding significance in that which is not. Whether the sun revolves about the earth or the other way around is utterly irrelevant to who you are or how you live your life. That was the case then (whether they understood that or not)…and it is still the case now (whether we understand that or not)

A person can have convictions that are downright immoral or dangerous. Should we respect them as having a firm grasp on reality, just because?

The obvious fact is (and anyone who denies this is a blatant fool)…that we are 100% a function of something that we did not create, that is a mystery, and that is of incomprehensible dimensions. Religion is nothing more than the formalized records of people’s encounters with various aspects of this mystery. Some find a great deal of comfort, support, and personal illumination in their involvement with religion.

Religious scripture also consists of a lot of wild mass guessing, self-contradiction, dishonorable behavior, and factual inaccuracies. Delusions can sometimes be comforting, what's your point?

It is not at all unreasonable to conclude…given that we are without exception occurring somehow somewhere for some reason in a situation that is the very definition of incomprehensible, inconceivable, impossible, and insanity …that it is helpful to find what appear to be guides and instructions that indicate that comprehension, sanity, hope, and even salvation are, in fact, possible.

In other words, because science doesn't have all the answers, insert Religion X here.

So…when you have achieved a definitive understanding of your own involvement in this mystery, you will then be qualified to judge others choices. Since it is almost inevitable that you will die it is reasonable to conclude that you have yet to achieve this understanding.

Okay, the next time I hear of a suicide bomber who kills innocent people, I'll be sure to remember your pearl of wisdom and withhold judgment.

Did you create you? Do you create you? What is a ‘you’? Don’t bother looking to science for the answers. Science can’t even ask the questions.

Your rhetoric is as empty as your words.

 

[Brian-M]

Are we seeing something that is not there? Or is there something there that we're not seeing? Is it simply coincidence that there are specific mathematical functions that correlate explicitly with so many aspects of reality?

It's hardly "just" a coincidence, more like a convergence. The development of physical structures follow logical progressions don't they? And mathematical sequences are created by following logical progressions. Since they both get there by equivalent processes, it's hardly surprising that physical structures often resemble mathematical sequences.

 

[Aridas]

I understand far more than enough to conclude that many here are whistling out of their backsides and are simply too insecure or ignorant to admit it.

Then demonstrate the errors.

Yeeeeeeah ????

Are you unwell?

Are you?

Quantum foam. Branes. Oooooh! Big, strange words. You must actually know what you’re talking about to be able to use such big, strange, words.

Amusing. I could, in fact, say much the same to you.

Let me know when you’ve come up with the TOE. Until then…dismiss all you want. Feynman could not have been more specific in his conclusion. Since your credentials so far add up to zero…we’ll just have to assume he’s the one who actually knew what he was talking about.

So, until we understand everything, we understand nothing is what you want to claim here. There's apparently no middle ground to you.

In the meantime…why don’t I throw in a few more quotes from the indefatigable Feynman…seeing as how you’re such a fan.

What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school... It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see my physics students don't understand it. ... That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does.

I think it is safe to say that no one understands Quantum Mechanics.

One does not, by knowing all the physical laws as we know them today, immediately obtain an understanding of anything much.

No doubt he was just joking around when he said these things.

So, you're saying that we shouldn't even care that Feynman's been dead for multiple decades during which the science has advanced, that some of those quotes were from long before his death (1965, for example), and that his understanding of the matter didn't change over time, as would be actually be what's suggested by quotes like -

We have always had a great deal of difficulty understanding the world view that quantum mechanics represents. At least I do, because I'm an old enough man that I haven't got to the point that this stuff is obvious to me. Okay, I still get nervous with it.... You know how it always is, every new idea, it takes a generation or two until it becomes obvious that there's no real problem. I cannot define the real problem, therefore I suspect there's no real problem, but I'm not sure there's no real problem.

Richard Feynman, in Simulating Physics with Computers appearing in International Journal of Theoretical Physics (1982) p. 471.

Oh, and saying that I'm a fan of Feynman? Sorry, no. That's just a point where you're simply wrong. I respect the man for his contributions, sure, but I haven't ever been either particularly interested in him, nor do I have any emotional attachment to him.

…since you’re such an expert on intelligence…

Something that, incidentally, wasn't even implied by what I said. Again, the uses of information that are likely being employed are just that different from uses where intelligence can be implied. Depending on conflation does not make valid arguments.

perhaps you could answer a few insignificant questions:

Ones that are simply you trying to throw up a smokescreen and are quite irrelevant to the topic that was in discussion? Stick with valid arguments and, if they actually are valid, I will concede once I've been validly shown to be wrong. This kind of fundamentally dishonest method of argument? It just removes what little credibility that you claim to have.

Do any of these laws of physics exist outside our minds? Yes or no?

You're resorting to solipsism-level argumentation? No, I'm not going to directly address the rest, because they're just as bad.

…and I rather think that it’s your ‘wishful thinking’ that excludes the word ‘intelligence’ from the equation. If, in fact, the meaning of the word ‘information’ (to the degree that we even have a meaning…and ultimately, we don’t)…does somehow describe what it is that occurs at whatever it is that are the primary levels of reality…then it is entirely reasonable to attach ‘intelligence’ to the equation.

Feel free to present the actual usage of "information" in those papers, since you've refused to link either them or the thread. Until then, you're just blowing smoke where there's no fire.

Arbitrary definitions??? What use to anyone anywhere are arbitrary definitions of anything?

Plenty.

Yet another lemming spitting out the company line…” science has uncovered a fair bit, science has uncovered a fair bit, science has uncovered a fair bit, science has uncovered a fair bit, science has uncovered a fair bit.” Big ***** deal!

Is that…like…your gospel or something? Do you even have the capacity to recognize that there are some significant areas where science simply has NOT uncovered a fair bit?

So, basically, you hate that science has shown its usefulness, overwhelmingly so, even when it comes to topics that you wish it didn't, and are quite happy to descend into using fallacious arguments and insults when what it actually has done is pointed out. There very certainly are areas that science has barely touched, and there's a lot to learn still, even in most that have certainly been investigated a fair bit. That does not even remotely mean that we know nothing or that it's unreasonable to work with provisional conclusions based on what evidence we do have, like you're trying to claim.

Here…let me give you a hand with that one. How about another summary of our current understanding of what we are and how our brains create it. This one by the current director of the most ambitious cognitive research undertaking on the planet…the Blue Brain project. Henry Markram.

For many neurons, we don’t understand well the complement of ion channels within them, how they work together to produce electrical activity, how they change over development or injury. At the next level, we have even less knowledge about how these cells connect, or how they’re constantly reaching out, retracting or changing their strength. It’s ignorance all the way down.

For sure, what we have is a tiny, tiny fraction of what we need,

Note the conclusions: ‘ignorance all the way down’…’ a tiny fraction of what we need ‘.

So we've uncovered a fair bit. Goody. We also haven't uncovered a fair bit. Don't try and say it too fast...you might choke!

It's amusing how you think that that we don't know everything isn't intrinsically included in "we know a fair bit." If I was making the claim that we understood everything completely, I would have said as much. You've been trying to argue that we know nothing, though, which is completely wrong. I'd argue against you if you were claiming that we know everything, too, for similar reasons.

The most common feature of skeptic response to religious arguments is condescension. JREF reaks of it. Ironically….when the facts are in… it is blatantly apparent that science does not explain what this universe is, it does not explain how it works, it does not explain where it comes from, it does not explain what a human being is, it does not explain how a human being works, and it most certainly cannot give a human being what really matters.

Science does an awful lot of things…and it does them very well. Skeptics just can’t seem to handle the fact that there is an awful lot that it doesn’t do.

I'm sorry, were you trying to direct this at me? Ignoring some of the highly questionable claims that you might be able to get away with by resorting to solipsism-level arguments, by attempting to argue that your statements are valid because we don't know everything, and by redefining vague statements to mean something other than the points where they're shown to simply be wrong, I'd have to say.... duh.

 

[Aridas]

Yes. It surfaced from the same mind of the person who said:

“I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.”

So now, how does your question relation to my own?

You asked where matter can be considered to originate. Whether or not consciousness is involved, the answer is likely that it came from what can be termed energy, as a fairly superficial summation.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

I'm still waiting on the so-called evidence for some kind of greater authority / reality / creator / God. The stupid platitude that science can't define selfhood or how consciousness originates in no way supports an alternate hypothesis or explanation.

"We don't know, therefore God." Nope, doesn't work that way.

 

[Tassman]

Where has it been established that knowledge is only valid if it can be confirmed by some scientific process? Scientists would do well to recognize that science cannot occur unless it does so within a confirmed philosophical paradigm (mathematics might be the exception….but then again…mathematics is the exception to just about everything).

Choose your words carefully. A “valid argument” is not necessarily a true one. Philosophy has no mechanism for establishing a true premise; therefore it cannot arrive at an actually true conclusion no matter how "valid" the deductive argumentation may be. Certainly philosophy has its uses as a tool of science, e.g. it can ensure self-consistency, and help prevent errors of false inference. But, unlike science, it cannot, generate new truths about nature. So let’s not give it airs. Philosophy, as a process, is useful but limited.

I could just as easily (and with far more credibility) assert …what new knowledge has science ever obtained that has not been based on existing knowledge as verified by philosophy? Science does not exist without philosophy. Philosophy does exist without science.

You have this exactly back-to-front. The deduced conclusions of philosophy are just restatements of the content contained in the science-based premises. They may look new, but they only consist of repackaged existing information.

That is the point. Science is not the thing in itself. Science is a model. Science is knowledge. There is no science of knowledge. There is philosophy. That is why we have the word epistemology.

Philosophy is that which gives form to intellectual meaning. It explains why ‘Bitcoin’ is not ‘starfishcoin’. It is syntax and semantics. It is what we do. You could call it psychology…but human psychology is composed of two forms of intelligence. One is intellectual, the other is emotional. The emotional intelligence might be analogous to analogue systems. It is organic and proceeds according to its own vocabulary. The intellectual intelligence might be described as digital. It organizes meaning into bundles that are described by words and their relationships. Syntax and semantics. This is the world of philosophy. What else is there to call it since it is philosophy that formally explores and illuminates this landscape. In a very real sense…it is only philosophy that creates new knowledge…because knowledge is exclusively a philosophical condition and it is with, in, and through established philosophical paradigms that new knowledge is acquired, explored, and synthesized.. The practice of science is a form of philosophy…not the other way around. It is startling how many scientists fail to recognize this fundamental fact.

Philosophy depends upon observation-based, scientific knowledge. Aristotle also believed that philosophy was the means finding truth and creating new knowledge, but nearly every argument and conclusion he made about the physical world was wrong because his premises were wrong. Science has now put him right.

Science simply has a distorted sense of its own importance. We are creatures defined by our intelligence. The primary intelligence is the emotional. The secondary is the intellectual. The variety of knowledge that occurs within the intellectual sphere is exclusively philosophical (sometimes I wonder at that…whether there are other vocabularies of understanding [there are certainly suggestions that this is the case]...I suppose one would only know by discovering them). How either of these varieties of intelligence create meaning is anyone’s guess. Science certainly does not have the answer.

What is the basis for the hilited bald assertions?

 

[annnnoid]

It's hardly "just" a coincidence, more like a convergence. The development of physical structures follow logical progressions don't they? And mathematical sequences are created by following logical progressions. Since they both get there by equivalent processes, it's hardly surprising that physical structures often resemble mathematical sequences.

Do you not see that you are merely begging the question?

Why...and how... do what you call 'physical structures' (which, presumably, comprise everything there is) follow what you call 'logical progressions'?

IOW...whence the logic? Why...and how...does logic (and / or the capacity to comprehend mathematics) occur in our minds (as opposed to a condition that could be described as 'not-logic' or 'not mathematics'). Why... and how...does logic occur everywhere else (delve deeply into the depths of the quantum world and what do you find....mathematics...everywhere...exclusively)?

What explains the almost magical ability of the 'logic' of mathematics (a thing that has no 'physical' reality) to explicitly map the 'logic' of the physical world (a thing that has no 'abstract' reality)?

Could they both originate from the same 'logic'?
Is that what the evidence suggests?