Holmes Posted June 28, 2021 Posted June 28, 2021 1 minute ago, Phi for All said: Whoa there. 1 minute ago, Phi for All said: Science attempts to explain natural phenomena. So how can science explain the origin of natural phenomena? how can science explain how laws came to exist? 1 minute ago, Phi for All said: There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE of anything that violates that. EVERYTHING is observed to function within the parameters of the natural universe. This is not good phraseology, how can you make claims that everything adheres to some pattern unless you've observed everything? how can one even falsify such a claim? 1 minute ago, Phi for All said: If you're claiming something is outside that, or SUPERnatural, then you aren't doing science. I never said I was "doing" science, I said we must abandon science to explain why there is a universe.
iNow Posted June 28, 2021 Posted June 28, 2021 Just now, Holmes said: This is not good phraseology Pot. Kettle. Black. 14 minutes ago, Holmes said: the fact that that is here and we can observe it is evidence of the supernatural, that is a definition in fact of supernatural in fact
Holmes Posted June 28, 2021 Posted June 28, 2021 2 minutes ago, Bufofrog said: LOL, your a hoot! If you assume something is supernatural, then since this thing exists that is evidence of the supernatural? Really? Assuming the supernatural is real resolves the paradox of the natural being invoked to explain the origin of the natural, resolving paradoxes is what intelligent reasoning and rationality is all about. Reasoning that leads to paradoxes is anathema to science so how can you seriously regard what you're saying here as an example of science? scientific reasoning? 2 minutes ago, Bufofrog said: Let me play this game. There is no exact mechanism that explains red sprites, so I think they are supernatural. Red sprits exist, therefore they are evidence of the supernatural! Cool.🙄 As you wish.
Conscious Energy Posted June 28, 2021 Posted June 28, 2021 (edited) 33 minutes ago, Holmes said: Quote I said we must abandon science to explain why there is a universe. No we must not abandon science. We have to look deeper in it. Physical examinations can not ever answer your questions, but there is hope, that a bit more advanced, future math, might give some resolution… Edited June 28, 2021 by Conscious Energy
Phi for All Posted June 28, 2021 Posted June 28, 2021 9 minutes ago, Holmes said: So how can science explain the origin of natural phenomena? how can science explain how laws came to exist? It doesn't need to, since there are so many philosophers willing to climb out on that branch. 10 minutes ago, Holmes said: This is not good phraseology, how can you make claims that everything adheres to some pattern unless you've observed everything? how can one even falsify such a claim? The phraseology made clear I was talking about everything we've observed. The cosmological principle shows the universe is uniform with respect to position and also with respect to viewing angle. Nothing, not a single thing, seems to be outside of accepted mainstream physics. Nothing supernatural exists when we model any of our theories. 18 minutes ago, Holmes said: I never said I was "doing" science, I said we must abandon science to explain why there is a universe. Then you probably need to go somewhere else. This is a science discussion forum. You have very little persuasive power with your reasoning, and there are literal mountains of evidence that stand against the stuff you're claiming.
iNow Posted June 28, 2021 Posted June 28, 2021 15 minutes ago, Holmes said: Assuming the supernatural is real resolves the paradox of the natural being invoked to explain the origin of the natural You’ve resolved nothing, merely displaced it. You’re now left with the need to explain the origin of the supernatural. It’s turtles all the way down.
Phi for All Posted June 28, 2021 Posted June 28, 2021 16 minutes ago, Holmes said: Assuming the supernatural is real resolves the paradox of the natural being invoked to explain the origin of the natural, resolving paradoxes is what intelligent reasoning and rationality is all about. You certainly are obsessed with "origins". If you stop thinking about the "why" part, it also resolves your perceived paradox. Science is about observation and prediction, the "what" and the "where/when/how" questions. The "why" is for philosophy.
Holmes Posted June 28, 2021 Posted June 28, 2021 Just now, iNow said: You’ve resolved nothing, merely displaced it. You’re now left with the need to explain the origin of the supernatural. It’s turtles all the way down. No, you misunderstand I think. I'm not seeking to explain the supernatural but the natural. It is clear that something not subject to laws must be the reason there are laws - surely that's something you can appreciate? If you want to reject an explanation for X because it depends on unexplained things Y then you need to stop doing science, everything in science that is explained is explained in terms of things not themselves explained. 1 minute ago, Phi for All said: You certainly are obsessed with "origins". If you stop thinking about the "why" part, it also resolves your perceived paradox. Science is about observation and prediction, the "what" and the "where/when/how" questions. The "why" is for philosophy. Science deals with "why" all the time Phi, why is the sky blue? why does the moon always show the same face to the earthbound observer? etc etc.
iNow Posted June 28, 2021 Posted June 28, 2021 If you accept that no cause is needed to explain the supernatural, why not remove your fictional narrative (which adds nothing but complexity) and accept that perhaps no cause is needed to explain the natural? I understand you just fine, but you’re making silly and specious arguments that rational thinkers should dismiss as the nonsense they are. 3 minutes ago, Holmes said: everything in science that is explained is explained in terms of things not themselves explained. False, and ignorant too 1
Phi for All Posted June 28, 2021 Posted June 28, 2021 2 minutes ago, Holmes said: Science deals with "why" all the time Phi, why is the sky blue? Sorry, but science can answer "What makes the sky appear blue?", but not "why". Why do you want to remove the meaning from a wonderful word like "why", and equate it with "what" or "how"? Definitions are critical when you are discussing science. 1
Holmes Posted June 28, 2021 Posted June 28, 2021 Just now, iNow said: If you accept that no cause is needed to explain the supernatural, why not remove your fictional narrative (which adds nothing but complexity) and accept that perhaps no cause is needed to explain the natural? Because that would not be an explanation, in addition science is about finding explanations it is explanations (aka theories) that give us the ability to predict, one of the main fruits of scientific inquiry. Your position is - the universe has no explanation - which seems rather more vacuous to me. Just now, Phi for All said: Sorry, but science can answer "What makes the sky appear blue?", but not "why". Why do you want to remove the meaning from a wonderful word like "why", and equate it with "what" or "how"? Definitions are critical when you are discussing science. Use whichever terms you prefer my argument is unchanged. Feynman very clearly understood this issue about explanations about "why" (or "how" or whichever way you choose to write this).
iNow Posted June 28, 2021 Posted June 28, 2021 1 minute ago, Holmes said: Your position is - the universe has no explanation - which seems rather more vacuous to me. Correction: YOUR position is that a paradox is created using naturalistic explanations for the origin of the universe. YOUR position is that this paradox is only resolved by invoking supernatural conjectures. MY position is that this resolves nothing. It merely displaces the same question and leaves it equally unanswered, only THIS time with a bunch of pseudo woo woo horseshit in the middle
Phi for All Posted June 28, 2021 Posted June 28, 2021 6 minutes ago, Holmes said: It is clear that something not subject to laws must be the reason there are laws - surely that's something you can appreciate? Um, what?! Can you show me something that is allowed to violate a law in order to give rise to the law? What isn't subject to the Law of Conservation of Energy? I can appreciate that nothing I've heard of violates this law.
Holmes Posted June 28, 2021 Posted June 28, 2021 (edited) 9 minutes ago, iNow said: Correction: YOUR position is that a paradox is created using naturalistic explanations for the origin of the universe. That's right and I think quite obvious when you carefully think about it. How can there be a naturalistic process for the origin of the universe when there can be no such processes until something exists? until laws, matter, fields exist? There can't. Quote YOUR position is that this paradox is only resolved by invoking supernatural conjectures. My position is that something other than a naturalistic explanation (laws, matter, fields) must be invoked if we want to explain the origin of the universe, for obvious reasons I call that a supernatural explanation and explanation that is not based on laws, matter, fields etc. Quote MY position is that this resolves nothing. It merely displaces the same question and leaves it equally unanswered, only THIS time with a bunch of pseudo woo woo horseshit in the middle All explanations displace the explained thing with other - often yet-to-be-explained things, this is a characteristic of scientific explanations, listen to Feynman above. Edited June 28, 2021 by Holmes
iNow Posted June 28, 2021 Posted June 28, 2021 1 minute ago, Holmes said: That's right and I think quite obvious when you carefully think about it. TBH, you’ve not offered me any good reasons to care what you think
Holmes Posted June 28, 2021 Posted June 28, 2021 (edited) 5 minutes ago, iNow said: TBH, you’ve not offered me any good reasons to care what you think What a strange thing to say, very strange. 11 minutes ago, Phi for All said: Um, what?! Can you show me something that is allowed to violate a law in order to give rise to the law? What isn't subject to the Law of Conservation of Energy? I can appreciate that nothing I've heard of violates this law. Do laws exist? I think I can say they do, so then to what can we attribute the presence of these laws? Is there a law that gives rise to all the other laws? there may well be, there may be a theory of everything but if laws are explained through other laws what explains the presence of laws at all? it cannot be a law can it... Edited June 28, 2021 by Holmes
iNow Posted June 28, 2021 Posted June 28, 2021 9 minutes ago, Holmes said: What a strange thing to say, very strange. See post, from me, immediately preceding yours 10 minutes ago, Holmes said: Is there a law that gives rise to all the other laws? there may well be If there is, then it really needs to be called the HiLAWnder 11 minutes ago, Holmes said: Do laws exist? Depends on what you mean by exist
Phi for All Posted June 28, 2021 Posted June 28, 2021 7 minutes ago, Holmes said: What a strange thing to say, very strange. It's reasonable though, given your biases and tendency to assert without support. 8 minutes ago, Holmes said: Do laws exist? I think I can say they do, so then to what can we attribute the presence of these laws? Is there a law that gives rise to all the other laws? there may well be, there may be a theory of everything but if laws are explained through other laws what explains the presence of laws at all? it cannot be a law can it... Do you think this is interesting or meaningful? Not to me. It certainly didn't answer my question about what laws you think have been violated.
Holmes Posted June 28, 2021 Posted June 28, 2021 (edited) 7 minutes ago, iNow said: Depends on what you mean by exist I mean is there evidence to warrant a belief that there are things called laws. 4 minutes ago, Phi for All said: It's reasonable though, given your biases and tendency to assert without support. Do you think this is interesting or meaningful? Not to me. It certainly didn't answer my question about what laws you think have been violated. Please quote my post where I claimed laws of nature have been violated, because I did not say that and this shows that you have misunderstood me. Edited June 28, 2021 by Holmes
iNow Posted June 28, 2021 Posted June 28, 2021 21 minutes ago, Holmes said: if laws are explained through other laws what explains the presence of laws at all? You’ve answered your own question, then: 9 minutes ago, Holmes said: there evidence to warrant a belief that there are things called laws.
exchemist Posted June 28, 2021 Posted June 28, 2021 1 hour ago, Holmes said: Well I say that because to attribute the presence of something to its self is paradoxical, I tend to reject paradoxical explanations personally, all the science I've studied takes that same view too. If someone in this forum said the reason there's a moon is because there's a moon or magnetic fields exist because of magnetic fields I very much doubt you'd agree or regard that as sound scientific reasoning. I "disguised" nothing, I expressed my view as I expressed my view. If you reject the view that things have a cause then on what basis do we even do science? what is a theory if not a mapping of causes/effects? Oh I don't mean that the disguise was necessarily intentional on your part, just that that is what it amounts to, whether you realise it or not. To claim that the universe must be "evidence of" something implies that something other than the universe must be somehow responsible for its presence - a cause for its existence, in fact. As you will know, if this is your line of country- as it seems to be - this assertion of a First Cause is an old chestnut. You have misunderstood me in imagining I don't think that "things have a cause". That is not at all what was saying. What I said - and if you have studied much science you will know this - is that there are uncaused events. So it is not true to claim that every event must have a cause, though quite obviously most do.
MigL Posted June 28, 2021 Posted June 28, 2021 (edited) I'm just waiting for Holmes to provide an example of ALL these paradoxes that apparently cannot be explained by science. And why he thinks saying "The ghost of Alexander Keith did it" ( alegedly haunts his brewery in Nova Scotia ), resolves these paradoxes. And, IF he should be able to provide such a paradox ( doubt it ), how is his explanation any different than not having an explanation at all. Edited June 28, 2021 by MigL
Holmes Posted June 28, 2021 Posted June 28, 2021 (edited) 19 minutes ago, exchemist said: Oh I don't mean that the disguise was necessarily intentional on your part, just that that is what it amounts to, whether you realise it or not. Well disguise implies a conscious intent and there is none. Quote To claim that the universe must be "evidence of" something implies that something other than the universe must be somehow responsible for its presence - a cause for its existence, in fact. As you will know, if this is your line of country- as it seems to be - this assertion of a First Cause is an old chestnut. Yes, it is variation of the argument from contingency I suppose but it is emphasizing how we can reasonably, rationally infer the supernatural from what we know about the universe. Quote You have misunderstood me in imagining I don't think that "things have a cause". That is not at all what was saying. What I said - and if you have studied much science you will know this - is that there are uncaused events. So it is not true to claim that every event must have a cause, though quite obviously most do. I'm not aware that the claim there are "uncaused events" is falsifiable, I see no reason to accept this belief as true. 18 minutes ago, MigL said: I'm just waiting for Holmes to provide an example of ALL these paradoxes that apparently cannot be explained by science. If it is a fact that everything has a scientific explanation then what is the explanation for this fact? You cannot use science to explain science, you cannot use laws of nature to explain the presence of laws of nature. Attributing the material to the material is a paradox. Quote And why he thinks saying "The ghost of Alexander Keith did it" ( alegedly haunts his brewery in Nova Scotia ), resolves these paradoxes. And, IF he should be able to provide such a paradox ( doubt it ), how is his explanation any different than not having an explanation at all. Because "God created the universe" tells us there's some entity that has the capacity to produce a universe and the laws that operate within that universe and that this act was itself not a consequence of some laws but of will, directed, desire, intent - we can understand these concepts because we possess these, we posses will, intent, desire so why is it so hard to accept that as a fundamental aspect of reality? Will gave rise to law, law cannot be the result of law. This is very different to saying there is no explanation at all, if you have a better explanation then lets here it. Edited June 28, 2021 by Holmes
iNow Posted June 28, 2021 Posted June 28, 2021 15 minutes ago, Holmes said: I'm not aware that the claim there are "uncaused events" is falsifiable, I see no reason to accept this belief as true. Argument from personal incredulity is a logical fallacy and will only ever be correct by accident. 16 minutes ago, Holmes said: If it is a fact that everything has a scientific explanation then what is the explanation for this fact? You cannot use science to explain science, you cannot use laws of nature to explain the presence of laws of nature. Attributing the material to the material is a paradox. It seems clear you cannot provide examples of paradoxes and are just evading the actual request. 17 minutes ago, Holmes said: Because "God created the universe" tells us there's some entity that has the capacity to produce a universe Then what produced God? 17 minutes ago, Holmes said: Will gave rise to law, law cannot be the result of law. Merely repeating an invalid claim doesn’t magically render it true.
Holmes Posted June 28, 2021 Posted June 28, 2021 Just now, iNow said: Argument from personal incredulity is a logical fallacy and will only ever be correct by accident. I have no idea why you make such a remark, you replied to my remark that I see no evidence that are uncaused events, if there's no evidence then I won't have reason to believe the claim will I. How can you tell if an event is uncaused?
Recommended Posts