Is it the Universe created alone? Yes or not? Only Yes or Not.

[tar]

disarray,

 

I think the answer is yes, as to the rest of the universe, keeping us company.

 

Any entity you wish to associate with, is but one example of something, that there appears to be good chance that it may not be the only example of that type of entity.

 

There is a tendency, as you exposed several posts ago, to discount the specialness of one's own entity, and to attempt to, grain size wise, place your own entity in the role of a single grain upon a beach of grains, thereby commanding an overview position, that gives one the feeling of superiority, or the feeling that through the grain size shift, one contains the container.

 

I do it. You do it. We all do it. And the answer to this thread question, or the "contain the set" thinking that the idea of "another" universe, gives us the thought that we can contain the knowledge of the super set that contains all universes is, in my guess, what we are after, thinking about this kind of stuff.

 

I have noticed in both scientific discussions, and in spiritual discussions, that it is important to people to be not only right, but more right than the other guy. Like one always looks for the idea that will trump the grandest idea.

 

But grain size wise, it is always possible, to "conceive" of the whole thing as but a single thing, not alone, amongst others of its type.

 

We have this analogy type thinking, this ability to have one thing stand for another, built into our thinking, and our language ability and our ability to describe our environment, and our thinking to each other. Plus we have the actual reality that we are "mid" level between the atoms and the solar systems, and have real examples of grain size switches.

 

That there is not something in common, between an electron and a comet, in terms of its "going around", is hard to prove.

 

Regards TAR

[disarray]

Tar....I don't agree that everyone is always trying to be more right than others, but then again, maybe I'm just trying to be more right than those who say that everyone is always trying to be right and one up over others. Yes, life is one big competition where everyone is always trying to "Trump" everyone else, as you put it.

 

But seriously, not all philosophers, scientists, researchers, etc. are agonistic egomaniacs simply because they find holes in other people's theories. Indeed, a good scientist seeks just as avidly, if not more, to find holes in his own pet theories. It is true that some scientists and philosophers are more objective than others. Some are quite biased and throw out anything that does not fit into their own pet theories...such bias is, by definition, not consonant with scientific principles. Others have a reputation for being more objective...For example Darwin was said to be more objective than usual and would quickly jettison any of his ideas that did not fit the facts.

 

In point of fact, I do think that you are on to something when you talk about humankind's place in the universe (and of course, I agree that certain patterns and principles recur throughout nature on different levels). As I mentioned before, however, I don't agree that we "owe anything" or are "obligated" to the universe by virtue of the fact that it "created" us.Perhaps it is your wording that I find slightly objectionable, since words like "obligation," "responsibility" and "created" have religious overtones...that is, these words tend to presume, by virtue of their connotations, that the universe is like some sort of Creator or creative Mind that had some purpose for creating us. On the other hand, I think you already stated that you are not trying to convert anyone to adopt some religious viewpoint about the universe, so perhaps you were just using those terms metaphorically....as if to personify Nature.

 

Actually, I do agree that it would make sense for people in general to try to go with the flow...that is, to try to go along with what life forms innately tend to do in accordance with their natural instincts and drives...which are basically, of course: to be healthy until able to reproduce, to adapt to ones environment, and to survive as long as possible. It would seem (and Darwin agrees), that such qualities as empathy (love), cooperation within groups, and passing along knowledge, are at least as much a part of Nature's "plan" for living creatures to adapt to their particular environment as ripping apart the back of an antelopes head on the Savannah, as lions are wont to do. Indeed, the more advanced living creatures become, the more they find time to do other things besides focusing on gathering food.

 

So by this logic, it does make sense that our moral principles (guidelines for correct conduct) include things such as fellowship, trying to get along peacefully with neighboring tribes and nations, and, in general, following the adage of 'live and let live'. So far, so good. But the rub comes when resources become scarce, or even if people feel that resources are becoming scarce, or that there are too many foreign groups that are invading their territory (aka, "lebensraum"). Then people's mindset tends to change....often, for example, there is a shift towards militant fundamentalism (based not so much on hatred as on anxiety, as Eagleton suggests) where people start insisting that foreigners leave, that their own country secure its borders, that there be a return to traditional national morals, that the army become stronger and the country more militant, etc. In short, people's attitudes change when times are tough, much like the high school essay where you have to decide which person will be thrown out of the boat when it is found that are too many people in it.

 

From a Darwinian perspective, it seems to me that the best lesson that we can deduce from the universe is that we try to live and let live in harmony with each other as much as is possible, and to look after the environment as much as possible for future generations. So I would agree that we are not alone, inasmuch as the universe is available to us as some 'Thing' that can provide instruction for us as to how we should conduct our lives as human beings.

 

However, I would add that not all civilizations would draw the same conclusion as to just what lesson nature seems to be giving us....for Hitler and his cronies, the lesson they drew from the universe, and their interpretation of evolution, was that they, as a 'whole group' were innately superior to other groups and thus had the natural obligation to wipe out anyone who didn't fit into their little Aryan clique...despite the fact that Aryanism itself was by and large a concocted myth. And of course, the idea that one group is superior to another and therefore has a natural (often God-given right) to wipe out other groups (especially those that will not assimilate) seems to be the most common theme as to what is written in the stars (that is...as to what fate or nature intends for things to be) throughout human history so far.

 

But yeh, I'll go with your claim that we are, metaphorically speaking, not alone... since the Universe does provide us with moral instructions. I would add that the interpretation of natural evolution that we 'live and let live' as much as possible is a more enlightened interpretation than the "survival of the fittest" interpretation (which Darwin only begrudgingly accepted after it was coined by Herbert Spencer), and that, hopefully, future civilizations will be....well, more civilized and embrace this more enlightened interpretation. If so, then maybe people will discard the rather wasteful interpretation of trying to be the fittest group by rapaciously wiping out everything else in sight, which, after all, is a rather near-sighted and narrow-minded way of going about things...kind of like those early hunters who wiped out all the deer in sight in a single season so that they could have one big feast....only to find that there were no deer around the following year. Now we know better...one would hope.

Edited May 18, 2016 by disarray

[tar]

disarray,

 

I did not fully read Critique of Pure Reason, by Kant, yet, but in reading some excerpts I noted at one point that he talked of life after death. This is normally immediately a term associated with the continuation of the soul, but in Kant's case, I think he was saying that after you and I die, there will still be life, human life in particular, and I formulate my terms of responsibility and obligation, from that type of thought.

 

Like you say, it is important to make it possible for others to survive. I would extend that a little to be consistent with a meaning of life definition I came up with 5 or ten years ago, that life's purpose is to enjoy the place, and make it possible for others to do the same.

 

Such guidance though is not meant to be completely self sacrificing in nature. That is, it would be meaningless to take an objective stance that would sacrifice humans in favor of ants for instance. Ants are not as important as humans are, to humans. Such is my slight objection to folks who would pick a whale's well being over that of a hungry human.

 

So while I would agree with you that we have to watch out for Fascism and watch out for authoritarian religious prescriptions that reduce the dignity and freedom of one for the virtue of the faithful other...I would add that even humanism establishes a right and wrong group. I point in particular to the way the idea of global warming has created the virtuous who warn against behavior that increases carbon dioxide in the air, and the evil ones who burn wood to warm their families and cook their food.

 

It is OK, I think, to chose teams and make things good for your team. Allies and enemies indeed will present themselves, but it is wrong in my estimation for a human to imagine they are not human, and are somehow above the fray.

 

Regards, TAR

Every breath you take puts you first in line for that oxygen, and the carbon dioxide you release is not an evil byproduct of your life. You cannot move, without displacing some portion of the universe.

[disarray]

Tar,

I gather that Kant felt that the afterlife was connected with having filled and perhaps continuing to make an effort to conform to some moral religious law. Beyond that, I gather that he felt that it was pointless to speculate. In any case, it seems that your remarks about "obligation" and "responsibility" have some sort of religious tinge to them after all, so I do not consider them part of the discussion, as far as I am concerned.

 

Indeed, strictly speaking, I do not completely accept my own argument that we are not alone because the Universe, even though it is one big Thing, can give us clues as to how to best live our lives. I don't fully accept this attempt to capitulate with your beliefs, since I don't really think that any unconscious thing, be it a stuffed animal or the entire Universe, can cure a sense of being alone (aka loneliness).....though we can fool ourselves quite a while with objects such as a television that simulate conscious life. I am not ruling out that the Universe may be one big conscious Being, but there does not seem to be any sharable evidence to support such a claim, or any evidence that fits in with our systematic explanations of Nature so far. In any case, I can't help noticing that you seem quite comfortable stating that such things as life after death or moral obligations are true, as they not only smack of religious belief (if you are basing these on Kant) and certainly aren't verifiable with the senses, but, on the other hand, you have little time for any theories about a multiverse, however supported mathematically by many modern physicists they might be, since, you claimed earlier, they could not be verified by the senses and therefore were no better than anyone elses guess. In any case, once again, I do not criticize your comments in order to be "one up," but rather to help clarify your thought, in my own mind at least, if not in yours as well.

 

I would agree that ants are not as important as humans...and certainly not from a human's point of view! But of course we have to eat, and something must go in order for us to survive. I think vegetarians win the day in this regard, especially those who refrain from meat because it seems unnecessarily cruel to animals. Also relevant is that some Eastern holy men refrain from stepping on ants because they don't want to unnecessarily kill any living thing, since, after all, all living creatures, they believe, are just incarnations gradually making their way to Nirvana. I kind of like this approach, because after all, it shows a tremendous respect for all living things, which is typical of the major Eastern religions, though again, I am myself not putting forth any religious doctrine.

 

So yes, the way we state some possible moral guideline for living is the same....basically, to do no harm as much as possible while enjoying life. But such a guideline is limited, as it is not always clear what that means when it comes to the more controversial issues such as Global warming, euthanasia, abortion, killing in self-defense, etc. Indeed, there are many people around who claim that scientists have some sort of hidden agenda for claiming that global warming exist, or that, if it does exist, that it is anything to be worried about. For example, see video and comments below at http://www.infowars.com/hidden-agenda-of-global-warming-hoax-one-world-government/

 

[tar]

disarray,

 

I suppose my direction here has to do with what one considers literal and what one considers figurative.

 

It is obvious to everyone, that everybody else exists in the same waking world. In this we are literally the objective reality of each other. Once we start making stuff up, like borders and religions, and companies and states and political parties and so on, we have crossed a line from empirically provable stuff you can sense and weigh and measure and make formulae out of, into an imaginary world where conventions and agreements, and promises and such abound where you cannot quite put the object into a bottle. The theory of mind is crucial and you only have the proof that others experience the world the same way you do, because they look like they react to the same things you react to, in the same manner. Someone says something funny and you laugh.

 

It is a thing fellow humans are capable of, because we have the same basic way of internalizing the world and remembering it, and have the same basic important considerations of need for air and water and food and sex and love and so on, with the same hormones and reward chemicals and things that make us feel good, and things that make us feel bad. Mirror neurons are certainly empirically true, literally true things.

 

So when a billion people all look to circle the stone sometime in their lifetime, reciting the words of Mohammed (pbuh) it is a literally true thing they do, and seeing each other do it, is literally pleasing to objective reality.

 

I am not sure you get my angle here. Not that there really is an Allah judging your life and set to send you to hell and pour boiling oil down your throat if you are a disbeliever, or to set you up with virgins on a satin couch with rivers of honey if you live a correct life...but that we each care what the other does, and in this we are the objective judge, components of the universe, that are judging each other, and who we have to please or displease.

 

Watching out for the earth, is like worshipping Gaia for instance.

 

The question becomes how many years past our death, are we responsible for the place? 20, 200, 2000, 20000 or 600 Billion?

 

Regards, TAR

[disarray]

Tar

 

Yes, the Romans believed that some of the planets represented Gods who, like humans, were aware of others and their world. Of course, the earth seems like a living creature itself in many ways and, loosely speaking, we can "worship" and respect it by trying to watch over it, but I think that few if any people believe in some extreme Gaia theory whereby the earth is considered to be a living creature that is consciously aware of us as well as the surrounding solar system. So any duty we might think we owe the earth is ultimately a duty that we have created out of our own imaginations.

 

Of course we owe it to ourselves and to those we care for to "watch out" for the earth. But there are different opinions as to what degree we should make an effort and for how long. I wonder, for example,how long it would take before total chaos broke out if everyone tried to reduce pollution by not using their cars?

Less complicated and controversial is the idea that we should avoid bagging food in plastic bags when buying food items in a store because it can take hundreds of years for plastic materials to biodegrade.

 

I think that we are alone, from a secular standpoint, until the day, for instance, that extraterrestrial, intelligent life is found on other planets. I don't think that the universe or even any particular planet can count as something that could keep us (humanity) from being alone. However, I think that a practical idea would be to spread the idea around that we have much in common with animals, and should treat them with more respect, for they too share our planet and its resources.

 

In general, I don't agree that there are any absolute (non-relative) objective moral principles, though Kant (similarly to Rousseau) seemed to think that a reasonable person would respect other humans and therefore pass laws and behave in the, supposedly, one best (objective) way to help human beings live happy and prosperous lives. However, to me, morality is, in practice, much more complicated, contextual, and subjective than that. However, I do agree with those who think that natural evolution sets the example for us to survive and to live in harmony with one another as much as possible. So yes, we are all just threads in the interwoven fabric of humankind, and would do well not to forget that "no man is an island."

Edited May 19, 2016 by disarray

[tar]

So though, a cruel and uncaring universe, is negated in that at least you care about the place, and its inhabitants.

 

So any other being in the universe is not alone, because there is you, for them to be here with.

At least those within a couple light years of here, where pen pals could exchange messages within their lifetimes.

Matter of fact, the idea of a penpal establishes also the reality of a collective consciousness, where a family or a civilization, could, over a period of many lifetimes, communicate with someone, or with another such long lived collective, at distances greater than half a lifetime away. You could for instance, today, receive a return message from someone, somewhere who received an early 20th century radio broadcast, and responded to it.

 

I have a pet idea, surrounding the fact that I held a match up to the universe when I was thirteen. Some being 50 lys from here, should be seeing that light next year. In another 50 years, my daughter might learn of a response.

[Moontanman]

Is it the Universe created alone? Yes or not?

Only Yes or Not.

And which answer is more irrational? Yes or Not?

 

Nobody knows the answer, but the question is very interesting by itself.

 

 

 

 

You fail by assuming the universe has a creator, absolutely no evidence suggests a creator. The sudden expansion of time and space is thought to have a natural origin no creator needed.

 

If you have evidence of a creator I would suggest you show that evidence instead of using words that assume your conclusion before you even start..

[disarray]

The nearest habitable planet is some 14 lights years away. Not much possibility for pen pal, as for one thing, we can't assume that there would be anything whose intelligence interfaced with our, and virtually no possibility for visiting. Pen pals from another universe....forget it,

So apart from the obvious response that we should enjoy each others company, I would suggest studying the nature of the human need not to be alone, and what can fulfill such a need. For example, it might be found that humans prefer to listen to real time music, rather than that recorded yesterday, because real time music seems (on a psychological level) to be more real and personal.

Of course there will be individual differences. It seems that anything that reflects oneself helps. A short list of everything except actual other people being present in person might include the following, starting from least complex to most:

• Mirrors
  
• Paintings of animals, people
  
• Drawing of animals, people, etc.
  
• Radio and other voice recordings
  
• Phone conversations
  
• Television/Computer video
  
• Movie theaters
  
• Pets
  
• Robots (with artificial intelligence, voice, etc
  

The desire not to be alone is in some respects an instinct. Instincts such as the need for peace, companionship, protection, etc. are based on rather primitive impulses, and, as such, are easily fooled by substitutes. So even if we are alone, we need not assume that this is an insurmountable problem.

Edited May 20, 2016 by disarray

[tar]

disarray,

 

You are right. Just because we cannot communicate with someone on the other side of the Milky Way or in another universe does not prevent us from jamming with other musicians.

 

 

On the reflection, I think it important to note that that is how we witness the world. I was looking at a still lake, the color of the sky, and saw every building and tree and pole and cloud twice, once above the water line, and once below. Someone standing next to me would see the whole scene the same way. Every point on the lake's surface, is thus reflecting the whole scene, like the whole image being in each shard of a shattered holographic plate. I think of the brain as being similar to the surface of a lake, all folded up. We project an analog copy of the world upon our brains, and remember the scene, and compare the next instant's image with the stored image, to note any changes,

 

Our other senses, other than sight, also build an analog copy of the vibrations encountered, or the chemicals touched, or the contours and surfaces we encounter. In this, the outside world is contained on the inside. The important thing about science is we concentrate on those things we sense and remember, that anybody else, with the same senses and brain, can agree on.

 

Regards, TAR

 

In this, we are not alone. We have each other. And we came about as naturally as did the rest of the universe.

Edited May 20, 2016 by tar

[Joatmon]

We seem to have drifted away from the original question of "Yes or Not".

That being so I feel tempted to chuck in my two pennyworth:-

Imagine that a scientist can lead a team into the discovery of how to make a huge black hole that could gobble up our present universe and thus create a singularity that explodes into a new big bang, and can't resist trying it out.

Eventually the system might settle down to something like our present universe, life may start, intelligence may come from evolution and the idiot who led the irresponsible team might be given the a name that would translate as "God".

Just a thought

[Strange]

Imagine that a scientist can lead a team into the discovery of how to make a huge black hole that could gobble up our present universe and thus create a singularity that explodes into a new big bang, and can't resist trying it out.

 

 

There is no reason to think that a singularity, or a black hole, can explode.

 

Although it does remind me of Asimov's Last Question: http://multivax.com/last_question.html

[disarray]

Well, obviously we have each other... so why the interest in life on other planets? Again, one could list various reasons:

• the need for an ersatz religion
• the projection of a fear of the unknown
• fascination with the unknown
• an interest in the variety of creatures in our world and possibly others
• an interest in what seems to be transcendental and mystical
• a sense of awe at what the stars might produce, etc.

[tar]

Enric,

 

 

I think what is most rational is to consider the universe as created alone. Although the word created confounds the question, and implies a creator, which would immediately give the universe company, thereby negating the aloneness of the place.

 

So yes or not, does not quite cover the possible answers...however the uni in front of universe implies to me a totality in the singular nature of the word.

Regards, TAR

 

Below is from Wiki article on Category(Kant).

 

 

The table of judgments[edit]

 

Kant believed that the ability of the human understanding to think about and know an object is the same as the making of a spoken or written judgment about an object. According to him, "Our ability to judge is equivalent to our ability to think."[8] A judgment is the thought that a thing is known to have a certain quality or attribute. For example, the sentence "The rose is red" is a judgment. Kant created a table of the forms of such judgments as they relate to all objects in general.[9]

 

 

Quantity

Universal

Particular

Singular

 

Quality

Affirmative

Negative

Infinite

 

Relation

Categorical

Hypothetical

Disjunctive

 

Modality

Problematical

Assertoric

Apodictic

 

 

This table of judgments was used by Kant as a model for the table of categories. Taken together, these twelvefold tables constitute the formal structure for Kant's architectonic conception of his philosophical system.[10]

 

The table of categories[edit]

Quantity

Unity

Plurality

Totality

 

Quality

Reality

Negation

Limitation

 

Relation

Inherence and Subsistence (substance and accident)

Causality and Dependence (cause and effect)

Community (reciprocity)

 

Modality

Possibility

Existence

Necessity

[disarray]

@Joatman

Perhaps the posts got away from the discussion of answering yes or no to the topic because

1. It may have been mutually agreed that extraterrestrial beings, if they exist, are so far away (among other factors) that it is not feasible that we interact with them, and thus not particularly relevant to the topic.

2. Similarly, it is not possible for beings from another universe to interact with us, and thus not particularly relevant to the topic.

3. What remains is a discussion as to the likelihood of finding intelligent life on other planets. No doubt one can research this and find scientific estimates, but again, it would just be pure speculation (as we all knew anyway) with the result that the answer to this forum question would be "maybe" or "who knows."

 

Therefore, I for one, tried to approach the question from a different angle by asking such question as "What difference would it make (in terms of religion, worldviews, culture, etc.) were we to find out that there were intelligent creatures on other planets," and (similarly) "Why does anyone care in the first place."

 

@Tar

Yes, the term "universe" does include the term "uni," meaning one. But that does not mean (unless one wants to slavishly focus on semantics) that it is not possible that other universes exist elsewhere outside of our own universe, each existing within its own time/space coordinates. Indeed, the term, "universe" was perhaps first used by Greeks and Romans to refer to matter and space (but perhaps not the void that may be outside of the universe), and therefore the term was used at a time where concepts such as the Big Bang, the Higgs Boson, and a Multiverse were undreamt of.

 

What I think is relevant is that the term "universe" refers indirectly to the fact that it is an integrated whole, that "turns" together. I think that it is essentially a scientific term in the sense that it presumes that the universe is consistent and obeys the same laws every where (as Einstein famously claimed), as opposed to those who would like to think that there are miracles that somehow take place outside of these laws.

 

Suggesting that other universes can't exist as part of a Multiverse because the term "Universe" supposedly includes everything (including what some might call other universes) is getting all tangled up in an anachronistic, semantic Gordian knot...it's kind of like arguing that Santa must bring gifts to everyone because he is a saint and thus represents God's universal love for all human beings....then someone else points out that the term, "saint" has its roots in early Catholicism (which, ironically, is 'katholikos' in ancient Greek and refers to what is 'universal'), and so a saint such as Saint Nicholoas (aka Santa) would only give presents to Christians....So yeh, be it the exclusion of other universes or the domain of Santa's territory or the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, such linguistic merry go rounds is exactly what the outstanding philosophers of the 20th century (the logical positivists) sought to eliminate.

 

As an aside, I am reminded of such miraculous occurrences as Santa's annual journey: Like UFOs, there is insufficient data to confirm anecdotal sightings of such a flying person, nor much valid photographic evidence that a man with a long beard gets his huge bundle down a chimney, nor (most importantly) that the idea of reindeer being able to drag a man and a sleigh with millions of presents through the air is consistent with the body of scientific knowledge we have so far about Reality (aka the laws of physics), even with the help of Rudolph. Indeed, the idea of a 'multiverse', like the concept of a Big Bang, is far more consistent with the known laws of physics than the concept of a flying sleigh will ever be....yet millions still believe.

 

In short, words and symbols are abstractions that must be continually checked with empirical data (and/or theories already established byverifying data) if they are to have anything to do with Reality (at least as far as science is concerned)....I am reminded of the slang term that it is always a good idea to occasionally do a 'reality check' lest we get all tangled up in, as the beat poet, Lawrence Ferlinghetti called it, the "spider web" of language. But science tenaciously hangs on to ideas that might be verified...so that it was decades before ideas such as relativity and a big bang were confirmed with data and experiments.

 

Good outline of Kant...Yes, thinking generally entails various types of judgment. More to the point, you note that Kant claims we think/judge in terms of categories. Ok, yes, our minds (via an elaborate network for organizing sensations) filter Reality in various ways in order that we, as organisms, might survive. The fact that the mind (of humans and other creatures) can interface with the universe is an astounding accomplishment, as Kant and others have noted. Such felicitous natural consilience serves to underscore my claim that the scientific approach to acquiring knowledge has shown itself to be such an effective one because it begins with the presumption that Nature is consistent and uni-form enough that we can make univers-al, shareable, and predictable observations about it(as opposed to resorting to external Creators and his/her/its adjustments e.g., miracles to describe and explain it).

 

And again, the problem with this forum question, as with many, is that it not only comes with its own baggage of assumptions (e.g., there is only one universe... and it was created), but does not adequately describe the terms (e.g., alone) or give any indication as to what the purpose of the inquiry might be, with the result (which is common) that posters often respond in accordance with their own interpretations of the question in a criss-cross fashion...which is good if the poster just wants to get some sort of Rorschach-like set of responses to satisfy his/her sense of amusement or curiosity.

Edited May 24, 2016 by disarray

[tar]

disarray,

 

I know that Santa Claus is not an empirically true being with an actual shop at the North Pole...yet I read the Night Before Christmas every year to my family, the night before Christmas, and we put out cookies and milk and some sugar for the Reindeer every year until the kids convinced each other that my wife and Santa and the Easter Bunny and the tooth fairy were the same person.

We still occasionally read the story, for ole time sake, and spend Christmas morning exchanging gifts, and we all know that its Santa who fills the stockings with trinkets and candy after we go to bed Christmas eve. If you lump me and my family in with people who still believe in Santa, in order for you to feel more scientifically correct about the universe, that is OK, but I actually do know, the same as you know, that you can't fit more than 6.23 billion angels on the head of a pin.

 

But...I am stuck on the thought we had earlier, that people tend to get something out of being more factually correct about the world, than the other 8 billion folks on the planet. Some are, and there is always some fact I know that you don't and vice a versa. As my tag line says, nobody knows more than everybody put together, because its an additive thing, and the collective that is speculated with the thought, is imaginary in nature. That is, we are the only ones we know empirically are keeping count of what is known. That is my warning to scientists that have more faith in the power and complete coverage of universal laws, then they have in the judgement of the guy sitting next to them.

 

Regards, TAR

And more importantly, to the thread topic and the thought of what is "outside" space and time, is the fact you mention, that there is simply no way to figure such a thing out. We, as Kant suggests, have but two a priori judgements, that are not built upon any other notion. Space and time. We all already know what they are, and each has no notion upon which they are built. They are already understood. However, it would be hard to even think about or talk about, or say anything about what is "outside" of space and time, without reference to space and time, because those notions are the notions upon which we reference all others, and communicate the ideas to each other. Any object, in general, has its location in spacetime. As does every event. There is no commonly understood way to get outside everything describable.

Edited May 24, 2016 by tar

[disarray]

Tar

You state that, "I am stuck on the thought we had earlier, that people tend to get something out of being more factually correct about the world"

 

Hmmm...I thought we were having a serious conversation about Kant...who, by the way, was a person who tried to discuss philosophical questions in a scientific manner. Yet, on the other hand, you seem to be suggesting that I get "something" out of being more factually correct about the world? What exactly is this "something" you are referring to here? Hey, if you want your kids to believe in Santa, I have no problem with that. If you are going to somehow put a belief in Santa as equal to the more empirically sound belief that it is the parents and relatives who put gifts under the tree and fill stockings, then I am afraid your (sentimental?) logic eludes me.

 

Similarly, you state that "That is my warning to scientists that have more faith in the power and complete coverage of universal laws, then they have in the judgement of the guy sitting next to them." Again, you seem to be making some sort of ad hominem here without really coming out and saying what you mean. These universal laws are derived from systematic organization of collective empirical information...so it is scientists that are the collection of people who know more than individuals.

 

As for Kant, Einstein's Theory of Relativity has shown that his view of space and time was inadequate and misguided. In light of today's knowledge of physics, all Kant showed is that the impression that humans have about space and time is subjective and easily distorted. If anything, people such as Hawking and Einstein and Bohr, et al., showed that our "common sense" impressions about such matters as space, time, the origins of the universe, the boundaries of the universe, and (in more recent years) the possibility of other universes is woefully inadequate to grasp what is really going on. Einstein's opinion about the average individual's impression of space and time is that "Reality is an illusion, albeit a persistent one."

 

If anything, Kant's contribution to the issue of space/time is something that Einstein was aware of, but no doubt viewed Kant's philosophy as just pointing out that people's perception of space and time was illusory....so I would hardly use Kant to somehow suggest that it disproves the hypotheses of those physicists today who suggest that the idea of a multiverse follows logically and mathematically from the collective contribution of Einstein and other 20th. c physicists.

No one has seen the Big Bang or evolution in action, but the collective organization of sensations via science tells us that these things are the most valid impressions we have of what took place and is still unfolding. But giving credence to the scientific approach does not mean one becomes a cold person...both Einstein and Kant talked about the profound sense of awe that they felt when looking at the stars.

 

And, Einstein was a great humanitarian and, if anything, thought that the main thing we should do with our lives is to help each other. Of course, science is just one aspect of gaining insight and knowledge, but again, if one is talking about the the possibility of other universes and life on other planets, it seems to me that taking a scientific approach is not such a bad idea.

Edited May 24, 2016 by disarray

[tar]

disarray,

 

Sorry to make you feel I am trying to take either you or science down.

 

But I don't agree that what is really going on, is somehow a valuable consideration, if a human has no access to it.

 

Regards, TAR

[disarray]

Of course, we can't experience other universes (should they exist) with our senses. But neither can we see the Big Bang exploding. Yet we can extrapolate from our sense experiences that it happened. There are a lot of things in science that we can't see or touch. We can't see atomic particles, for the most part, yet our entire industrial system is built around chemistry. We can't (with minor exceptions) see evolution unfolding, yet the theory explains so much and helps us understand a great deal of 'what is going on' in terms of medicine, psychology, anthropology, etc.

 

As for Kant's noumena, many quantum physicists speculate as to what Reality is really like. But many, as you say, admit that we can never really experience what is beyond the senses so we should just be satisfied with the mathematical models that we can make of it as best we can. Indeed, one famous 'school of thought' when asked about what "is really going on" behind the scenes is to not speculate about it too much, but rather, for all practical purposes, to 'just shut up and calculate.'

 

But i think that multiverse is a side issue. What seems to be the question of the forum is whether it is likely that ETs exist...and I think scientists are in the best position to answer that.

Another aspect of the forum question is whether we have each other, and the answer to that is obvious, so not much to discuss there. Finally, there is the issue of God(s) and it is in this area where people often get a little sensitive and claim that scientists don't know so much as they think they do, etc. In any case, the issue of supernatural beings, I would suggest, is perhaps a religious/faith issue and outside the scope of the discussion.

 

So yeh, we will, in all likelihood, never find an ET in our bedroom..... point taken. But the discovery of life of any sort on another planet, the discovery of intelligent life, and the discovery of inhabitable planets, and the (possible) discovery that it is likely that there may be other universes with planets that also might sustain life, all support the theory of evolution and the the natural view of the origin of life. In that sense, the question as to whether "we are alone" is a "valuable consideration" and gives us a deeper understanding of our universe and our place in it..

Edited May 25, 2016 by disarray

[tar]

Disarray,

Well yes, you are right in your various points. I prefer science over belief in garden gnomes and angels, and believe fully that the supernatural is that which is not natural, but instead resides fully in the imagination.

 

But here I think it crucial to note that similarly, a model of the world, or universe interpolated and built in a human mind is also imaginary. Feeling we contain the whole thing is misleading. Just imagining the outside perspective, does not make it so. Such is a thing I constantly remind myself of, as in trying to imagine how many supernovae are currently burning in our galaxy. We can not verify our guess or calculation, nor can we agree on what vantage point to take, to make the count.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited May 25, 2016 by tar

[disarray]

Tar

Again, I don't see what point you are trying to make about scientists, as if they somehow think that they somehow don't realize that their models of the world are just 'imaginary'.

 

On the contrary, scientists, I think, are more aware than most that their 'imaginary' theories and models are not reality itself, but only represent the ding an sich.

 

Indeed, Kant, himself, claimed that scientists could never really experience the ding an sich, but could understand it better and better asymptotically by refining their models....much like Kuhn's progressive paradigms....nevertheless, the rubber never actually hits the road.

 

For example, scientists are more aware than most people that the color pink (magenta) has no actual wavelength to call its own on the color spectrum, and thus is only a 'pigment of our imaginations'. Indeed, some scientists, such as Scientific American's Michael Moyer, claim that all colors (and indeed, all our sensations) are all in our mind (as qualia) and don't exist in any similar 'way, shape, or form', outside our consciousness, as if the mind is playing a necessary trick on us in order to help us navigate our surroundings. (Psychologists in particular are aware of 'conditions' that confirm the concept that our individual minds are not really in contact with reality as much as most people think, e.g., alien hand syndrome, blindsight, and a whole range of delusions and hallucinations).

 

Scientists realize that the symbols they scribble on a whiteboard can be used to build build bridges, rockets, nuclear power plants, airplanes, etc., but, at the same time, they are, in general, also fully aware that their symbols and models are just 'images'...they fully realize that they are unable to adequately imagine that the universe has no center, or has size but no boundaries. They are fully aware that, like everyone else, they can't begin to adequately picture in their minds what the passing of a billion years is like, or how big the universe really is, or how fast light travels, etc. etc.

 

Psychologists tend to be more aware than most that one person's consciousness never actually "touches" the consciousness of another person's. (This applies to most if not all living things.) We all experience the world in our own special way...we never actually feel the pain or pleasure that others feel, or see the exact same colors or hear the exact same sounds. And though scientists realize that each of us is a prisoner of his or her own subjective imagination, they still like to imagine that it would be possible to overcome the widespread feeling of being ineluctably isolated and alone in the world. Like most ordinary people, they too, share John Lennon's dream of coming together:

 

Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world... You,..

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Edited May 25, 2016 by disarray

[tar]

Disarray,

 

There is evidence of mirror neurons and such that would indicate that we do feel what others feel. Who does not move their own hand back when someone else's is about to get burned.

 

 

My point about scientists does not apply locally where we can test and observe the cause and effect mix of things, and agree upon how things fit together. My issues arise when talking about things where there is no way to determine if the speculation is true or not, and the ignoring of the general fact that something very far away is not accessible. I have gotten into many arguments on this board, mostly lost them, but still feel it correct to say that we have in common those things we have in common. You can go down to the local florist and see a red rose, same as I can. We would agree about many things concerning the rose, how it smells, how the thorns hurt, how the gardener did a good job feeding and watering it, and keeping the bugs from eating it up. Not so many things we can say about what is going on in a cave on a planet on a star on the other side of the galaxy. We can not check to see if what the one says about it is true.

 

Regards, TAR

But more important, whatever is going on in that cave will not, absolutely can not affect our lives, this century, here on Earth. The fastest impulse in the universe will not get from there to here until 100,000 years from now.

It is happening really far away.

 

If a creature in that cave, 100,000 years ago had built a cosmic ray machine and fired it off in the direction of our Sun...it would not hit us, because the Sun would have traveled around the center of the galaxy a distance, while the ray was in transit, and the image the creature was firing at, was not a fresh image, and was informing the creature of where our Sun was, 100,000 years before the day of the firing..

My point being, that even if the creature did the correct figuring and led the target so that we could receive his pulse tomorrow, we would not be able to tell him, the day he sent the pulse, that we got it.

Edited May 25, 2016 by tar

[disarray]

Tar

Of course we have mirror neurons and smell the same rose, etc. That does not negate my claim that our consciousness is absolutely separate from another persons. Nevertheless, I can extrapolate, contrary to solipsism, that another person actually has consciousness.

 

Of course we cannot look into a cave or crater on the other side of the moon. Nevertheless, I can extrapolate with reasonable certainty from what I can observe about craters that I can see through a telescope that the craters on the other side of the moon are similar.

 

Of course, we cannot communicate on a daily basis with ETs thousands of light years away.

 

Of course, the discovery of the existence of ETs thousands of light years away does not affect me personally, though it no doubt would impact my culture.

 

I don't know that you are saying anything controversial, really.

Edited May 25, 2016 by disarray

[tar]

disarray,

 

Maybe not controversial, but I seem to get a lot of grief when I talk about two nows, and the need to take the thickness of a galaxy into account, when thinking of it as one thing, that satisfies one simple gas law. What we see the closest star in a distant galaxy doing happened a million years ago, or however distant the galaxy is, and a star on the far side of the same galaxy that we see, is doing what it did 1.1 million years ago. Suggesting that with that information, we can know, extrapolate what the entire galaxy is doing today is somewhat unfactbased.

 

But on the other issue, that of one consciousness being isolated from another...I don't think it so. We see the same world, and through that, share experience. Same world is modeled in our brains. Different parts of it, to be sure, but there are many things, like the moon, and the Atlantic ocean, and Times Square that exist as an analog representation in both your brain and mine. In this at least you are not isolated from me.

 

 

Regards, TAR

put it this way,,,if a person's consciousness is a sum total of her experiences and you share a couple of those experiences with her, are you not connected by those experiences?

[disarray]

Tar

I don't know if I follow your first point about knowing what an entire galaxy is doing by looking at the light from a few stars. From what you have told me, I can only say that, of course, what we see now on earth is not what is actually happening because of the amount of time that it takes for light to reach us. A star could be burnt out by the time we see it as burning bright in the sky...I don't know who you were disputing this fact with, but this is just common scientific knowledge. So again, I see no real controversy.

 

Of course we live in the same universe, but the feeling that we have that our consciousness of the world is the same as everyone elses is an illusion. I certainly don't experience what my twin (much less the pet that went along on the trip) might be experiencing on the other side of the globe right now in terms of smells, sights, sounds, etc.. However, when we are standing in the same garden looking at a rose, we have the illusion that our consciousness is the same because our "analogs", as you call them, (aka qualia, aka sensations) are similar. But whether I am being conscious right now of a rose or a star, I don't experience it directly...but rather I experience what my brain reconstructs from billions of photons entering the eye and being collapsed, alchemized into electric impulses compatible with my neural network, referenced to past memories in order to give meaning to these impulses, etc..... So I don't even experience what a person standing right next to me is experiencing in his/her consciousness. The feeling that my consciousness of the rose is the same as my twin's or my pet's consciousness of the rose is as much, if not more, of an illusion than the feeling that I am seeing what a distant star is actually doing now when I look at it in the sky.

 

Indeed, we never experience anything directly....the ground or basis of our sensations of 'things' is a ding an sich (aka unknown force field beyond our sensations), be it another person's actual pain, the actual moon that we see in the sky, or the other side of the moon. It is not that we actually experience some things directly and some not at all....rather it is all a matter of degree as to how much information and what kind of information we have about whatever area/object we are targeting. Blind people never see anything at all...they extrapolate what it might look like I suppose, but really, every person and virtually every other animal has slightly or hugely different sensory faculties than our own, and consciously experience the world in terms of its own unique capabilities.

 

So again, we are ultimately, in a very literal sense, imprisoned or contained within our own unique sensations and memories (and even memories and ideas are just complex sensations, as Locke pointed out centuries ago). In this literal sense, we really are, as individuals, completely alone within our own consciousness. Kant merely confirmed the notion of this subjectivity by pointing out that our mind has a variety of ways to filter and organize sensations. (Like Freud, he was a pioneer in his field, and so much of Kant's schematic categories about how our mind/brain filters and processes information is no longer considered very accurate, just as we reject much of what Freud said.)

Edited May 26, 2016 by disarray