What makes you think you are right about belief?

And never taken as an attack. In point of fact I enjoy your posts; they are well thought out and on point.

The shared reality you pointed out is one of the basic laws of physics. Since the results of such a belief is immediately apparent (squish!) it is hard to get around it. Same as jumping out a 20 story window and saying you can fly. All you can actually do is fall gracefully. And your belief ends up as busted as your body very shortly thereafter.

Unfortunately in too many cases the result of one's belief is not apparent for weeks, months, years or even centuries. Say, global warming. The beginning effects are already well under way, but not to the extent that those in opposition cannot pooh pooh the whole thing. By the time the effects are to the point that no sane opposition would be believed, the damage is done.

There is, I agree with you, great potential harm when individuals decide on their own versions of reality. Indeed most of the pain in the world can be directly linked back to people with their own view acting on it as if their view was reality. When all it is is their view of reality.

Nagel was, of course, spot on. I would take it a step further. Even being human is more subjective than objective. Take pain. We try and understand the level of pain by using a scale of, say, 1 to 10 with 10 being the worst pain. But how do we compare one person's 10 with another person's 10. People vary in their ability to deal with pain. One person's 10 could be a different person's 6. And we can never know from one person to the next.

The same with all human feelings and emotions. What does it mean to be happy? It is not a constant. Most everyone's concept of happy will be different. Even we humans are trapped within our own shells. We can share only to a limited extent.

Bringing it back to the topic, it is why I so strongly believe that when it comes to faith, all people, if they were honest with themselves, should be able to consider the possibility that they could be wrong. Faith is based on nothing but personal perception. It is the ultimate form of personal reality. And should be considered thusly.
 
Gordian Knot said:
Shib said "You say in your first statement above that "there is not but one reality."

You misunderstood my meaning. But then again it is a really crappy sentence on my part. The statement is not wrong but it is confusing. I should not have put the 'but' in there. Which would have made my meaning clear.

There concept of reality is extremely difficult to pin down. Especially when we are learned enough to understand that we can sense but a fraction of the reality around us. Being as limited as we are, I do not think we have a choice, except to compare how each of us sense reality. It does seem to me to be different for each individual.
Click to expand...

That's much more clear. Each individual has a different perspective to interpret Reality which becomes almost a kind of different reality of his or her own. But, if you ask me, you were not wrong for inserting that "but" the first time around. There is but one Reality.
 
Gordian Knot said:
Hatshepsut said "I wonder if it's both ways: that part of reality is shared"

Yeah I ponder this a lot, too. If part of reality is shared, what part do you suppose it would be? I look at the world around me, from my closest to people halfway around the world and individual reality seems to rule the day every time.

What objective reality we do understand, seems to me, is only that which has come from science. And even science has given us but a small sliver of the whole. Even here though, there is a sizable group of people even in industrialized nations who reject the portion of reality science has been able to prove. So where does that leave us?

Seems to come back again to the individual. No?
Click to expand...

"Science has been able to prove..." What has Science been able to prove? Then what kind of reality is based on guesses, I mean, theories? Carl Sagan said in his book "Cosmos" that Science has proved the beginning of the universe with the big bang. The other day Mitchio Kako declared on the History channel that the theory of the big bang stands to fall at any time as other theories are on the make.
 
Kaku is a smart guy, so I would not bet against him. Not sure what your point has to do with anything, however. There is a huge amount of science between the Big Bang and day to day stuff that we know is true. The fact that you are communicating with me on a computer that is linked to an internet that reaches 'bout the entire world. It is because of science proofs, not guesses, that what you are doing here is possible.

Most every aspect of your physical life is linked, indirectly or directly, to science proofs. So yes, what little reality we can have a pretty solid assurance of is through science.

Is there one reality? You think so. I do not. Guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
 
Gordian Knot said:
Unfortunately in too many cases the result of one's belief is not apparent for weeks, months, years or even centuries. Say, global warming. The beginning effects are already well under way, but not to the extent that....
Click to expand...

Is that kind of like the frog in the kettle of cool water when they put it on the stove to heat? I've always wondered if it's really true the frog won't jump out even though it could, and just sits there until it gets too hot. I keep hearing that story, but I don't incline toward catching a frog to test it...:eek:
 
Gordian Knot said:
Kaku is a smart guy, so I would not bet against him. Not sure what your point has to do with anything, however. There is a huge amount of science between the Big Bang and day to day stuff that we know is true. The fact that you are communicating with me on a computer that is linked to an internet that reaches 'bout the entire world. It is because of science proofs, not guesses, that what you are doing here is possible.

Most every aspect of your physical life is linked, indirectly or directly, to science proofs. So yes, what little reality we can have a pretty solid assurance of is through science.

Is there one reality? You think so. I do not. Guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
Click to expand...

Since you put so much in computerized technic and the power of Science to prove the unimaginable, tell me, can Science explain if the universe caused itself to exist or was caused by something else? Whatever the answer may be, I have another question if you don't mind. Can the universe be composed of only caused elements without a cause? If you have an answer to these two questions of mine, I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
 
Hat, According to Snopes.com, a site I trust to have the straight scoop, the frog staying in the boiling water is completely false. It is an old folk tale, no more. As the water gets hotter and hotter a frog will make more and more attempts to jump out, and if the rim is low enough the frog will do so.

When comparing humans and global warming, it seems frogs have a lot more sense than people!
 
Shib I specifically pointed out the day to day reality of proven science that opens up all the amazing things we can do. My point, which seemed kinda obvious to me, is that there is an enormous amount of science we take for granted in our day to day lives.

You go back to your old and tired line about causality in the creation of the universe. This has been answered to you as well any number of times, and you simply choose to ignore the answer. No point in stating it yet again.
 
Gordian Knot said:
Hat, According to Snopes.com, a site I trust to have the straight scoop, the frog staying in the boiling water is completely false. It is an old folk tale, no more. As the water gets hotter and hotter a frog will make more and more attempts to jump out, and if the rim is low enough the frog will do so.

When comparing humans and global warming, it seems frogs have a lot more sense than people!
Click to expand...

Oh I believe amongst the 1% there are many who have made plans to get out of the pot.
 
Gordian Knot said:
Shib I specifically pointed out the day to day reality of proven science that opens up all the amazing things we can do. My point, which seemed kinda obvious to me, is that there is an enormous amount of science we take for granted in our day to day lives.

You go back to your old and tired line about causality in the creation of the universe. This has been answered to you as well any number of times, and you simply choose to ignore the answer. No point in stating it yet again.
Click to expand...

Sorry GK, but I cannot agree with you. I have never got a logical answer to my logical question. Can you provide at least one of the posts from among the "number of times" you claim I have been given an answer. I don't think so.

There is indeed an enormous amount of Science but most of it based on theories aka guesses. Then you mention Causality as a "tiring line". What does it mean, that you don't believe in the concept of Causality? If not, who caused you into existence if not your parents? And they their parents and so forth till the Primal Cause. How could Causality be a tiring line if we all have been the result of it?
 
Shibolet said:
There is indeed an enormous amount of Science but most of it based on theories aka guesses.
Click to expand...

This is good to know, it's in fact one of the things I learned from radarmark here on the forum (miss you, guy).

The common definition of Theory is, as you say, guesses, but what is impotent to know, when entering the field of science, is that it has a different, sort of opposite, definition.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory said:
1
: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <the theory and practice of medicine>
2
: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain natural phenomena <a theory of organic evolution>—see atomic theory, cell theory, germ theory
3
: a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation
Click to expand...
 
Shibolet said:
...can Science explain if the universe caused itself to exist or was caused by something else?
Click to expand...

Causation is a slippery concept. It can fail, if extrapolated to ultimate settings, such as the putative beginning of time.

The modern western world generally uses a linear model of causation where nothing can cause itself anyway. But this concept only applies to material bodies, where causes happen only when one body comes in contact with another. Obviously, this won't work if applied to the universe as a whole.

An attempt to use causation to decide whether an uncaused thing exists leads to circular reasoning. One can always propose a first cause as an axiom. Science, which deals only with observable things, doesn't even try to explain the causal origin of the universe. The Big Bang theory goes back only to a certain time, the limit of where particle physics equations can be made to work. This moment, called the Planck Era, is close to, but still a little bit after, the beginning of time.

It's also just a theory. A very good one indeed, yet no one supposes it's the last word on the subject we will ever hear.
 
An attempt to use causation to decide whether an uncaused thing exists leads to circular reasoning.

Shib this is where you lose it; where your version of logic is faulty. This is why you cannot understand or believe your big questions have been answered. Your If/Then statement is flawed - I.E. If everything in the known universe has a causative effect, then there must be a Primal Causative Effect to have started it all.

The latter does not necessarily have to follow the former as you so insist.
 
A Cup Of Tea said:
This is good to know, it's in fact one of the things I learned from radarmark here on the forum (miss you, guy).

The common definition of Theory is, as you say, guesses, but what is impotent to know, when entering the field of science, is that it has a different, sort of opposite, definition.
Click to expand...

Well, guess is indeed a synonym for theory and, many times a guess turns out to be true. The difference from a theory is that when the guess is proved to be true, it is erased from the map so to speak. The theory for some reason remains a theory even after it is proved a fact as in the case of gravity which is an observable fact but the name remains. The theory of gravity.
 
Hatshepsut said:
Causation is a slippery concept. It can fail, if extrapolated to ultimate settings, such as the putative beginning of time.

The modern western world generally uses a linear model of causation where nothing can cause itself anyway. But this concept only applies to material bodies, where causes happen only when one body comes in contact with another. Obviously, this won't work if applied to the universe as a whole.

An attempt to use causation to decide whether an uncaused thing exists leads to circular reasoning. One can always propose a first cause as an axiom. Science, which deals only with observable things, doesn't even try to explain the causal origin of the universe. The Big Bang theory goes back only to a certain time, the limit of where particle physics equations can be made to work. This moment, called the Planck Era, is close to, but still a little bit after, the beginning of time.

It's also just a theory. A very good one indeed, yet no one supposes it's the last word on the subject we will ever hear.
Click to expand...

Whatever of the meanings you take for the "Putative beginning of time" I don't see a big deal with it because time began with matter in motion as time was needed to measure the motion of matter.

Now, I do not understand how the concept of Causality cannot be applied to the universe as a whole when all parts of it have been caused to exist.

If Science does not try to explain the causal origin of the universe, how can the scientists refer to the big bang as the origin of the universe? If you read the book "Cosmos", Carl Sagan claims loud and clear that the big bang caused the universe to begin.
 
Gordian Knot said:
An attempt to use causation to decide whether an uncaused thing exists leads to circular reasoning.

Shib this is where you lose it; where your version of logic is faulty. This is why you cannot understand or believe your big questions have been answered. Your If/Then statement is flawed - I.E. If everything in the known universe has a causative effect, then there must be a Primal Causative Effect to have started it all.

The latter does not necessarily have to follow the former as you so insist.
Click to expand...

Not so fast! Circular reasoning according to Hatshepsut. It does not mean it is a fact. The fact is that there is nothing caused without a cause. Would you want to share with me an example? If not directly caused by, it is related to the cause. Things don't come right out of the hat of the magician, so to speak aka "ex nihilo."
 
Shibolet said:
Well, guess is indeed a synonym for theory and, many times a guess turns out to be true. The difference from a theory is that when the guess is proved to be true, it is erased from the map so to speak. The theory for some reason remains a theory even after it is proved a fact as in the case of gravity which is an observable fact but the name remains. The theory of gravity.
Click to expand...

Everything in science is a theory, subject to rejection or revision if justified by new observations. That's how science works.
 
Shibolet said:
Well, guess is indeed a synonym for theory and, many times a guess turns out to be true. The difference from a theory is that when the guess is proved to be true, it is erased from the map so to speak. The theory for some reason remains a theory even after it is proved a fact as in the case of gravity which is an observable fact but the name remains. The theory of gravity.
Click to expand...

Look at the quote again, please. 'Guess' is ONE of the synonyms of 'Theory', but 'Theory' in a SCIENTIFIC discussion implies more.

And please, before you make statements of scientific principles, read later texts then Einstein and Carl Sagan, you're arguing with the past.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top