Explaining Reality

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: rez What the hell is this suppose to mean? How do you go about solving problems? Could you describe the steps?

Your thread is about reality. Are we talking about car broken down or founding of the universe reality?

In the case of the car well duh, you go through steps leading to either fixing it yourself or find a mechanic.

In formation of the universe is there an absolute knowledge as to how it was formed or just theory based on evidence?

Steps solve problems. How does using steps associate itself with certain issues of belief, which I think is your intended purpose.

[rez]

Quote by: HelioPrime Your thread is about reality. Are we talking about car broken down or founding of the universe reality?

My point is that they are the same things.


1) There is a universe.
2) We want to explain it.
3) There are many competing and conflicting explanations.
4) What criterion will we use to prefer one explanation over another?
5) When we have chosen an explanation should we stick with it?

In formation of the universe is there an absolute knowledge as to how it was formed or just theory based on evidence?

Yes, there is absolute knowledge.

[HelioPrime]

What is dark matter?

Was there a universe before the big bang?

Do intelligent life forms exist outside of earth?

Could evolution have been inspired or directed by a supernatural hand?

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: rez My point is that they are the same things. 1) There is a universe. 2) We want to explain it. 3) There are many competing and conflicting explanations. 4) What criterion will we use to prefer one explanation over another? 5) When we have chosen an explanation should we stick with it?

Different subjects.

A car we can see and touch and feel as it is presently. We can't go back and time to witness on if the first primitive cells evolved or popped into existence from an unknown power. All you say is we have no evidence for anything other than evolution and as far as evolution we just have a theory we can't currently prove.

[Magnus]

Quote by: HelioPrime What is dark matter?

We dont know, therefore god exists

Was there a universe before the big bang?

We dont know, therefore god exists

Do intelligent life forms exist outside of earth?

We dont know, therefore god exists

Could evolution have been inspired or directed by a supernatural hand?

Uh huh, supernaturally stupid for that hand to make me eat through the same face that I breathe with, causing many humans to die from choking.


Is this really the argument youre going with?

We dont know 100 % of everything, therefore we should bet on the cosmic jewish zombie?

[rez]

[quote=HelioPrime;494904]

A car we can see and touch and feel as it is presently.

bwwahaha. and a universe isnt?

We can't go back and time to witness on if the first primitive cells evolved

Being a dedective that has critically thinking skills. What do you consider to be most likely?

or popped into existence from an unknown power.

But considering the fact we don't use explanations like that for anything in our lives I would try to consider a higher probability....

All you say is we have no evidence for anything other than evolution and as far as evolution we just have a theory we can't currently prove.

We can't currently prove genes? Cell reproduction?

The fact that mother and father combine genes and thus create a whole new set of characteristics in the gene pool that never existed before?

Have you seriously not taken a basic Biology class? Have you ever learned cell reproduction theory?

This is the mechanisms of evolution. Without genes evolution would not work. You saying we can't prove evolution means we can't prove genes. What is your problem?

[rez]

Quote by: HelioPrime What is dark matter? Was there a universe before the big bang? Do intelligent life forms exist outside of earth? Could evolution have been inspired or directed by a supernatural hand?

These are all questions that require explanations. Please demonstrate that you actually can explain these questions with discoveries, information previously unknown. Anything useful really. Do you have anything useful to say?

[Winter wind]

Quote by: rez We can't currently prove genes? Cell reproduction? The fact that mother and father combine genes and thus create a whole new set of characteristics in the gene pool that never existed before? Have you seriously not taken a basic Biology class? Have you ever learned cell reproduction theory? This is the mechanisms of evolution. Without genes evolution would not work. You saying we can't prove evolution means we can't prove genes. What is your problem?

First off, your being remarkably more smug then I remember.

Second off, Helio Prime address a fair point. It is more then likely that genes exist. Having worked with genes, I'm pretty sure they do. However, since you are not an expert in genetics (or maybe you are), you can't say for certain that all facts pertaining to genetics are true. (could be the next "sun revolves around the earth")

The concept of uncertainty and having to take some facts on faith. That you can't prove or see everything for yourself, so you just have to assume somethings. This is fine, but you have to have the attitudes that you can be wrong, and in fact are likely to be wrong about something fundamental.

That reality isn't always obvious.

(by the way, the above was probably off topic. But I'm not sure because I'm really tired)

1) There is a universe. 2) We want to explain it. 3) There are many competing and conflicting explanations. 4) What criterion will we use to prefer one explanation over another? 5) When we have chosen an explanation should we stick with it?

1) There is a universe, because it's where everything is (that we know of). Since everything exists, there must be a universe. If everything doesn't exist, then I couldn't be typing on this computer.

2) I think "explore" is a better word the human drive. Explaining isn't enough. Exploring is tangible and is much cooler to humans then explaining.

3) Obviously

4) Rock, Paper, Scissors?
But really the one that makes the most logical sense in the face of data. When two arguments are possible considering the data, both can be considered. When we find out everything in the universe, then, logically, there should be only one possibility left. (unless there are more universes, in which case we continue the search)

5) Well, until new evidence comes up, why not?

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: rez These are all questions that require explanations. Please demonstrate that you actually can explain these questions with discoveries, information previously unknown. Anything useful really. Do you have anything useful to say?

Avoiding the question?

I thought everything can be a hypothesis and is testable. If we can't prove then it simply doesn't exist.

It's said there is dark matter in the universe. So is there, do we have absolute evidence it exists. Can it exist without absolute evidence, or does science allow us to get muddy when dealing with select subjects.

Since its your thread I thought you might show me how we can apply the scientific process to each question. I'm guessing you'd rather not?

[rez]

Quote by: HelioPrime Avoiding the question? I thought everything can be a hypothesis and is testable. If we can't prove then it simply doesn't exist.

Simply? um no. Maybe you have to revise the hypothesis. There has to be some static reasons as to why you think the way you do...

It's said there is dark matter in the universe.

Yes.

So is there, do we have absolute evidence it exists.

We don't have all the facts, but we have some facts that are useful.

Can it exist without absolute evidence

It can exist without absolute evidence. Like gravity and electromagneticism there are a few holes in the explanation. Far fewer then the holes in ideas like god did it.

or does science allow us to get muddy when dealing with select subjects.

No mud. Just a simple method to continue to discover the unknown.

Since its your thread I thought you might show me how we can apply the scientific process to each question. I'm guessing you'd rather not?

Why would I rather not? You are obviously taking a scientific claim and putting it on the same grounds as a supernatural claim. That is good. That is what this is about.

There are many competiting explanations, which one do we use? Why do we use it?

[Ajdub18]

How do you explain quantum discoveries, such as electrons existing as wave functions rather than particles, the ability to be in two or more places at the same time, the neccesity of an observer, or any of the major discoveries of science that are unexplainable relative to the world we know and see as reality?

As far as evolution goes, does it really make sense the way we have evolved based on past human experiences? Why do we have to build machines to make us fly, why haven't we developed wings? Why did we have to develop cars to make us go faster and clothes to make us warm?

Could it be that we are evolving to experience some "future" that has already happened. This makes just as much sense as picking out reasons we have evolved the way we have from looking at the past.

I'm just saying even in science there are many ways of answering questions of reality. So your questions 4 and 5 will continue to lack one definite answer as long as questions of reality exist.

[rez]

Quote by: Ajdub18 How do you explain quantum discoveries, such as electrons existing as wave functions rather than particles, the ability to be in two or more places at the same time, the neccesity of an observer, or any of the major discoveries of science that are unexplainable relative to the world we know and see as reality?

You answer them like you answer any other problem you encounter in your life. The difference is quantum physics is more complicated then figuring out why your computer will not turn on. And even the latter is complicated for some.

As far as evolution goes, does it really make sense the way we have evolved based on past human experiences? Why do we have to build machines to make us fly, why haven't we developed wings? Why did we have to develop cars to make us go faster and clothes to make us warm?

Because there is also a thing called "memetic evolution". Why does a monkey use a stick to hold itself up in the river? Why does a bear find a cave to hibernate. Why don't 21st century humans understand basic Biology?

Could it be that we are evolving to experience some "future" that has already happened.

Could it be you have no clue why you actually think things like that?

This makes just as much sense as picking out reasons we have evolved the way we have from looking at the past.

Problem. No it does not. Considering that all modern medicine and Biology is based off evolution and zero things are based off your crackpot imagination, I would have to think you are really really wrong.

I'm just saying even in science there are many ways of answering questions of reality. So your questions 4 and 5 will continue to lack one definite answer as long as questions of reality exist.

How does having no definite way of answering 4 and 5 put science on the same level as layman imagining different scenario's?

[Ajdub18]

What if I said it is not my "crackpot imagination" that came up with that theory, but rather scientists who have dedicated their life to trying to explain the mysteries of quantum physics with many different experiments and observations? They have said that we only experience things as they happen. That there has to be a begining point and an end point in order to experience something in the "present". This theory was not imagined but derived by repeating experiments and coming to conclusions from the results.

Just becuse you may not have heard of something doesn't mean it only exists in my imagination. But I guess I forgot that you have the know all, end all answer and there is really no use in arguing with you or presenting different situations that might conflict with your beliefs.

You are obviously intelligent, but as close-minded as the theists you argue against.

[Dr_Acula]

Reality? interact with it, and see if you can predict it. if you can, then you can create laws that gather all those predictions, and try to find a meaning to that law. If you cant predict, then you cant name laws, and you cant find any meaning.

choose the one that applies to most cases best. later, the explaination and meaning you may give to it is rather more personal and is not inmediatly connected to reality itself.

pd: (i think that) Dark matter is nothing by itself, its a patch that was added to a theory to make it work. Aparently there were unexplained gravitationl pulls, so the scientists decided to add an ad hoc premise that said that there was an invisible (dark) and extremely abundant matter that was the cause of that pull.
I think exprience shows us that ad hoc premises are almost always disproved, so I choose not to believe in dark matter and the theory that supports it.

[Jack]

Dark matter is nothing by itself, its a patch that was added to a theory to make it work.

Nearly right, as I understand it, but you make it sound as though there was a theory to be proven and evidence was being manufactured to support it. That's not true. Science works from evidence to hypothesis. In some cases, the hypothesis can't account for every aspect of the evidence. In those cases, an explanation is inferred which might explain the rest of the evidence. What's inferred is always viewed with skepticism until more evidence is accumulated to strengthen the inference. Dark matter is inferred by other observations. It may or may not be acceptable as a part of cosmology once more evidence is obtained and examined.

[Objectivist]

Quote by: rez 1) There is a universe. 2) We want to explain it. 3) There are many competing and conflicting explanations. 4) What criterion will we use to prefer one explanation over another? 5) When we have chosen an explanation should we stick with it?

1) I agree. Existence exists.

2) Not only do we want to explain the universe and understand it, we need to understand it in order to survive.

3), 4), 5) There are many competing and conflicting explanations for the existence of the universe, yet many of these fail for one basic reason. That reason is that existence is a self-sufficient primary. That means that (a) nothing is antecedent to existence, (b) there is nothing that stands apart from existence, and (c) there is no alternative to existence.

(a) If an entity existed before existence, then that entity becomes part of existence.
(b) Everything that exists is part of existence.
(c) Nonexistence does not exist. If it did, then there would be a contradiction in terms (an entity that does not exist cannot also exist at the same time). Nonexistence does not exist, rather, it is the absence of existence.

Existence just is. It requires no proof, no explanation, and one cannot refute it.

[Dr_Acula]

Quote by: Isherwood Nearly right, as I understand it, but you make it sound as though there was a theory to be proven and evidence was being manufactured to support it. That's not true. Science works from evidence to hypothesis. In some cases, the hypothesis can't account for every aspect of the evidence. In those cases, an explanation is inferred which might explain the rest of the evidence. What's inferred is always viewed with skepticism until more evidence is accumulated to strengthen the inference. Dark matter is inferred by other observations. It may or may not be acceptable as a part of cosmology once more evidence is obtained and examined.

That's allright, but I feel the same for dark matter as I would have felt for Ether. They needed to fill space with a substance that allowed light to travel, so they concluded that something invisible (and rather unlikely) was there. (later disproved)
It's just a personal opinion, but I distrust theories that need to add an element that has no precedent in order to be valid. It makes the whole thing look as if they were adapting reality to their theory, when it should be the other way around. Then again, I'm no comsophysicist.

[rez]

Quote by: Ajdub18 What if I said it is not my "crackpot imagination" that came up with that theory, but rather scientists who have dedicated their life to trying to explain the mysteries of quantum physics with many different experiments and observations? They have said that we only experience things as they happen. That there has to be a begining point and an end point in order to experience something in the "present". This theory was not imagined but derived by repeating experiments and coming to conclusions from the results. Just becuse you may not have heard of something doesn't mean it only exists in my imagination. But I guess I forgot that you have the know all, end all answer and there is really no use in arguing with you or presenting different situations that might conflict with your beliefs. You are obviously intelligent, but as close-minded as the theists you argue against.

I am trying to keep this simple as possible. We are talking about 5 simple steps.

[Ajdub18]

Quote by: rez I am trying to keep this simple as possible. We are talking about 5 simple steps.

Fair enough...

4.) We choose the most locigal explaination that fits with what we know to be true at the time.

5.) Yes, we change it everytime something we thought to be true turns out to be able to be better explained by a new theory or idea.

example: Sun around the Earth into Earth around the Sun

[Ajdub18]

I think what you are trying to get at (I could be wrong) is something like this:

4.) God is the creator and overseer of all things that are known and unknown

5.) Wait, now we have scientific explaination to explain things so we should accept this as the new truth...not some mythological creature.


I think the only problem that theists (which I am not one) have with this is that while God has not been proven to exsist, He has yet to be disproved. So they hold onto their beliefs for dear life based on that fact alone. Some may even say science only helps to explain how the things God created work. Then there is the select few who just ingnore scientific explaination all together for fear of questioning their God.