No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning
It appear that science is never settled. I have to wonder though - perhaps its my human limitation - how something could always be without ever beginning? Interesting position, it kind of makes you wonder about God.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
"Facts" are a bit more problematic - shouldn't be, but invariably are. This is because they are based on observation of some sort. And observations can be corrupted either intentionally or unintentionally. Thus the same "fact" observed by different people can be different. Take the picture of the smiley face captured by the Hubble telescope. To most that will be viewed as an interesting anomaly. To others the same picture will be viewed as a vision of the almighty. ;-)
Understood. When contradictory evidence presents itself, either the "evidence" or "proof" must be reconciled or the original premise must be called into question. True/real axioms are not theory; they are self evident and thus should not be in dispute. It is what some consider an axiom that is sometimes dubious.
No one knows everything, but it is possible to "know" some things. Facts do exist. The notion that one cannot prove anything leaves us in a world of whims, where no one is right and no one is wrong.
Regards,
O.A.
Since I work with statistics, it is common practice (well, actually it is a necessity) to identify a threshold of proof. If you meet it, you accept the hypothesis, if not, you reject it. Doesn't mean that it is or isn't true, merely that the given evidence is judged to demonstrate truth or not.
Very good. I would like to address the question of our ability to prove anything.
I have read almost everything she has written and/or contributed to. I have also delved into the thoughts of many other philosophers and investigated the question of idealism vs. realism (materialism). The "mindists" (idealists) believe that nothing exists outside the perception of the observer; there is only the mind no outside objective reality independent of perception. They are the idealists (some of these terms/labels are used in various ways; I refer to the most common usage in most philosophical discussions). The "realists" (those that believe in realism and materialism believe that the world is material objects which have essence, properties, characteristics independent of our perception. This is all relative to the question of existence and the poof of existence. The question "can we prove anything" is integral to our acceptance of existence, but the question also contains within it the answer. In order to pose such a question one must concede the fact or "proof" that a mind was required to pose the question in the first place.... that you exist as the questioner. It is a bit like Descartes- Cogito, ergo sum (I think therefore I am), of course Descartes ran into some other difficulties, but the basic premise has validity. If you can prove existence then you can prove something and thus it is possible to adduce that one can prove other things. In fact one can logically prove anything, if it be true, given enough information, empirical evidence and repeatable observations and finding no contradictions. Contradictions do not exist. If one finds a contradiction then you must question the premise or the apparent contradiction. http://aynrandlexicon.com/searchresults/...
All things except those that rely upon faith should be able to be proven. Rand, did not, as she stated have "faith"; she had "convictions." She held that man had only his senses to ascertain attributes of existence... of reality and the material world. From this she supported the premises, existence exists and A is A. Objects have definite properties independent of one's perception. One may be right or wrong in their perceptions but the object is what it is and is not subject to the whims or perceptions of the observer (be they right or wrong.) Rand holds that in any argument of reality and existence the proof resides in the fact that to make any argument one must use the concepts of existence. identity and consciousness as axioms... "Being implicit from the beginning, existence, consciousness and identity are outside the province of proof. Proof is the derivation of a conclusion from antecedent knowledge, and nothing is antecedent to axioms. Axioms are the starting point of cognition, on which all proofs depend. ... Axioms are perceptual self evidencies." OTPOAR pg.8 Also, many arguments can be resolved when observing as Rand did the fallacy of use of the "stolen concept." http://aynrandlexicon.com/searchresults/...
We have all heard the question, "If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it does it still make a sound? Of course it does. If one observes that "every" time a tree falls down it makes a sound then there is no logical reason to doubt it makes a sound even if a human observer is not there to hear it. To conclude otherwise is to suggest contrary to all evidence that the universe did not exist before man, since he was not here to observe it.
I once read a passage in one of my philosophy books of a story of two philosophers walking along a path and discussing the problem of existence in the real sense. One was a mindist the other a realist. When the mindist was not looking the realist took a stick (perhaps it was his cane) and hit the mindist in the back of the head without revealing the action. The mindist protested and the realist said, ah but you did not observe the stick hitting you... do you still doubt its existence? :)
Now, you also pose the question of proof regarding the problem relating to nature of things in the macroscopic versus subatomic world: Here is a problem which we are yet to fully understand, explain, and prove the whys regarding the apparent differences of action (i.e. Newton's laws on the macro versus the apparent contradictions in the subatomic). I suspect we will one day find the physical laws that explain the whys or come to an altogether different understanding when our instrumentality advances; just as Einstein's general theory of relativity needed time and confirmation. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200... Still, Newton's laws are fact/provable in any macro way and thus apply in that context.
Something of interest regarding realism and questions posed relative to its limits as a view of existence... http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realis...
If these things are known to you, then perhaps they may at least be helpful to others
Thank you for the opportunity to dust off some old books and also some cobwebs developing in my mind.
Respectfully,
O.A.
Button: Push. Smile, push again.
Jan (amused too)
Jan
I am a casual fan of abiogenesis...it is amazing what chemicals can do by themselves under the correct circumstances.
Jan
I should be in town. Where do you usually stay?
I don't think that any rational historian doubts that a man by the name of Jesus of Nazareth actually existed. There are stories of his works that were beyond that of our concept of the universe (commonly called miracles). Let alone the concept of rising from the dead. Even one of those who travelled with him doubted this, as it was too fantastic even for him.
You will respond that there is no "proof" of these things, and you are correct. There were witnesses. Those witnesses told the stories which eventually were written down. I cannot prove that God exists to you, no more than you can "prove" to me that you love someone. Or what love even means to you.
I submitted a post that was mostly in jest about the Hubble pic that seems to show a smiley face in the sky. I jokingly asked if that was God smiling down on us. Probably not, but it could be God playing a cosmic joke on us. Who knows. You cannot prove that it is not, and I cannot prove that it is. That is up to you.
As for you, Maritimus, and LS being frustrated and not appreciating that I will not succumb to your arguments, well neither will you accept mine. My arguments are wholly consistent, from my perspective, and do not require circular reasoning at all. It does require a humility to accept that one cannot know or understand everything. Once you accept that premise, the rest is easy. I'll continue to present my position as long as you'd like, so long as the discourse remains civil. Several of the atheists here lack civility. I have never insisted that anyone else adopt my perspective, merely accept that there are those of us that have it (and there are many more on this site than some of you seem to know), and that there really is no inconsistency with the tenets that were cited above about Objectivism. I'll only speak of the Roman Catholic faith, as that is the only one which I am schooled - reason is paramount and required of humans. God gave us free-will which inherently requires us to reason. There could be nothing more fundamental to the tenets of Christianity.
OK, your turn.
If it is truth, it will hold. If it is incomplete, we can amend it based on a more perfect understanding. If it is false, it should be exposed as such. I do not withhold religion from such analysis.
Religion is not a rational argument.
Your use of the word “religion” is not the same as the belief in God. You are not using reason when lumping the discussion of God with the term “Religion.”
Objectivism by definition could be also called a religion, making your sentence totally contradictory.
The specific definition of Religion is:
Oxford Dictionary
Definition of religion in English:
noun
1 - The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods:
‘ideas about the relationship between science and religion’
1.1 - A particular system of faith and worship:
‘the world’s great religions’
1.2 - A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance:
‘consumerism is the new religion’
One could easily add based on the Oxford Dictionary 1.2 the following:
1.3 - A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance:
'Objectivism' is the new religion, and Ayn Rand the Deity’
Next you say this is contrary to the purpose of this forum. Really? Have you read what the purpose is? Primarily point 1. Promote Atlas Shrugged. VERY few topics on any of these threads promote the movie. So on that point you’re not correct. Next, point 2 does not say in any way shape or form that topics, discussions, reasoning’s, about religion, God, Atheism, are prohibited, but instead, Assist in the progress of Ayn Rand’s ideas. Is this done by attempting to alienate Christians, or Budhists, and trying to isolate Ayn Rand’s ideas to ONLY Atheists? I would think that by including ALL people you would be promoting the ideas. Trying to isolate them to only a few, is moving in the direction of a cult which Objectivism is NOT.
And one final point the first and last sentence in the “About" is very disconcerting, since the word “Collective” is the antithesis of Individualism, and Objectivism, and probably needs changed.
Welcome to Galt's Gulch
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/about
The Official Atlas Shrugged Movie "Collective"
The Producers of the movies hang out in here pretty regularly so don't hesitate to engage and ask real questions or bring some real commentary.
We're very much looking forward to giving you as much behind-the-scenes access as possible and hearing from you along the way. We'll be reading everything so, be good.
OUR PURPOSE:
1.We have movies to promote - Atlas Shrugged: Who is John Galt? is coming soon to Blu-ray and DVD. We need to get the word out and we want to employ your help.
2.We have ideas to spread - We're passionate about Ayn Rand's ideas and we hope to assist in their progress by engaging in some inspired conversation.
3.We have connections to facilitate - Have you ever wished you lived in the Gulch and could conduct value-for-value exchanges exclusively with like minded individuals? Us too. Let's.
RULES OF ENGAGEMENT:
1.Be civil.
2.Debate is welcome but, not without having read number 1.
MEMBERSHIP:
Before you get started, you'll need to create an account. There are two levels of membership: Producer and Guest.
•The Galt's Gulch Producer Membership includes access to special "Producers Only" events, including private Q&A sessions with the Atlas Shrugged Production crew, regular discounts on official movie merchandise, the ability to shut off ads, special Producers only invites for new features and content plus, you get a shiny Producer badge to proudly wear in the Gulch. Read more...
•While the Guest Membership includes basic site functionality, it does not inlcude any "Producers Only" perks and of course, you get no shiny badge.
If you're asking yourself why we require payment to access certain areas of the site, read Atlas Shrugged.
Welcome to the new "Collective."
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/22...
The answer is in reality, is that there is more in common between Objectivism, and Christianity than you might think.
If you actually study both, they are very much compatible. It is only where the personal belief of the individual comes into play that they diverge, but the pillars of Objectivism are also principals in the Bible.
Objectivism:
• Follow reason, not whims or faith.
• Work hard to achieve a life of purpose and productiveness.
• Earn genuine self-esteem.
• Pursue your own happiness as your highest moral aim.
• Prosper by treating others as individuals, trading value for value.
The disparagement of philosophy by many physicists is mostly a consequence of bad philosophy taken as all there is to it, not just a love for their specialty in physics. Read Richard Feynman on this and you understand exactly why he said what he did about it.
But it isn't true that all philosophy is disparaged by physicists: They tend to embrace positivism and its variants such as "operationism", which is a very bad form of pragmatism (which denies it is a philosophy, opposing principle on principle). Some of the early positivists like Bridgeman were both physicists and adherents to the Vienna Circle. Einstein's early work such as special relativity was badly marred in its presentation due to the influence of Mach, and that remains pervasive to this day. But even that was in part a proper reaction against mystical German metaphysics pervading philosophy at the time, which understandable when you read what they said about it.
One of the worst examples we have seen of a new corruption on a very fundamental level was Bush's horrifying attempt to stifle stem cell research on religious grounds. The government takes the money in taxes, then decides what research is worthy of getting some of it back, then imposed religious criteria in an escalation of irrationality.
Load more comments...