The Beginnings of Everything
In the Western world we operate in the context of two fundamental theories about how the universe and ourselves came to exist:
These theories are equally stupid, and functionally identical.
Each proposes that the universe originated from a single thing or entity that cannot be identified or experimented upon, and is therefore absolutely non-scientific. God is a "spirit." Not available for interrogation except via the words of self-appointed priests, imams, and assorted child-molesters. Nevermind that there cannot be such a thing as a "physical" singularity, because the concept of a singularity is entirely mathematical (any finite number divided by zero, the tangent of 90 degrees, etc.) and cannot be defined in physical terms-- if it existed, it has blown up and cannot be scientifically investigated.
These theories and all of their derivatives must be trashed and replaced.
Rupert Sheldrake, a first-rate thinker, proposed: "Give me a single hypothesis of my choice and I can explain the universe." He is correct, and that's what "scientists" and other religionists have done. Their trick was to hypothesize the pre-existence of a single thing or entity with infinite internal complexity.
I suspect that this shared mistake was the consequence of adherence to a fundamentally stupid philosophical principle known as "Occam's Razor." Perhaps we can discuss this next, with the expectation of adopting better ways of looking at ideas.
I'm not optimistic. -GL
- An almighty God, who had no origin, and no obvious need for a universe, suddenly created it.
- A physical singularity spontaneously came into existence, containing all the principles of physics and the potential for ordinary matter to manifest self-awareness, then, without cause, blew itself up. But instead of the pile of rubble produced by ordinary massive explosions, this one resulted in a nicely ordered universe complete with well-defined principles of physics, and places conducive to the development of self-aware biological life forms.
These theories are equally stupid, and functionally identical.
Each proposes that the universe originated from a single thing or entity that cannot be identified or experimented upon, and is therefore absolutely non-scientific. God is a "spirit." Not available for interrogation except via the words of self-appointed priests, imams, and assorted child-molesters. Nevermind that there cannot be such a thing as a "physical" singularity, because the concept of a singularity is entirely mathematical (any finite number divided by zero, the tangent of 90 degrees, etc.) and cannot be defined in physical terms-- if it existed, it has blown up and cannot be scientifically investigated.
These theories and all of their derivatives must be trashed and replaced.
Rupert Sheldrake, a first-rate thinker, proposed: "Give me a single hypothesis of my choice and I can explain the universe." He is correct, and that's what "scientists" and other religionists have done. Their trick was to hypothesize the pre-existence of a single thing or entity with infinite internal complexity.
I suspect that this shared mistake was the consequence of adherence to a fundamentally stupid philosophical principle known as "Occam's Razor." Perhaps we can discuss this next, with the expectation of adopting better ways of looking at ideas.
I'm not optimistic. -GL
Comments (48)
Great. Another philosopher who does not know that he does not know jack shit. Let's begin with you showing that you know anything about the origin and history of Occam's worthless principle. After you fail to do that, I'll correct you and put you on my nit list.
[/b]
From the nature and quality of their questions. I raised 3 offspring who were invited to question everything that engaged their curiosity.
If someone asks why the sky is blue, or wonders why the colors in a rainbow appear in a common order, I know that they have not studied basic physics.
You should learn to determine the ignorance level of any person with a single question. Saves time.
Unlike you and your programmed ilk, I am not a traditionalist. Address my ideas or shut up.
There is no point in extending this conversation, until you get a brain transplant. I've no interest in communicating with programmed brains. Good bye.
I hope that you are right.
2 minutes ago
Reply
Options[/quote]
Wow!
I do not agree with Tim on lots of things, but your response to him was unnecessarily insulting...and not the kind of reply that will encourage people to discuss your ideas with you. You ought really to tone that shit down.
In any case, on your specific comment: "I suspect that this shared mistake was the consequence of adherence to a fundamentally stupid philosophical principle known as 'Occam's Razor.'"...
...I have argued in other threads here that it is a toss-up for me whether Occam's Razor or Pascal's Wager is the most useless item ever put forward by any philosopher.
So we are generally in agreement on that.
As you put it there, it IS stupid. But that has more to do with the way you presented it than to the binary choice you were attempting.
More about that later, but let's take this thing one item at a time. First I'd like to hear your response to what I said in my first four paragraphs,
Am I supposed to expect something different, something closer to the truth, in Eastern or Southern or Northern philosophy? :chin:
Quoting Greylorn Ell
I agree that hypothesizing a god is unscientific for it, by positing a noncorporeal entity, is unfasifiable. However, the big bang theory is, I believe, the current best fit for observational data we have. It goes without saying that scientific hypotheses are all tentative and subject to review in the light of new evidence. This probably isn't your main concern here. I just put it there to impress upon you that scientific theories are not sacred cows, above criticism and so, attacking a theory in it is both expected and welcome provided you have good reasons to do so.
Quoting Greylorn Ell
I'm no scientist and so can't comment on whether Occam's razor was employed or not in the hypotheses you mentioned in your OP.
That said, I would like to offer a simple proof for why Occam's razor should be used in science and perhaps in other fields.
Imagine you have a hypothesis H1 and it consists of the following "entities":
1. Proposition q with a 2/3 chance of being true
2. Proposition q with a 3/4 chance of being true
Since H1 requires both propositions p and q to be true, the chance that both are true is (2/3)*(3/4) = 6/12 = 1/2 = 50% This theory is the simpler theory and has a 50% chance of being true.
Now imagine you make your hypothesis more complex by adding another "entity" which will be what Occam refers to as "multiplying entities". This means we now have a new hypothesis H2 with:
3. Proposition r with a 5/6 chance of being true.
What is the probability that all three assumptions for the new, more complex hypothesis H2, will be true?
(1/2)*(5/6) = 5/12 = 42%
We can see, from the above calculations, that the chances of a more complex hypothesis H2 being true (42%) is less than the chances of a simpler hypothesis H1 being true (50%).
Since probabilities of truth of propositions in scientific hypotheses are always less than 1, adding an "entity", which involves multiplying probabilities, will reduce the overall probability of the hypothesis being true.
I'm no good at math so there might be serious flaws in my "proof".
Frank,
Yes, I was a little hard on Tim. Late in a bad day and too well lubricated. No regrets, nonetheless. I do not want to waste time in conversations with ignorant and opinionated people. In the absence of a forum that allowed an OP to exclude individuals from his thread, the best I can do is discourage them from posting. Tim is a sandbagger. Others are showing up here all too quickly, like cockroaches coming out of the woodwork at night.
Good that you disapprove of Occam's razor. Are you aware that it originated with Aristotle, in a different and better form, and was subsequently tweaked by brilliant nitwits like Ptolemy before William of Okham screwed it up for good? What do you think of Russell's criterion?
Pascal's Wager is far more useless, IMO, than the razor, simply because it is not used. Except that I put it to use decades ago to ace my only philosophy class by pointing out the Wager's
significant unconsidered alternative to an instructor who thought it to be a good argument.
IMO Occam's razor is a dangerous principle, because people actually think of it as a useful criterion.
Exactly which 4 paragraphs should I be responding to?
Telling you what to expect is beyond my pay grade.
You wrote:
"I agree that hypothesizing a god is unscientific for it, by positing a noncorporeal entity, is unfasifiable. However, the big bang theory is, I believe, the current best fit for observational data we have. It goes without saying that scientific hypotheses are all tentative and subject to review in the light of new evidence. This probably isn't your main concern here. I just put it there to impress upon you that scientific theories are not sacred cows, above criticism and so, attacking a theory in it is both expected and welcome provided you have good reasons to do so."
I worked in astronomy for 20 years, back when the stupid big bang theory was being generated, and studied both Gamow and Hoyle's arguments before analyzing them with astronomers, often over a few beers. You are probably unaware of the flaws in big bang theory at the physics level, and the dreadful kludges introduced to kind of make it work. Study "inflation theory."
Like most people ignorant of physics, you base your opinions on agreement. Credentialed scientists have agreed the BB theory is actually useful, so you do too? Then what are you doing in a philosophy forum?
How about thinking for yourself and explaining why a so-called physical singularity containing all the matter and energy in the universe, plus the laws and principles needed to make a universe work, is functionally different from the God notion? Else, there is no value in further conversations between us.
--GL
Please go away and find a thread or forum that cherishes ignorant crackpots.
Nothing comes up. Please don't waste my time with bad links. Thank you. Good luck with your writing project.
I just wanted your extended opinions on Occam's Razor and Pascal's Wager.
You provided them...and we seem to be simpatico about them. Amazing to me that they rear their ugly heads as often as they do on the Internet.
_________
This is a repeat:
My initial response was: As you put it there, it IS stupid. But that has more to do with the way you presented it than to the binary choice you were attempting.
The binary choice, as I see it is:
1) A GOD created everything we humans call "the universe" and everything in it. The GOD has no creator, but is an eternal being. (The fact that we human cannot discern a need for (or desire for) a universe is immaterial. We are merely the dominant life form on a rock circling a nondescript star in a nondescript galaxy...in a sea of other galaxies.
...OR...
2) There is no GOD...and everything that we humans call "the universe" came into existence via an event which may or may not be The Big Bang.
We have to recognize that what we humans call "the universe" may be just a part of EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS...and, in fact, may be just a tiny part of EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS. (We can handle the infinite regression later.)
If we can start from there...I'd like to hear the next step of your thesis.
If you deem that we cannot start from there...I'd like to hear why you suppose that.
This is interesting.
I did my best to present the options in a pejorative style, so as to accentuate their faults. That does not make them inaccurate.
[quote}The binary choice, as I see it is:
1) A GOD created everything we humans call "the universe" and everything in it. The GOD has no creator, but is an eternal being. (The fact that we human cannot discern a need for (or desire for) a universe is immaterial. We are merely the dominant life form on a rock circling a nondescript star in a nondescript galaxy...in a sea of other galaxies.
...OR...
2) There is no GOD...and everything that we humans call "the universe" came into existence via an event which may or may not be The Big Bang.
We have to recognize that what we humans call "the universe" may be just a part of EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS...and, in fact, may be just a tiny part of EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS. (We can handle the infinite regression later.)
If we can start from there...I'd like to hear the next step of your thesis.
If you deem that we cannot start from there...I'd like to hear why you suppose that.
This is interesting.[/quote]
I propose that both choices are mistaken, on the grounds that they are different wordings of the same functionally identical concept-- the absurd notion that a universe which operates by the physical interaction of two different things, each manifesting, an opposing force to the other, could have arisen from nothing, without any force involved whatsoever.
This weekend I'll return to work. Before I do so, I'd like to hear your comments about Russell's criterion for evaluating ideas:
From a synopsis of an essay---- "Mathematician/philosopher Bertrand Russell proposed: “Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities.” Or in the context of the essay—
Let's figure out how the universe began by using the real information— the physics— that we actually know about it, instead of an unverifiable hypothesis derived from the religious beliefs of ancient goat herders."
:ok: I wish it weren't. Anyway...
Quoting TheMadFool
Must've been awesome working with stars.Quoting TheMadFool
Firstly, though I would like to think for myself and learn everything myself, I may lack the skills and resources to do that. Given that, it's perfectly reasonable to rely on people deemed experts in their respective disciplines.
As for relying on agreement, the views of experts gain further currency especially when they agree with each other. For me, it, to say the least, points to how reasonable a particular theory/hypothesis is.
Since we cannot even determine what "the real universe" is...that would be an impossible job. And for certain, at this time we cannot determine what "the real universe" is.
So there is no way to use Russell's SUGGESTION on this problem.
Drat! Then I'm at an impasse. After a half-century of trying to express unconventional ideas I've learned that without some standards, some basis for the evaluation of those ideas, there is no point in even expressing them
Perhaps we can resolve this, given that you are wise enough to have seen the flaws in Occam's dullish razor. Would a history of that principle, beginning with Aristotle's original version and its subsequent revisions be of value?
I'd also invite you to re-evaluate my proposal. I did not propose that we must understand the core realities about the properties of any "real universe," nor did I use that term. Russell proposes only that when trying to understand any aspect of our universe, we utilize whatever physics we already know about it, rather than attempt to understand it on the basis of invented religious/philosophical beliefs.
I find this an excellent principle. All it says is that we know a fair amount about physics. Even if there is more to learn, why not apply the knowledge we have to the problem at hand?
The Big Bang is not about something coming into existence. So, it is just an original state from which we explain the history of our universe.
It was interesting. My first look through a serious telescope (36" mirror diameter) opened to a view of something called a "globular cluster," kind of a mini-galaxy tucked into our own Milky Way. Sent chills up my spine.
There were other chills. Observatories are equipped with large fans that blow outside air into the dome, because if the dome was warmer than the outside, air from within passing upward in front of the telescope would shimmer, distorting the image.
The observatory was located in one of our northernmost states. We were lucky to get 50 decent observing nights per year, and half of those were in midwinter. One night, an astronomer got his eyeball too close to the sighting eyepiece. It stuck. The instrument's equatorial drive was on and could not be turned off from his location, meaning that the eyepiece to which he was attached would continue to move at our planet's rotation rate. Luckily he had a controller in hand and was able to compensate for the automatic drive until someone showed up in the morning and poured some warm water over the eyepiece.
Incorrect. It is a change of state.
Change from what?
:rofl: I should stop listening to Neil deGrasse Tyson - he glamorizes astronomy to no end. I bet he never had his eye frozen to a telescope. By the way I thought all modern telescopes, especially those used by astronomers, were computerized - no longer requiring the eye to be in physical contact with an eyepiece. I dunno. :chin:
Forgive me, please, but I do not have the energy or time needed to educate philosophers in basic principles of physics. The internet, plus time and study, can be helpful in getting you to a point where this conversation might be interesting.
You will be ignored by most people here. You are a know nothing jerk.
You are correct about modern telescopes, which I played an early role in putting under computer control, beginning with the first astronomical space telescope, precursor to the Hubble instrument. The eyepiece got stuck in the sixties, when I did my hands-on observing.
There are other reasons for not listening to Tyson. Personally I put him into the "Brilliant Dipshit" category. You might find a pop-science magazine to be a worthy choice, offering a wider perspective.
Please, please ignore me. Thank you.
So, Occam's Razor is, let's say, problematic as a philosophical principle. But the scientific method is concerned with creating working models of reality, and in that context choosing the model that has the best predictive power with the least complexity seems entirely reasonable.
Of course the devil is in the details when trying to decide which model actually fulfills these criteria.
You make some good sense; nonetheless I'm proposing a different approach that might appear nonsensical by your standards. It is, simply, that we first determine a good principle for evaluating the worth of a scientific concept. Then we can evaluate new concepts according to that standard.
You might consider this idea in the context of Rupert Sheldrake's thoughts about this, particularly his claim, "Give me a miracle of my choice and I can explain the universe."
If the Miracle of Choice is sufficiently complex (e.g. the "Singularity" or almighty God) it can indeed be used to explain anything. Why not consider simpler Miracles?
Whatever, I believe that you and the two other thoughtful individuals on this forum will appreciate Sheldrake, who is a genuine thinker, one who has also mastered the art of intelligent presentation.
Following up your book references (I'm not energetic enough to read a book, these days.) I looked up my own and found that my last book is selling for the ridiculous price of $890 plus shipping. (I can send you a pristine but cheaper copy for $25, free shipping within the US.)
i also checked out the status of my first book, published under my real name, which seems to have a unique audience. Hardcover copies are selling for $992. Brit paperback versions, $73. Wish there was a way for me to see any of that. Here's a brief review, from Amazon.
LOVE this book!!!!! I would definitely recommend to anyone, I'm not much of a sci-fi reader I guess you can say, but this book is just SO powerful! It really gets your mind thinking about life and human morals and ethic. I have re-read many times, it's so good!
I've done some good work in the past but not profited therefrom.
I'm an arrogant old fart who thinks that philosophy, except for Descartes and a few thoughts from Aristotle and the principles espoused by Mortimer Adler and Thomas Kuhn, is entirely bullshit. My background is physics (a deteriorating science), and I cannot imagine a useful philosophical theory coming from someone ignorant of physics, as are most people on this forum.
You might consider Kuhn's thoughts on the contributions of disagreeable people. Or not. I'm too tired and old to care.
Quoting Greylorn Ell
Kudos. I'm sure those around here are more than capable of providing you with plenty of opportunity to be satisfactorily cantankerous.
Quoting Greylorn Ell
Ah. So. Explained.
I don't know why a discussion of Ultimate Origins, for which no one is an expert, has become so contentious. Anything you say will be a personal opinion, not a scientific fact. Anyway, here's a simple diagram of the Occam's Razor principle. It's not an irrefutable principle of Logic, just a heuristic shortcut. :cool:
Good illustration. Basic intro to rhetoric: Keep it simple.
Unless you have a better idea, I'd be careful about labeling serious conjectures about Ultimate Origins as "stupid". Any speculations on the First Cause or Prime Mover are necessarily Philosophical and not Scientific. Any notions about what came "before" the Big Bang are inherently Metaphysical, not Physical.
I agree that both the Theistic Creation and self-existent Multiverse theories are extrapolations from the known into the unknown, and are functionally equivalent. Both Ultimate Causes resulted in the "imperfect" world we know & love, or love to hate. But there is a philosophical distinction between them. Theism posits an explanation for the non-physical aspects of reality, such as Mind, Consciousness, Mathematics & Universals : an intelligent agent. But Multiverse Materialism leaves those significant features of reality as Black Box Brute Facts, to be accepted without question.
That's why I have worked-out a hypothetical Origins theory that combines the best of both worldviews. It's a philosophical thesis, based on physical evidence, but not empirically provable. It's not appropriate as a basis for either Science or Religion, only for a personal possible philosophical understanding of how & why the world is what it is. It works for me. :cool:
The idea of a mulitiverse is to explain how the universe is. It implies no conception of causation of the universe.
Theists, which comprise the vast majority of humans, reason from their experience of how the world works on a local scale to how it might work on a universal scale. Since the ancients had no knowledge of abstract Energy, they attributed all causation to intelligent Agents. Energy is invisible, and is only known via its effects on Matter. Likewise "gods" are invisible, and only known via inference from Effects to Causes. So their myths of gods were the primitive "science" of their day.
If you lived back then, you would have had no better explanation for Natural Causation. From your lofty perspective on the pinnacle of 21st century Science though, you can explain invisible causes in terms of the technical sounding word, "Energy". Which can be defined only mathematically, by what it does, not what it is. That "knowledge" may allow sophisticated moderns to feel superior to the ignorant theists --- ancient & modern --- but your Energy is a ghost too. That creative evolutionary energy (agency) may seem unintelligent to you, but it has constructed your amazing world from a pinpoint of potential. :cool:
Energy : what is energy made of ? Nothing but potential, abstract power, agency.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14444/what-is-energy-made-of
Energy is Immaterial : energy is agency
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/nothing-solid-everything-energy-scientists-explain-world-djurisic
Agency : 2, action or intervention, especially such as to produce a particular effect.
So then basically the universe would start with what is exhaustively described with the symbol 0. Then "somehow" we should derive the rest of mathematics, all the numbers, all the operators, and all the rest of mathematics in it's many strange forms, from the symbol zero.
For instance starting with 0, then we rewrite the 0 as a 1. (rewriting is same like in a computer you can rewrite from ram to a harddisk, or usbstick. or DVD. It's the same information, but then in a different form). So now we have the symbols 0, and 1, and we also have the boolean operator between the 0 and 1. (because 1 is a copy from 0, it's interchangeable).
etc. etc. "somehow" deriving all mathematics from the symbol 0, step by step
So then we would get an ordering of mathematical structures, ordered in respect to how many steps the mathematical structure is away from the symbol zero.
Supposedly then, the universe would originate, same like how the ordering of mathematics develops.
In the beginning there would be few options available to choose from how the universe ends up, later on in the universe there would be many options available to choose from.
And God the holy spirit can be said to be the agency of those choices, that's categorically a matter of chosen personal opinion.
It's true that the Multiverse, like God, is assumed to be self-caused or self-existent. But most Mverse theories describe the Big Bang (emergence of known from unknown) as caused by some mysterious magical creative property of the Mverse. Regarding the topic of this thread, for Mverse believers, "Everything" may not have a beginning, but the only "thing" we actually know anything about certainly had a big bang beginning. Hence, we infer that it must have a cause : either A> Creative Intelligence or B> Creative Randomness (oxymoron).
According to atheist writer Howard Bloom, in The God Problem, the universe is inherently "creative" (positive causation), but he finds no good external explanation for that inventive power, and concludes that the universe itself is god-like. But, un-directed Energy is more likely to be destructive than constructive. Yes?
Ironically, CommonSenseAtheist quoted below, describes the Mverse in terms similar to Plato's First Cause, which also emerged somehow from primordial Chaos. But the actual construction from randomness to organization was attributed to an intelligent Demiurge (demigod).
Hence, a contingent (not self existent) Miniverse, with a scientifically-confirmed beginning, necessarily requires some "concept of causation". Don't you agree? :nerd:
Multiverse Generates Universe : All theories of the multiverse assume quantum physics to provide the element of spontaneity, to make the bangs happen. They assume pre-existing space and time. They assume the normal notion of causality, a whole host of pre-existing conditions." Davies said there are about "10 different basic assumptions" of physical laws that are required "to get the multiverse theory to work."
https://www.space.com/31465-is-our-universe-just-one-of-many-in-a-multiverse.html
First Cause : In contrast, the multiverse theories begin with pure chaos, out of which order must inevitably arise.
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=835