They are the biggest questions that science can possibly ask: where did everything in our universe come from? How did it all begin? For nearly a hundred years, we thought we had the answer: a big bang some 14 billion years ago.
But now some scientists believe that was not really the beginning. Our universe may have had a life before this violent moment of creation.
Horizon takes the ultimate trip into the unknown, to explore a dizzying world of cosmic bounces, rips and multiple universes, and finds out what happened before the big bang.
Yep. When the Big Bang theory was first formulated in the 1930s and 40s, the clergy jumped on it, because a beginning implied a creator, at least in their minds. However, it should be noted that the singularity is just a mathematical entity -- the point at which our equations describing the cosmos, and therefore our model of the cosmos, breaks down. We simply can't infer anything before Planck time, about 10^-43 seconds after the point at which everything -- it seems -- would reduce to a single point. However, that doesn't mean that's what actually happened back then, and it may not have been "the beginning" as we assume. All we can say about it right now is that we don't know.
I've always loved that argument "everything has to come from somewhere, even the big bang. So, there must have been a creator who come out of nowhere to create it"
It makes me wonder if Christians are starting to just tune out when they speak like the rest of us.
Of course we don't know what caused the Big Bang. We never said we did. We can safely say, however that we understand what happend AFTER that to within about Planck time. And can describe and model THAT very well all without any need to resort to conscious authorship or divine guidance or any other theistic notions.
We can actually deal with the fact that the Universe is constantly throwing curveballs at us and can incorporate it into our understanding without having to pretzelize ourselves by making it fit within an ancient book written by bedouin farmers and shepherds with no understanding of the mechanics of the world they lived in.
Matter doesn't give rise to consciousness? Talk about ignoring the evidence. Drugs (physico-chemical things) can alter consciousness. Brain damage can alter consciousness, change cognitive function and even personality. It is obvious to anyone who isn't deluded by Bronze Age myths that consciousness is not magic; it is a product of the physical brain, and thus, matter gives rise to consciousness all the time.
I think the mind and the physical brain are connected and they influece each other but science hasn't explained their origin just as it hasn't explained the origin of life itself or the origin of the universe.
Cole, Penrose is a controversial figure with whom most scientists disagree. He doesn't represent the view of consensus science -- the view of the majority of neuroscientists, psychologists, and psychiatrists who are experts on the subject. But even then, he posits that quantum mechanics is involved, which is still part of the natural, physical universe. He doesn't posit anything metaphysical.
There's a difference between explaining why we are self aware and how that state comes about and being able to show that consciousness has a physical basis. The latter is reasonably well established by looking at how people change under the influence of various drugs or after strokes or head trauma. We can even draw the physical conclusion even if consciousness itself isn't well understood.
However, explaining, from a physical standpoint why we developed consciousness is a much more difficult question, and certainly hasn't been answered well at all. It's pretty clear based on Penrose' writings, that he's proposing some new physics to help explain what consciousness is and where it comes from, but he is not questioning the physicality of consciousness at all.
Penrose' writings most definitely are controversial. You don't propose new physics lightly, and you certainly don't propose new physics to explain something which is very poorly understood in the first place, like consciousness is.
Generally speaking, new physics gets proposed when well understood data is found that doesn't fit the current models. We most certainly do not have a good enough model of what consciousness is to be able to say that consciousness can not arise within our current understanding of physics. It may be the case that consciousness is not reducible, but that doesn't necessarily imply that new physics is required to understand it, or that it would even help.
It's reasonably well established not just by deviations like drugs and trauma, but by studying changes in the brain during routine states of consciousness. Using fMRI and EEG, we can see the patterns of activity change between wake, sleep and coma, and these changes are reliably reproduced between subjects. We can see changes in activity as subjects are asked to think about certain things or perform certain tasks, and these changes are reliably reproduced between subjects. We've never seen a consciousness without a brain. When all the evidence is taken into consideration, the brain appears to be both necessary and *sufficient* to explain consciousness.
The illusion that it is something more or special probably comes from an evolved intuition called agency bias. You can read the works of Pascal Boyer to learn more.
Or as a friend once poignantly said, "The system always seems special from inside the system."
Before Planck (Max Planck) time all matter, space, time and energy were presumed to have exploded outward from the singularity point; but in reality not much is known of this period, and even today we still don't have real coherent models of what actually happened under those conditions. Obviously this is a gap science has not [yet] been able to close. As an atheist I feel very comfortable with science's admission: "At this point we don't know." The admission makes more sense to me than presumptuously attempting to fill the gap with a theological conundrum and ancient superstitious jumble. For what science doesn't yet know, is not only unknown to religion but utterly [inconceivable] to religion even as a question. Religion, on the nature and history of the cosmos, is not even wrong! But the constant sneering of religion at the slow progress of modern physics is hard to dismiss--as if ancient myths and superstions were the most sound and preferible plausible alternative.
What's even better is that imaging studies show that when people are asked the following three questions:
1. What do you think about X? 2. What do you think other people think about X? 3. What do you think God thinks about X?
Different areas of the brain light up between question 1 and 2. But the SAME area of the brain lights up between questions 1 and 3. In other words, if I'm religious, God ALWAYS thinks exactly what I'm thinking . . . hmmmmm . . . He's in complete agreement with me . . . I wonder how that works . . .
This wouldn't be a problem for christians, except that even when they believe wildly different things, God agrees with all of them!
"When all the evidence is taken into consideration, the brain appears to be both necessary and *sufficient* to explain consciousness."
I disagree. We can say, with Brentano, that intentionality is the mark of the mental. The one thing I know about many of my mental states better than anything else is that they are intentional states, i.e. that they are *about* something. This peculiar property of 'aboutness' that is an essential part of any account of consciousness cannot be reduced to a brain state. It is a category error to ascribe intentionality to a physical state, and brain states are physical states; but we know that many mental states are intentional; hence, mental states cannot be reduced to brain states. (I'm aware of the many physicalist attempts to explain intentionality -- or, rather, in most to explain it away -- but I have yet to see one that is remotely plausible. Do you know of any?)
Note, this is not to deny the dependence of mental states on brain states. No dualist, of any of the many kinds of dualists there are, has ever denied the relationship that obtains between brain states and mental states. They just deny that the one is reducible to the other (for reasons like the one I mentioned above). We can think of it this way: My communication with you on this forum depends on the physical functioning of our computers, but the content of our conversation isn't reducible to the physical state and functioning of our computers. No one denies the dependence of the one on the other; mess with my computer in any number of ways, and my ability to post here is affected in any number of ways. But it clearly doesn't follow from this dependence relation that the physical state of our computers provide the necessary and sufficient conditions of our discussion. I know that that's not a perfect analogy (no analogy is perfect), but it does a decent job of getting at the essence of the point I'm trying to make here, I think.
The Big Bang was never about how our universe began. It was about the expansion of our universe. We haven't been able to figure out what happened "before" planck time, but the fact that our understanding is incomplete doesn't mean the gap is evidence for a God.
Because we don't understand how the universe was made, you take a person and hang him up on a cross and tell everyone he died for our sins, that will take care of all our answers...amen?
funniest moment of the video was when giaime was asked why 4 km was chosen for ligo. he started with a scientific explanation and ended with "that's what we could afford and that's what plot of land we could acquire".
when param singh explained his rejection of the big bang, his answer did not seem scientific at all. it seemed philosophical.
the previous two points are a segue to the overall point to be taken from the video. science is fascinating and important but, ultimately not as authoritative as nontheists make it out to be. when the group at perimeter were asked if there was something before the big bang, some raised their hands, some didn't. this is a microcosm of science. science is not 100% objective. because it isn't, scientific fact today is not always fact tomorrow. singh illustrated this when he explained how gravity functions differently at a certain point in the past physical state of the universe.
in the end, the theories expressed in the video only push the question further back. where does inflation come from? if the universe is oscillating, where did the inertia come from? if the universe came from a black hole, where did the black hole come from? if the universe is the product of vacuum fluctuation, where did vacuum energy come from? if the universe was the result of colliding branes, where did the branes come from? all of these theories invite infinte regress and singh could not have explained it better when he said that if infinity is invoked in physics, something has gone terribly wrong. physicists know that actual infinites are incredibly problematic. this is why cosmological theories that merely push the question of origins back further might be useful for short term answers but, they still fail to satisfy the ultimate question of origin.
incidentally, it's my understanding the oscillating universe theory is out because there is sufficient dark matter in the universe to counteract gravity. the universe will eventually suffer a heat death, not contract back on to itself in a big crunch as singh says.
And can describe and model THAT very well all without any need to resort to conscious authorship or divine guidance or any other theistic notions. but the question of origins remains unanswered by science. there are several questions about life that are beyond the purview of science and i can't imagine why anyone would think they can base their entire life on an enterprise that is imperfect because it is conducted by imperfect people.
We can actually deal with the fact that... atheism is not the only worldview that can cope with what science discovers.
an ancient book written by bedouin farmers and shepherds that book answers a lot of questions science doesn't even pretend to touch.
with no understanding of the mechanics of the world they lived in. they understood the nature of truth that's for sure.
Matter doesn't give rise to consciousness? not totally, no. but there is an obvious relationship.
consciousness is a product of the physical brain this kind of thinking cannot explain things like qualia, intentionality, etc. in the mind/body problem, physcialism has not overcome dualism. mental states cannot be reduced to the language of physics and chemistry.
consensus science there is no such thing and science abhors such a thing anyway. science isn't about going with the flow or conforming. the majority can be, and has been, wrong. it's about breaking down barriers and thinking of things in a new, fresh way. even long held truths. if science lacked variety, it wouldn't be science.
The illusion that it is something more or special probably comes from an evolved intuition called agency bias. anthropocentric thinking is not sufficient. why did agency bias develop? it certainly didn't have to. again, this just pushes the question one step back. why did the conditions for agency bias exist in the first place? besides, agency bias isn't sufficient to overcome the problems of physicalism.
The admission makes more sense to me than presumptuously attempting to fill the gap with a theological conundrum and ancient superstitious jumble. the physical laws of the universe are not sufficient to explain their own origin. where did they come from and why would you not pursue the obviously metaphysical answer to this question? stopping with "this is what we know to this point" is intellectual surrender.
but the constant sneering of religion at the slow progress of modern physics is hard to dismiss when has this happened? you know that there are physicists who are christians, right?
as if ancient myths and superstions were the most sound and preferible plausible alternative. they're answering different questions than science.
trae norsworthy: First, you could have posted all that in one comment instead of spamming those of us who are subscribed by email. Let me show you how it's done:
this kind of thinking cannot explain things like qualia
You're assuming there's something to explain. I submit there's no such thing as qualia. The system only looks special from inside the system.
etc. in the mind/body problem
There is no mind/body problem. It only exists when your assumptions about the mind are wrong.
physcialism has not overcome dualism. mental states cannot be reduced to the language of physics and chemistry.
Of course they can, and overwhelming evidence demonstrates it. Changes in the physics and chemistry of the brain (de/activation of specific brain regions, brain damage, drugs, seizures, etc.) can be directly linked to changes in brain states, such as sleep vs wake, personality, reasoning ability, emotions, hallucinations, schizophrenia, senility, etc. That's why we can treat (some) mental illnesses (ie, altered mental states) with drugs in the first place -- because they have a physical basis.
The biochemistry of the brain can account for our mental states. There's simply nothing left to explain. If you're unsatisfied because it doesn't tell you "what it's like to be a bat", then you're getting confused by an illusion created by being inside the system.
there is no such thing [as consensus science] and science abhors such a thing anyway
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. If there is one reality, and if science is a useful way of knowing about it, then it will converge on those ideas that accurately represent reality (ie, are true). Evidence is the arbiter. There are certainly legitimate debates in science, but they get resolved as observations and experiments are made, and data is collected (I like to say that evidence is a theory killer, as it kills all theories except for those that are true). At one time, there was debate about the nature of atoms and the reality of the Big Bang, but as evidence accumulated, the scientific community came to a consensus behind atomic theory, evolution, and Big Bang theory.
Right now there's a heated debate about string theory, because it can't be tested yet, but it can be tested in principle, and in the future we will have the technology to perform the high energy experiments needed to resolve the debate. And then the scientific community will come to consensus about the validity of and nature of string theory.
You can contrast that with religious / metaphysical / superstitious claims, which have no arbiter of truth, since they are based on faith. That is why mutually contradictory religions have existed for hundreds and even thousands of years, and they will never resolve their differences the way that scientists do.
BTW, this idea of convergence not just within disciplines, but across scientific disciplines, is called consilience by Harvard biologist EO Wilson. He wrote a book about it. I highly recommend it.
this kind of thinking cannot explain things like qualia
You're assuming there's something to explain. I submit there's no such thing as qualia. The system only looks special from inside the system.
etc. in the mind/body problem
There is no mind/body problem. It only exists when your assumptions about the mind are wrong.
physcialism has not overcome dualism. mental states cannot be reduced to the language of physics and chemistry.
Of course they can, and overwhelming evidence demonstrates it. Changes in the physics and chemistry of the brain (de/activation of specific brain regions, brain damage, drugs, seizures, etc.) can be directly linked to changes in brain states, such as sleep vs wake, personality, reasoning ability, emotions, hallucinations, schizophrenia, senility, etc. That's why we can treat (some) mental illnesses (ie, altered mental states) with drugs in the first place -- because they have a physical basis.
The biochemistry of the brain can account for our mental states. There's simply nothing left to explain. If you're unsatisfied because it doesn't tell you "what it's like to be a bat", then you're getting confused by an illusion created by being inside the system.
there is no such thing [as consensus science] and science abhors such a thing anyway
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. If there is one reality, and if science is a useful way of knowing about it, then it will converge on those ideas that accurately represent reality (ie, are true). Evidence is the arbiter. There are certainly legitimate debates in science, but they get resolved as observations and experiments are made, and data is collected (I like to say that evidence is a theory killer, as it kills all theories except for those that are true). At one time, there was debate about the nature of atoms and the reality of the Big Bang, but as evidence accumulated, the scientific community came to a consensus behind atomic theory, evolution, and Big Bang theory.
Right now there's a heated debate about string theory, because it can't be tested yet, but it can be tested in principle, and in the future we will have the technology to perform the high energy experiments needed to resolve the debate. And then the scientific community will come to consensus about the validity of and nature of string theory.
You can contrast that with religious / metaphysical / superstitious claims, which have no arbiter of truth, since they are based on faith. That is why mutually contradictory religions have existed for hundreds and even thousands of years, and they will never resolve their differences the way that scientists do.
BTW, this idea of convergence not just within disciplines, but across scientific disciplines, is called consilience by Harvard biologist EO Wilson. He wrote a book about it. I highly recommend it.
anthropocentric thinking is not sufficient. why did agency bias develop?
Agency bias evolved problably because understanding that other beings have minds and intentions is useful, especially for a social species that must constantly negotiate with other members of its kind. The problem is that our brains are imperfect and precocious pattern detection systems. Just as we see objects in clouds and Virgin Maries in toast, we attribute agency (intentionality) to things that don't have them, such as the anthromorphism of non-human animals and inanimate objects, or the belief in incorporeal minds (ghosts, spirits, angels, gods). These are false positives. Our brains treat minds as categorically different things, and this creates the illusion that they are physically different things (or not physical at all).
BTW, our brains also treat living things as categorically different from nonliving things, and this creates the illusion of vitalism, which persisted through the ages. But we now know that life can be accounted for completely by biochemical processes, and so can mind.
"the physical laws of the universe are not sufficient to explain their origin..."
So we are now supposed to conclude: 'Oh well, why not a god then as the cause?'
There really is a simple answer--isn't it? But one not likely to pop into an unprepared mind whipsawed by traditional theological logic-chopping....or [Berlinskian] rhetoric. That, no doubt, would take us back to the shopworn arguments about first causes and uncaused causers.
"obviously metaphysical answer"
What "obvious metaphysical answer" are you refering to? Introducing another mystery to solve a mystery is not an answer, and certainly not an "obvious" one. "Obvious" available body of facts need no wrangling to vouch for them. Theophysical lollygagging glossed over with sophisticated lexical jiving represents obviousness of NOTHING! NADA! And you cannot hope to defend as intellectually significant, to answer the Big question, a pastiche of far more ancient chimeras and hodgepodges.
"this is what we know to this point" 'is intellectual surrender'
"This is what we know at this point" is not in any way an intellectual surrender. Scientists have not stopped searching for answers. Slow progress and setbacks, yes, but that is not the same as giving up.
"...but the constant sneering of religion at the slow progress of modern physics is hard to dismiss" (That is me being quoted by trae norsworthy) Then he asked:
"when has this happened?"
I am puzzled by this question. It [seems] to indicate intellectual naiveness or intellectual dishonesty. If you have so much intellectual awareness than I am surprised that you [dont know] that this has happened and it is happening. In David Berlinski's "The Devil Delusion" we can see a prime example of the sneering I am refering to. You don't prove that religion is preferable to science just by pointing out that science has gaps! Mr. Berlinski is perfectly aware of that, but it doesn't stem the flow of his idiom. The book makes most of the standard theistic attempts to up religion by downing science--albeit in livelier prose than in religious tracts. Science's gaps do not qualify burning bushes as the more plausible alternative.
"...if the universe is oscillating, where did the inertia come from? if the universe came from a black hole, where did the black hole come from? if the universe is the product of vacuum fluctuation, where did vacuum energy come from? if the universe was the result of colliding branes, where did the branes come from?"
You forgot one...
If the universe came from God, where did God come from?
"...the physical laws of the universe are not sufficient to explain their own origin. where did they come from and why would you not pursue the obviously metaphysical answer to this question? stopping with "this is what we know to this point" is intellectual surrender."
Plugging the hole with "Goddidit" is intellectually null and void. It's a non-answer, as it explains nothing.
Plugging the hole with "Goddidit" is intellectually null and void. It's a non-answer, as it explains nothing. no, it actually explains everything whereas the alternative, nontheism, is incapable of explaining the ultimate questions in life. i can't imagine why you would say that an explanation (theism) is not an explanation. there has to be an ultimate source, an explanation for which there is no more explanation. naturalist theories of origins merely continually push the ultimate question back further. why in the world would anyone think such a method could be a complete, satisfying worldview?
32 comments:
Yep. When the Big Bang theory was first formulated in the 1930s and 40s, the clergy jumped on it, because a beginning implied a creator, at least in their minds. However, it should be noted that the singularity is just a mathematical entity -- the point at which our equations describing the cosmos, and therefore our model of the cosmos, breaks down. We simply can't infer anything before Planck time, about 10^-43 seconds after the point at which everything -- it seems -- would reduce to a single point. However, that doesn't mean that's what actually happened back then, and it may not have been "the beginning" as we assume. All we can say about it right now is that we don't know.
I've always loved that argument "everything has to come from somewhere, even the big bang. So, there must have been a creator who come out of nowhere to create it"
It makes me wonder if Christians are starting to just tune out when they speak like the rest of us.
~Rhaco
This is why I love being an Atheist.
Of course we don't know what caused the Big Bang. We never said we did. We can safely say, however that we understand what happend AFTER that to within about Planck time. And can describe and model THAT very well all without any need to resort to conscious authorship or divine guidance or any other theistic notions.
We can actually deal with the fact that the Universe is constantly throwing curveballs at us and can incorporate it into our understanding without having to pretzelize ourselves by making it fit within an ancient book written by bedouin farmers and shepherds with no understanding of the mechanics of the world they lived in.
Matter doesn't give rise to consciousness? Talk about ignoring the evidence. Drugs (physico-chemical things) can alter consciousness. Brain damage can alter consciousness, change cognitive function and even personality. It is obvious to anyone who isn't deluded by Bronze Age myths that consciousness is not magic; it is a product of the physical brain, and thus, matter gives rise to consciousness all the time.
Martin,
The scientist Roger Penrose even admits that physics hasn't explained conciousness.
I think the mind and the physical brain are connected and they influece each other but science hasn't explained their origin just as it hasn't explained the origin of life itself or the origin of the universe.
Cole, Penrose is a controversial figure with whom most scientists disagree. He doesn't represent the view of consensus science -- the view of the majority of neuroscientists, psychologists, and psychiatrists who are experts on the subject. But even then, he posits that quantum mechanics is involved, which is still part of the natural, physical universe. He doesn't posit anything metaphysical.
Martin,
Penrose is in good company with other scientists and philosophers. There is no concensus. I use Penrose because he claims to be an atheist.
Cole,
There's a difference between explaining why we are self aware and how that state comes about and being able to show that consciousness has a physical basis. The latter is reasonably well established by looking at how people change under the influence of various drugs or after strokes or head trauma. We can even draw the physical conclusion even if consciousness itself isn't well understood.
However, explaining, from a physical standpoint why we developed consciousness is a much more difficult question, and certainly hasn't been answered well at all. It's pretty clear based on Penrose' writings, that he's proposing some new physics to help explain what consciousness is and where it comes from, but he is not questioning the physicality of consciousness at all.
Penrose' writings most definitely are controversial. You don't propose new physics lightly, and you certainly don't propose new physics to explain something which is very poorly understood in the first place, like consciousness is.
Generally speaking, new physics gets proposed when well understood data is found that doesn't fit the current models. We most certainly do not have a good enough model of what consciousness is to be able to say that consciousness can not arise within our current understanding of physics. It may be the case that consciousness is not reducible, but that doesn't necessarily imply that new physics is required to understand it, or that it would even help.
It's reasonably well established not just by deviations like drugs and trauma, but by studying changes in the brain during routine states of consciousness. Using fMRI and EEG, we can see the patterns of activity change between wake, sleep and coma, and these changes are reliably reproduced between subjects. We can see changes in activity as subjects are asked to think about certain things or perform certain tasks, and these changes are reliably reproduced between subjects. We've never seen a consciousness without a brain. When all the evidence is taken into consideration, the brain appears to be both necessary and *sufficient* to explain consciousness.
The illusion that it is something more or special probably comes from an evolved intuition called agency bias. You can read the works of Pascal Boyer to learn more.
Or as a friend once poignantly said, "The system always seems special from inside the system."
Before Planck (Max Planck) time all
matter, space, time and energy were
presumed to have exploded outward
from the singularity point; but in
reality not much is known of this
period, and even today we still don't have real coherent models of
what actually happened under those
conditions. Obviously this is a gap
science has not [yet] been able to close. As an atheist I feel very comfortable with science's admission: "At this point we don't
know." The admission makes more sense to me than presumptuously attempting to fill the gap with a
theological conundrum and ancient
superstitious jumble. For what science doesn't yet know, is not only unknown to religion but utterly [inconceivable] to religion
even as a question. Religion, on the nature and history of the cosmos, is not even wrong! But the
constant sneering of religion at the slow progress of modern physics
is hard to dismiss--as if ancient
myths and superstions were the most
sound and preferible plausible alternative.
Martin,
What's even better is that imaging studies show that when people are asked the following three questions:
1. What do you think about X?
2. What do you think other people think about X?
3. What do you think God thinks about X?
Different areas of the brain light up between question 1 and 2. But the SAME area of the brain lights up between questions 1 and 3. In other words, if I'm religious, God ALWAYS thinks exactly what I'm thinking . . . hmmmmm . . . He's in complete agreement with me . . . I wonder how that works . . .
This wouldn't be a problem for christians, except that even when they believe wildly different things, God agrees with all of them!
"When all the evidence is taken into consideration, the brain appears to be both necessary and *sufficient* to explain consciousness."
I disagree. We can say, with Brentano, that intentionality is the mark of the mental. The one thing I know about many of my mental states better than anything else is that they are intentional states, i.e. that they are *about* something. This peculiar property of 'aboutness' that is an essential part of any account of consciousness cannot be reduced to a brain state. It is a category error to ascribe intentionality to a physical state, and brain states are physical states; but we know that many mental states are intentional; hence, mental states cannot be reduced to brain states. (I'm aware of the many physicalist attempts to explain intentionality -- or, rather, in most to explain it away -- but I have yet to see one that is remotely plausible. Do you know of any?)
Note, this is not to deny the dependence of mental states on brain states. No dualist, of any of the many kinds of dualists there are, has ever denied the relationship that obtains between brain states and mental states. They just deny that the one is reducible to the other (for reasons like the one I mentioned above). We can think of it this way: My communication with you on this forum depends on the physical functioning of our computers, but the content of our conversation isn't reducible to the physical state and functioning of our computers. No one denies the dependence of the one on the other; mess with my computer in any number of ways, and my ability to post here is affected in any number of ways. But it clearly doesn't follow from this dependence relation that the physical state of our computers provide the necessary and sufficient conditions of our discussion. I know that that's not a perfect analogy (no analogy is perfect), but it does a decent job of getting at the essence of the point I'm trying to make here, I think.
Shades of The Grand Design here...
The Big Bang was never about how our universe began. It was about the expansion of our universe. We haven't been able to figure out what happened "before" planck time, but the fact that our understanding is incomplete doesn't mean the gap is evidence for a God.
Because we don't understand how the universe was made, you take a person and hang him up on a cross and tell everyone he died for our sins, that will take care of all our answers...amen?
funniest moment of the video was when giaime was asked why 4 km was chosen for ligo. he started with a scientific explanation and ended with "that's what we could afford and that's what plot of land we could acquire".
when param singh explained his rejection of the big bang, his answer did not seem scientific at all. it seemed philosophical.
the previous two points are a segue to the overall point to be taken from the video. science is fascinating and important but, ultimately not as authoritative as nontheists make it out to be. when the group at perimeter were asked if there was something before the big bang, some raised their hands, some didn't. this is a microcosm of science. science is not 100% objective. because it isn't, scientific fact today is not always fact tomorrow. singh illustrated this when he explained how gravity functions differently at a certain point in the past physical state of the universe.
in the end, the theories expressed in the video only push the question further back. where does inflation come from? if the universe is oscillating, where did the inertia come from? if the universe came from a black hole, where did the black hole come from? if the universe is the product of vacuum fluctuation, where did vacuum energy come from? if the universe was the result of colliding branes, where did the branes come from? all of these theories invite infinte regress and singh could not have explained it better when he said that if infinity is invoked in physics, something has gone terribly wrong. physicists know that actual infinites are incredibly problematic. this is why cosmological theories that merely push the question of origins back further might be useful for short term answers but, they still fail to satisfy the ultimate question of origin.
incidentally, it's my understanding the oscillating universe theory is out because there is sufficient dark matter in the universe to counteract gravity. the universe will eventually suffer a heat death, not contract back on to itself in a big crunch as singh says.
Jeffrey A. Myers
And can describe and model THAT very well all without any need to resort to conscious authorship or divine guidance or any other theistic notions.
but the question of origins remains unanswered by science. there are several questions about life that are beyond the purview of science and i can't imagine why anyone would think they can base their entire life on an enterprise that is imperfect because it is conducted by imperfect people.
We can actually deal with the fact that...
atheism is not the only worldview that can cope with what science discovers.
an ancient book written by bedouin farmers and shepherds
that book answers a lot of questions science doesn't even pretend to touch.
with no understanding of the mechanics of the world they lived in.
they understood the nature of truth that's for sure.
Martin
Matter doesn't give rise to consciousness?
not totally, no. but there is an obvious relationship.
consciousness is a product of the physical brain
this kind of thinking cannot explain things like qualia, intentionality, etc. in the mind/body problem, physcialism has not overcome dualism. mental states cannot be reduced to the language of physics and chemistry.
Martin
consensus science
there is no such thing and science abhors such a thing anyway. science isn't about going with the flow or conforming. the majority can be, and has been, wrong. it's about breaking down barriers and thinking of things in a new, fresh way. even long held truths. if science lacked variety, it wouldn't be science.
Martin
The illusion that it is something more or special probably comes from an evolved intuition called agency bias.
anthropocentric thinking is not sufficient. why did agency bias develop? it certainly didn't have to. again, this just pushes the question one step back. why did the conditions for agency bias exist in the first place? besides, agency bias isn't sufficient to overcome the problems of physicalism.
Charles
The admission makes more sense to me than presumptuously attempting to fill the gap with a
theological conundrum and ancient
superstitious jumble.
the physical laws of the universe are not sufficient to explain their own origin. where did they come from and why would you not pursue the obviously metaphysical answer to this question? stopping with "this is what we know to this point" is intellectual surrender.
but the constant sneering of religion at the slow progress of modern physics is hard to dismiss
when has this happened? you know that there are physicists who are christians, right?
as if ancient myths and superstions were the most
sound and preferible plausible alternative.
they're answering different questions than science.
trae norsworthy: First, you could have posted all that in one comment instead of spamming those of us who are subscribed by email. Let me show you how it's done:
this kind of thinking cannot explain things like qualia
You're assuming there's something to explain. I submit there's no such thing as qualia. The system only looks special from inside the system.
etc. in the mind/body problem
There is no mind/body problem. It only exists when your assumptions about the mind are wrong.
physcialism has not overcome dualism. mental states cannot be reduced to the language of physics and chemistry.
Of course they can, and overwhelming evidence demonstrates it. Changes in the physics and chemistry of the brain (de/activation of specific brain regions, brain damage, drugs, seizures, etc.) can be directly linked to changes in brain states, such as sleep vs wake, personality, reasoning ability, emotions, hallucinations, schizophrenia, senility, etc. That's why we can treat (some) mental illnesses (ie, altered mental states) with drugs in the first place -- because they have a physical basis.
The biochemistry of the brain can account for our mental states. There's simply nothing left to explain. If you're unsatisfied because it doesn't tell you "what it's like to be a bat", then you're getting confused by an illusion created by being inside the system.
there is no such thing [as consensus science] and science abhors such a thing anyway
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. If there is one reality, and if science is a useful way of knowing about it, then it will converge on those ideas that accurately represent reality (ie, are true). Evidence is the arbiter. There are certainly legitimate debates in science, but they get resolved as observations and experiments are made, and data is collected (I like to say that evidence is a theory killer, as it kills all theories except for those that are true). At one time, there was debate about the nature of atoms and the reality of the Big Bang, but as evidence accumulated, the scientific community came to a consensus behind atomic theory, evolution, and Big Bang theory.
Right now there's a heated debate about string theory, because it can't be tested yet, but it can be tested in principle, and in the future we will have the technology to perform the high energy experiments needed to resolve the debate. And then the scientific community will come to consensus about the validity of and nature of string theory.
You can contrast that with religious / metaphysical / superstitious claims, which have no arbiter of truth, since they are based on faith. That is why mutually contradictory religions have existed for hundreds and even thousands of years, and they will never resolve their differences the way that scientists do.
BTW, this idea of convergence not just within disciplines, but across scientific disciplines, is called consilience by Harvard biologist EO Wilson. He wrote a book about it. I highly recommend it.
this kind of thinking cannot explain things like qualia
You're assuming there's something to explain. I submit there's no such thing as qualia. The system only looks special from inside the system.
etc. in the mind/body problem
There is no mind/body problem. It only exists when your assumptions about the mind are wrong.
physcialism has not overcome dualism. mental states cannot be reduced to the language of physics and chemistry.
Of course they can, and overwhelming evidence demonstrates it. Changes in the physics and chemistry of the brain (de/activation of specific brain regions, brain damage, drugs, seizures, etc.) can be directly linked to changes in brain states, such as sleep vs wake, personality, reasoning ability, emotions, hallucinations, schizophrenia, senility, etc. That's why we can treat (some) mental illnesses (ie, altered mental states) with drugs in the first place -- because they have a physical basis.
The biochemistry of the brain can account for our mental states. There's simply nothing left to explain. If you're unsatisfied because it doesn't tell you "what it's like to be a bat", then you're getting confused by an illusion created by being inside the system.
there is no such thing [as consensus science] and science abhors such a thing anyway
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. If there is one reality, and if science is a useful way of knowing about it, then it will converge on those ideas that accurately represent reality (ie, are true). Evidence is the arbiter. There are certainly legitimate debates in science, but they get resolved as observations and experiments are made, and data is collected (I like to say that evidence is a theory killer, as it kills all theories except for those that are true). At one time, there was debate about the nature of atoms and the reality of the Big Bang, but as evidence accumulated, the scientific community came to a consensus behind atomic theory, evolution, and Big Bang theory.
post too large, continued...
Right now there's a heated debate about string theory, because it can't be tested yet, but it can be tested in principle, and in the future we will have the technology to perform the high energy experiments needed to resolve the debate. And then the scientific community will come to consensus about the validity of and nature of string theory.
You can contrast that with religious / metaphysical / superstitious claims, which have no arbiter of truth, since they are based on faith. That is why mutually contradictory religions have existed for hundreds and even thousands of years, and they will never resolve their differences the way that scientists do.
BTW, this idea of convergence not just within disciplines, but across scientific disciplines, is called consilience by Harvard biologist EO Wilson. He wrote a book about it. I highly recommend it.
anthropocentric thinking is not sufficient. why did agency bias develop?
Agency bias evolved problably because understanding that other beings have minds and intentions is useful, especially for a social species that must constantly negotiate with other members of its kind. The problem is that our brains are imperfect and precocious pattern detection systems. Just as we see objects in clouds and Virgin Maries in toast, we attribute agency (intentionality) to things that don't have them, such as the anthromorphism of non-human animals and inanimate objects, or the belief in incorporeal minds (ghosts, spirits, angels, gods). These are false positives. Our brains treat minds as categorically different things, and this creates the illusion that they are physically different things (or not physical at all).
BTW, our brains also treat living things as categorically different from nonliving things, and this creates the illusion of vitalism, which persisted through the ages. But we now know that life can be accounted for completely by biochemical processes, and so can mind.
@trae norsworthy;
"the physical laws of the universe
are not sufficient to explain their
origin..."
So we are now supposed to conclude:
'Oh well, why not a god then as the cause?'
There really is a simple answer--isn't it? But one not likely to pop
into an unprepared mind whipsawed by traditional theological logic-chopping....or [Berlinskian] rhetoric. That, no doubt, would take us back to the shopworn arguments about first causes and uncaused causers.
"obviously metaphysical answer"
What "obvious metaphysical answer" are you refering to? Introducing another mystery to solve a mystery is not an answer, and certainly not
an "obvious" one. "Obvious" available body of facts need no wrangling to vouch for them. Theophysical lollygagging glossed over with sophisticated lexical jiving represents obviousness of NOTHING! NADA! And you cannot hope to defend as intellectually significant, to answer the Big question, a pastiche of far more ancient chimeras and hodgepodges.
"this is what we know to this point" 'is intellectual surrender'
"This is what we know at this point" is not in any way an intellectual surrender. Scientists
have not stopped searching for answers. Slow progress and setbacks, yes, but that is not the same as giving up.
"...but the constant sneering of religion at the slow progress of modern physics is hard to dismiss"
(That is me being quoted by trae norsworthy) Then he asked:
"when has this happened?"
I am puzzled by this question. It [seems] to indicate intellectual naiveness or intellectual dishonesty. If you have so much intellectual awareness than I am surprised that you [dont know] that
this has happened and it is happening.
In David Berlinski's "The Devil Delusion" we can see a prime example of the sneering I am refering to. You don't prove that
religion is preferable to science just by pointing out that science has gaps! Mr. Berlinski is perfectly aware of that, but it doesn't stem the flow of his idiom.
The book makes most of the standard
theistic attempts to up religion by downing science--albeit in livelier prose than in religious tracts. Science's gaps do not qualify burning bushes as the more
plausible alternative.
trae said,
"...if the universe is oscillating, where did the inertia come from? if the universe came from a black hole, where did the black hole come from? if the universe is the product of vacuum fluctuation, where did vacuum energy come from? if the universe was the result of colliding branes, where did the branes come from?"
You forgot one...
If the universe came from God, where did God come from?
God doesn't solve the infinite regress problem.
word ver. = "outch"
Indeed.
Trae said,
"...the physical laws of the universe are not sufficient to explain their own origin. where did they come from and why would you not pursue the obviously metaphysical answer to this question? stopping with "this is what we know to this point" is intellectual surrender."
Plugging the hole with "Goddidit" is intellectually null and void. It's a non-answer, as it explains nothing.
Paging Dr. Craig, paging Cr. Craig! Cosmological argument is flat lining...
This youtube video by Lawrence Krause I think much better explains HOW there can be something from nothing. It's the best explanation I've seen yet.
Plugging the hole with "Goddidit" is intellectually null and void. It's a non-answer, as it explains nothing.
no, it actually explains everything whereas the alternative, nontheism, is incapable of explaining the ultimate questions in life. i can't imagine why you would say that an explanation (theism) is not an explanation. there has to be an ultimate source, an explanation for which there is no more explanation. naturalist theories of origins merely continually push the ultimate question back further. why in the world would anyone think such a method could be a complete, satisfying worldview?
Post a Comment