Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
To put my ideas this way - if something is outside of our physical universe, then by definition it doesn't interact with it in any way. And the existence or non-existence of such a thing is immaterial (pun intended) because by its nature it will not impact the physical universe, or us, in any way. So while it would be impossible to prove or disprove such a thing, it would also be completely meaningless. That is what I think of as the realm of god.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
We cannot "perceive" electrons directly, but we can perceive their effects on magnets, wires, droplets of oil, presumed "photons" and other secondary observations. Many scientitifc concepts do not make much inutitive sense. What is a "negative" charge, other than being opposite of a "positive" charge? what is "spin"? What is "strangeness"? Is a fifth, sixth and seventh dimension any weirder than that?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
We cannot "perceive" electrons directly, but we can perceive their effects on magnets, wires, droplets of oil, presumed "photons" and other secondary observations. Many scientitifc concepts do not make much inutitive sense. What is a "negative" charge, other than being opposite of a "positive" charge? what is "spin"? What is "strangeness"? Is a fifth, sixth and seventh dimension any weirder than that?

---

Quote:

---

You say that we can only have evidence for materially existing things, and never ever for immaterially existing things.

---

Quote:

---

An electron is four dimensional. Higher dimensions are outside of our four dimensional world, in the same way that the dimension of hieght is outside of the two dimensions of length and width.

---

Quote:

---

No, but then we dont really know what an electron is either, is it a particle, a wave, a "wavicle" or a point charge that has certain probabilistic properties?

For all we know it could be none of the above and prior to the 1700's nobody had any incling that it even existed. We have no idea what might be out there until we get the technology that let's us look.

That's why this entire line of argument is pointless. The one thing science knows without doubt is how little it knows. Every model we make, every inference, every theory is subject to revision or replacement as new data and new ideas. To say at this stage that we know the nature (or existance or none existance) of anything is setting ourselves up for a fall. Remember scientists believed there was an "ether" once, because they thought EM waves needed a propogation medium, now we know (or believe) that isn't the case.

---

Quote:

---

Indeed, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, or that it is merely imaginary.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:

Where does the concept of god come from? I've heard a convincing argument that the development of language can itself trigger the concept of god(s).

---

Quote:

---

Also, to say that it's universal is quite mistaken - I don't think the Chinese had a concept of god, they believed in ancestral spirits. And other peoples until very recent history didn't believe in god, they believed in various spirits as well.

---

Quote:

---

"so is their such a thing as moral absolutes ...?"

Not in the way you think of them. The Romans for example had a very different concept of good and evil.

---

Quote:

---

" i wonder where that leaves established moral and ethical standards, since science has no bearing on the matter"

I think science is at the point where it can be quite a good, though preliminary, guide to morality.

---

Quote:

---

The vast majority of people can mirror other people's feelings - have empathy. That tells us that empathy, as selected through evolution -

---

Quote:

---

The vast majority of people have rewarding brain chemicals during cooperation - that tells us that that this is a normal trait selected for by evolution, and that our societies should reflect and support that inbuilt characteristic. The vast majority of people express damaging stress hormones during conflict - that tells us in the converse way that cooperation and trusting relations with others is a vital human trait. And so on.

---

Quote:

---

I think it's possible to determine whether human mores are 'good' or 'bad' by whether or not they lead to healthy or unhealthy biochemistry. And it would then be possible to encourage those mores through social structures.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
The big difference is that we bang those ideas against evidence. And now it's your turn to explain "evidence".

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Causal

Well, we could go around and around all night. So I'll try and lay out my ideas as clearly as possible.

***************************************

"Is "singleness" imaginary?"

I thought I was clear - "one" - "singleness" is a model. It's a product of our timescale, senses and brain logic.

For example, suppose our senses let us "see" all attractive and repulsive forces. Since everything would be connected to everything else, I'm not sure we'd be able to model the concept of "one". Or suppose our brains weren't capable of separating out visual objects from background (a complex ability). Or suppose our timescale let us see before/ during/ after all at once. Those too might limit out ability to sense "one" - "singleness".

Singleness isn't an ideal property shadowed onto an imperfect world. It's a partial model invented by our brains for inviolate reality.

***************************************

"When I talk about the existence of non-physical things, you argue that it's just really hard to talk about what exists. But when you talk about physical things, you don't seem to have any problem with it."

I can put all sorts of words together which don't mean anything. I can say there is something which is both completely and only apple and completely and only orange both at the same time. Or I can define existence as that and only that which is real, and then say that there exist things which aren't real. Neither one satisfies logic.

Since I START with the assumption that things which exist are real, and things which are real exist, I don't accept that things can exist which aren't real, and the other way around

To go alllll the way back - no can prove this universe exists. Even "Je pense, donc je suis", which at first seems so convincing and simple, falls to the proposal that I'm just a unknowing dream of someone or something else.

As SignyM explained elsewhere, science makes a priori assumptions. As I recall, they were: There is a real existence - an objective reality. It operates by consistent rules. (Now that I think about it, this, in its bare-bones form, has similarities to Dao. I digress ...) Our senses tell us something (though in a limited way) about this existence. We can learn about this objective reality by observation, experimentation and thought.

I start out with the idea that there is an objective reality, and that it encompasses all that we think 'exists'. And that it is the province of science.

***************************************

"You say that we can only have evidence for materially existing things, and never ever for immaterially existing things. To which I ask: how can you prove that?"
It's a matter of definition. (see above)

"Your position is closely akin to that of Logical Positivism, a failed philosophical movement which collapsed under its own weight. The key assumption of Logical Positivism is that nothing can count as knowledge unless it can be empirically verified. The trouble, obviously, is that that key assumption can't be empirically verified!"
See a priori assumption, above

---

Quote:

---

I have never mentioned evidence, I think you're confused again- Fletch2

---

Quote:

---

You say that we can only have evidence for materially existing things, and never ever for immaterially existing things. ... Yet AGAIN, you cannot merely presume that only physical evidence counts as evidence. You must give a cogent argument for such a proposition.

---

Quote:

---

Well, I congratulate you on your perfectly nesting set of presupositions. Have fun with that ball.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:


BTW Fletch2- did you really think you would throw me off by saying we don't know what an "electron" is? Such a trivial point! I hope you didn't spend TOO much time grinding your gears on that one! I note that you have not answered my point about banging concepts against evidence. You must be confused... still.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:

Quote:

---

Also, to say that it's universal is quite mistaken - I don't think the Chinese had a concept of god, they believed in ancestral spirits. And other peoples until very recent history didn't believe in god, they believed in various spirits as well.

---

is there a set of morals, or values which are absolute, and pure and right?

---

Quote:

---

do our actions have eternal consequences?

---

Quote:

---

we can debate whether my God is the right one or not, but what really matters is that THERE ARE ultimate truths. the 7 deadly sins is the perfect example, because we all know greed, or pride or envy are and lead to negative behavior, we know this to be right and true, in our guts.

---

Quote:

---

if we're just another species of animal, why is murder wrong?

---

Quote:

---

is it immoral for a predator to 'prey'?

---

Quote:

---

what ever science is capable of, it will do. cloning, genetic modification, weaponization, or just twisted experimentation

---

Quote:

---

politically, that type of mindset would let the UN seize all the worlds oil supplies, for consumption purposes, so that the current consensus on global warming could be satisfied, irregardless of the consequences.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The vast majority of people can mirror other people's feelings - have empathy. That tells us that empathy, as selected through evolution -

---

how did that characteristic evolve?

---

Quote:

---

this is how i see it:what makes a tree a tree?

---

Quote:

---

what seperates a cat from a snake?

---

Quote:

---

you can tell me the specific detail of how a tree forms, and grows.. or how the species of cat has evolved(mind you, within its archetype).. but beyond a certain point, you cant 'devolve' something without reaching the hardware; what makes it what it is. a tree comes from a seed. where did the seed start?

---

Quote:

---

did it grow itself?

---

Quote:

---

those are philosophical questions directly related to the understanding of science.. are they not?

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The vast majority of people have rewarding brain chemicals during cooperation - that tells us that that this is a normal trait selected for by evolution, and that our societies should reflect and support that inbuilt characteristic. The vast majority of people express damaging stress hormones during conflict - that tells us in the converse way that cooperation and trusting relations with others is a vital human trait. And so on.

---

and it all self willed itself into existence. the brain needed these chemicals to do this, so it did it.

---

Quote:

---

in fact, thats where we began right, billions of years ago.. when we were inanimate matter that chose to become something more.

---

Quote:

---

You missed the point. We don't "know" what an electron is, we know some of it's properties and we have models that describe it but we don't "know" what it is. The list I gave you was what we have "known" it to have been at various points in the last 100 years. If you "know" what it is absolutely, please let know so we can raise you to the level of Newton and Rutherford.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

An electron is four dimensional. Higher dimensions are outside of our four dimensional world, in the same way that the dimension of hieght is outside of the two dimensions of length and width.

---

Who says our world IS four-dimensional? Maybe we're like the flatman observing a three-dimensional-being: we can only see the part that intersects our plane.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Just wholly (holy?) irrelevant.

---

Quote:

---

The Flatmans world IS two dimensional, the fact that there are other dimensions, places them outside of his two dimensional existance.

---

Quote:

---

The reasons behind why we entered Iraq are wholly irrelivant to what we do now we are there, yet people seem to spend more time worrying about the why than the what.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
You seemed to be saying a few posts ago that higher dimensions cannot be perceived, and could perhaps serve as a paradigm for the non-existential. My point was that the flatlander can still perceive higher-dimensional objects, just not in their entirety.

---

Quote:

---

You would have to posit a set of dimensions that is orthogonal to everything in our universe and therefore we could NEVER sense it (or its effects). Under those circumstances, it remains irrelevant. BTW- I really don't have problem with the concept of multiple dimensions, altho I've heard it wreaks havoc with physics calculations.

---

Quote:

---

All a dimension is an independent characteristic. I can create a five-dimensional universe right now: color, mass, odor, temperature, and texture. Voila.

---

Quote:

---

I sometimes wonder if the reason why physics runs into such difficulty is that the dimensions are wrong. X,Y, and Z are really the same, and m is just another expression of e. I'm not enough of a physicist to take this anywhere, tho and I realize its easy to criticize from the outside.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

The Flatmans world IS two dimensional, the fact that there are other dimensions, places them outside of his two dimensional existance.

---

You seemed to be saying a few posts ago that higher dimensions cannot be perceived, and could perhaps serve as a paradigm for the non-existential. My point was that the flatlander can still perceive higher-dimensional objects, just not in their entirety.

---

Quote:

---

You seemed to be saying a few posts ago that higher dimensions cannot be perceived, and could perhaps serve as a paradigm for the non-existential. My point was that the flatlander can still perceive higher-dimensional objects, just not in their entirety.

But they don't. They only ever perceive two dimensions, that there is a third dimension is unknown to them, and inconsequential to their two dimensional existance.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
WOW that was snarky. Was that the best you could come up with? Did you have problems replying to a perfectly logical, polite and upfront post ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
...it was Causal who said

Quote:

---

You say that we can only have evidence for materially existing things, and never ever for immaterially existing things. ... Yet AGAIN, you cannot merely presume that only physical evidence counts as evidence. You must give a cogent argument for such a proposition.

---

So now Causal, please define "evidence" for us.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
As I read it, let's assume that a three-dimensional cone intersects with Flatland. When it's parallel to the plane it looks like a triangle, when it's at right angles it looks like a circle and when it's between these orientations it looks like an ellipse. Sometimes it gets bigger, sometimes smaller, and sometimes it disappear altogether (when it moves off the plane). The part that intersects with Flatland can appear and disappear and assume unpredictable shapes and sizes but it is still sensible (in a limited way) to the flatlanders. A brilliant Flatlander might surmise that there is a third dimension which accounts for all of this unpredictability and may even derive the "shape" of the object although it will never make intuitive sense.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Nonetheless, there would be evidence a Flatlander could point to and say: "I don't understand this." The Flatlander would not be pointing to non-evidence ("That I see nothing means something is there") and would be using observation and reason, not faith.

---

Quote:

---

That's right. But that stops their existance being two dimensional, and the third dimension being outside that existance, how? Seems to rather support it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

Well, I congratulate you on your perfectly nesting set of presupositions. Have fun with that ball.

---

Snark is what people resort to when they've run out of ideas.

---

Quote:

---

Snark is what people resort to when they've run out of ideas.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Yes Fletch, there are a lot of things we see and can't explain. But what about things that we never see? Are we supposed to explain them too?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

That's right. But that stops their existance being two dimensional, and the third dimension being outside that existance, how? Seems to rather support it.

---

Which was my original point. Just because we can't intuitively grasp a seventh dimension does not mean that we're not embedded in a n-dimensional world.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Causal

I should have spent more words on my post. By showing (I hope) that even my own existence is beyond proof to myself (despite "je pense, donc je suis"), I was hoping to indicate that in order to get anywhere, one must make certain assumptions. I just made mine up front.

The other thing I really wanted to get across is that things that we intuitively think are true and have inherent meaning ("one") may be entirely derived from our physical nature and brain function.

Anyway, I have to go so I hope we'll continue later.

---

Quote:

---

In order to get anywhere, one must make certain assumptions. I just made mine up front.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Causal

I should have spent more words on my post. By showing (I hope) that even my own existence is beyond proof to myself (despite "je pense, donc je suis"), I was hoping to indicate that in order to get anywhere, one must make certain assumptions. I just made mine up front.

The other thing I really wanted to get across is that things that we intuitively think are true and have inherent meaning ("one") may be entirely derived from our physical nature and brain function.

---

Quote:

---

So the flatlanders are, despite living 2-dimensionally, existing 2 dimensionally, and having no third dimension, really three dimensional because a third dimension exists?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by leadb:
I know, not addressed to me; perhaps I can put what Causal said in a different way... It's fine to have assumptions (and good you state them up front); but if the other person does not agree that the assumption is valid, then it is difficult to have a "logical" discussion on the topic.

---

Quote:

---

posted by Fredgiblet- Do we? Lust is a deadly sin but I almost never see anyone feeling guilty over it, Gluttony is a deadly sin but the only people who feel bad about eating too much are fat people. Indeed the entire reason why the Seven Deadly Sins exist is because people don't tend to have a problem with most of them.

---

Quote:

---

Because we are a social species, we have gained our dominant position by teamwork and altruism. Murder, in most cases, is an inherently anti-social activity in a species that thrives because of social interaction and thus shouldn't be allowed.

---

Quote:

---

Of course not. For one the species in question don't know any better, they function on an instinctual basis. Second, in species that succeed with teamwork combat within the social unit is usually confined to hierarchical issues, they don't usually kill others of their social unit randomly. Third, predation is usually between two different species, cannibalism isn't particularly common except in times of shortage.

---

Quote:

---

The implication being that cloning and genetic modification are inherently wrong, I'd be interested in seeing that backed up.

---

Quote:

---

As for weaponization, we are a warlike species (apparently God wants us to kill each other else he wouldn't have made us this way) and everyone wants their own group to survive.

---

Quote:

---

The short answer is a whole hell of a lot, the long answer is that a long ass time ago, some reptiles evolved into mammals while others stayed reptiles, the two groups diverged and went their separate ways, went through an enormous amount more evolution and ended up as snakes and cats. A longer answer would be a book.

---

Quote:

---

A tree does not evolve from a seed, seeds are manufactured by trees.

---

Quote:

---

If you want to know why seeds evolved I can't say for sure but I can make some guesses, seeding plants spread easier then non-seeding plants and tend to survive the spreading process better as well.

---

Quote:

---

No. Biochemistry makes it not only unsurprising but expected that complex molecules form spontaneously. It has been demonstrated that given the right conditions amino acids and nucleotides can form spontaneously.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

So the flatlanders are, despite living 2-dimensionally, existing 2 dimensionally, and having no third dimension, really three dimensional because a third dimension exists?

---

Wow, howdis conversation get so bollixed? I must not be making myself clear, or maybe what I'm trying to say is inherently unclear. A two-dimensional world is inherently emebedded within a three-dimensional world, just as a four-dimensional world may be "part of" a higher dimsenional space.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
NO! OF COURSE NOT! I assume the word is NOT real and nothing exists! Nyah nyah nayh!

---

Quote:

---

You created the problem. Your basic premise is that if something is real you should be able to find evidence for its existance. Arguments have been made to show that that may not be nescessarily true for a number of reasons.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

You created the problem. Your basic premise is that if something is real you should be able to find evidence for its existance. Arguments have been made to show that that may not be nescessarily true for a number of reasons.

---

Whoa, did YOU miss my point! MY argument was that if something is "real" but doesn't intersect our universe in any sense it's irrelevant.

---

Quote:

---

That segway was to show that lack of evidence doesn't prove that something doesnt exist, which was your original argument.

---