What do you believe, and why?

[SerbMarko]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hrnig3Imek

 

[Anabolicus]

So everything that science cannot explain is work of god?

Honor, love, integrity, faithfulness, appreciation can be explained scientifically, do some reasearch.

In the past people believed that rain and wind were the work of god. If science can explain things in the future that we currently put on the name of god, then what? Say that ''Oops, I guess it wasn't god's work after all'' ?

Oh and btw, Jesus never resurrected.

 

[dilatedmuscle]

So everything that science cannot explain is work of god?

Honor, love, integrity, faithfulness, appreciation can be explained scientifically, do some reasearch.

In the past people believed that rain and wind were the work of god. If science can explain things in the future that we currently put on the name of god, then what? Say that ''Oops, I guess it wasn't god's work after all'' ?

Oh and btw, Jesus never resurrected.

I agree with you. Just because we dont fully understand something or havent scientificaly proven something.... YET, doesnt mean god created it.

 

[tim290280]

I do not think scientific idealism is appropriate. The attitude of scientific idealism appears to be as dogmatic with an imperfect theory as its basis as the religious are with epistemology. You realize that discovery through observation, science, seems like the most appropriate theory for knowledge to create description of space and time only b/c of the understanding we have at this time. What you appear to not address, neurological relativism, the idea that we are co-creators of reality through our nervous systems and that what is observed through our nervous system is the only reality we are able to acknowledge.

Scientific method is heavily influenced by Aristotelian logic which gives us the idea that 'A' and 'not A' cannot exist at the same time. Physics and quantum physics tell us that any measurement we make is only relevant to the tools we use to make the measurement and the place we make it. Quantum mechanics also become inaccurate when they do not include the observer. Furthermore with quantum mechanics we move into the idea that 'A' and 'not A' can exist at the same time and that the observer is the relevant factor in the matter. Which brings us to the point that reality and thus potential knowledge is only attainable through what we can observe. Our observations change as our nervous systems change. Although that idea is 'new' in the western mind it is over 2500 years old in the eastern mind.

The idea of objective knowledge is not possible because we cannot ignore the influence of the tool through which the observations are made, humans and our nervous systems. At this point all we can do is rely on statistical probability that when we make observations we are assuming that we are observing 'correctly' and that when we translate the observation into language we do so in a meaningful way. With the rise of postmodernism and quantum mechanics came the death of universal truth and the rise of relevant truths.

This brings us to relevant realism which is the process by which a person acknowledges the possibility that the reason anything resembling an objective reality exists is b/c humans are able to observe and communicate and interact with reality, or what we have labeled reality, and other humans due to the similarities we all share in mind and body. By acknowledging this we acknowledge that we are all the same species of animal and have similar enough nervous system with which we observe reality. Through the nervous system, observation, language and communication we create the assumption that reality must be the same but that we all experience it slightly differently due to our individual interpretation of it. We strengthen this assumption by reinforcing realities existence when other species interact with reality in a way we have deemed possible.

According to fractal theory knowledge has approached the point that it doubles every 18 months, this rate will increase.

The idea that what we believe currently appears objectively correct seems misguided and idealistic to me. Although so does the idea of God in any manner consistent with organized religion.

To summarise: God exists because we choose to believe he exists.

That doesn't prove or disprove God's existence, but rather falls into that "everything we can't explain or understand is God's work", or the "God did it" theory. This is just a load of crap. Science can't fully explain gravity yet, but science has moved away from the "God does it" stand that was so popular before Newton's time.

You want to talk about perspective ruling analysis yet you ignore the analysis or observation accounting for perspective. Part of science measurements is about repeatability. If experiment A and B measure the same thing in different ways and result in similar but different answers scientists will then account for these differences. I.e. they are fully aware of biased observation and are accounting for perspective by investigation and understanding of the methods, not just the measurements.

To use this an argument to validate a belief system is spurious at best.

 

[BigBen]

To summarise: God exists because we choose to believe he exists.

That doesn't prove or disprove God's existence, but rather falls into that "everything we can't explain or understand is God's work", or the "God did it" theory. This is just a load of crap. Science can't fully explain gravity yet, but science has moved away from the "God does it" stand that was so popular before Newton's time.

I think you may have misunderstood me. I am not making an argument for the existence of God. I was giving you a quick review of human knowledge so you could better understand the place of science in it.

You want to talk about perspective ruling analysis yet you ignore the analysis or observation accounting for perspective.

I addressed that idea directly when I discussed physics and quantum physics and that measurements are only relative to the tools we use to make the measurements, the place we make the measurements and the language used to represent the measurements. Freud pointed out that scientists are human beings and that they have neurosis and that scientific description may be an extreme form of neurosis. I understand that intelligence can now understand to step back and look at intelligence itself, but all we create is more knowledge through observation.

Part of science measurements is about repeatability. If experiment A and B measure the same thing in different ways and result in similar but different answers scientists will then account for these differences. I.e. they are fully aware of biased observation and are accounting for perspective by investigation and understanding of the methods, not just the measurements.

Yes, the purpose of science is to generate observations that are repeatable by everyone who understands scientific method. This idea came around the same time as Newtons Laws of motion. The idea is that no matter who makes the observation as long as they follow scientific method they will get the same result.

Then after that idea came the idea of physics. Physics allowed us to realize that any measurement of the universe is only relative to that place in the universe and the tool used to create the measurement. This idea is still influenced by Aristotelian logic.

What followed that idea was the idea of quantum mechanics and that any model of the universe that does not include the observer is not an accurate model. At this point Aristotelian logic is still present in the workings of formula but the result they are projecting has become very eastern minded and yogic. The idea that we are the reason that the sky is blue would be an idea accepted by the philosophy of quantum mechanics, b/c the observer is now relevant and the observer is a co creator of the universe.

So from this point came relative realism which is the process by which a person acknowledges that the reason anything resembling an objective reality exists is b/c humans are able to observe and communicate and interact with reality, or what we have labeled reality, and other humans due to the similarities we all share in mind and body. By acknowledging this we acknowledge that we are all the same species of animal and have similar enough nervous system with which we observe reality.

All scientists have done when they make 2 observations for the same phenomena in nature using two separate techniques is increase knowledge. Observing these techniques through the nervous system I have described above still places them in the same category as all science. They also create more evidence for fractal theory and the increased rate of knowledge doubling.

To use this an argument to validate a belief system is spurious at best.

I was giving you a history of human knowledge. I think you missed my point and assumed I was arguing with you when I was merely attempting to point out that science is not a perfect mechanism to observe reality b/c it assumes objectivity, and as time passes it is becoming apparent that no such a reality exists. Relative realism is at the forefront of what exists. We can only observe information through our nervous system and sensory neurons. That is the limitation we face. So it becomes obvious that the way we change our observation is to change our nervous systems.

As scientists began to experiment with drugs that change the nervous system it became apparent that no objective reality exists. The only reality that we face is subjective reality. The illusion of objectivity is created because humans all share a similar nervous system. This idea, which is supported by quantum physics and the necessity of an observer, only allows science to create relevant truths. The idea of any universal truth coming form science died with the German existentialists and then the rise of post modernism. This might seem depressing but it is quite the opposite in my opinion. Science can continue to be used to create relevant truths and description for issues that are important to life.

With the idea of relative realism the only real morality/philosophy one can generally adopt may be that we should respect all life because we all have the same right to make observations using different descriptions of reality. Value, like everything we observe in the universe, is subjective.


*You will have to excuse my incorrect recall on the term relative realism. I mistakenly called it relevant realism.*

 

[tim290280]

I think you may have misunderstood me. I am not making an argument for the existence of God. I was giving you a quick review of human knowledge so you could better understand the place of science in it.

I may have done at that. But I still think your summary is flawed. Objectivity isn't as biased as you would claim, and you assume that reality cannot be measured yet physicists and mathematicians have been doing so for years. Have they perfected understanding, no, but they can question it and thus have some understanding. You would have us believe that we cannot understand anything at all.

I addressed that idea directly when I discussed physics and quantum physics and that measurements are only relevant to the tools we use to make the measurements, the place we make the measurements and the language used to represent the measurements. Freud pointed out that scientists are human beings and that they have neurosis and that scientific description may be an extreme form of neurosis. I understand that intelligence can now understand to step back and look at intelligence itself, but all we create is more knowledge through observation.

Sorry but this is incorrect. The influence of perspective of measurements can be understood. You are saying that all we get out of this is more knowledge and are trying to imply that it has no value. I can tell you now that if you understand the mechanism and the types of measurement then you can understand the flaws inherent and thus gain perspective, not make that measurement relative to anything. I've seen a classic example myself. There are several ways to measure soil nutrients, but none accurately describe the actual nutrients due to the flaws in the measurements (the perspective). Yet through comparison of all measures and understanding gained we now can assign understanding and accuracy of measurement. This is true of any field in science.

Yes, the purpose of science is to generate observations that are repeatable by everyone who understands scientific method. This idea came around the same time as Newtons Laws of motion. The idea is that no matter who makes the observation as long as they follow scientific method they will get the same result.

No the purpose of science is to generate understanding through measurement and observation. And no it did not originate in the time of Newton. Science and academic qualifications had existed for ~1000yrs before Newton, the method itself predates that by another 1000yrs (as far as recorded history goes, in truth scientific method may have been a contributor to the rise of writing and numbers, but it likely predates the first noted use of the method).

Then after that idea came the idea of physics. Physics allowed us to realize that any measurement of the universe is only relevant to that place in the universe and the tool used to create the measurement. This idea is still influenced by Aristotelian logic.

I would have said that astronomy was the founder of this. But you seem to place too much emphasis on "relativity" as though that precludes understanding of any kind. Nothing could be further from the truth.

What followed that idea was the idea of quantum mechanics and that any model of the universe that does not include the observer is not an accurate model. At this point Aristotelian logic is still present in the workings of formula but the result they are projecting has become very eastern minded and yogic. The idea that we are the reason that the sky is blue would be an idea accepted by the philosophy of quantum mechanics, b/c the observer is now relevant and the observer is a co creator of the universe.

Ummm not really. You seem to have this muddled. I know we have a couple of physics people here and I'd like them to comment. The model cannot be described without an observer, as you need an end point. You are suggesting something entirely different and have misconstrued the physics involved.

So from this point came relevant realism which is the process by which a person acknowledges that the reason anything resembling an objective reality exists is b/c humans are able to observe and communicate and interact with reality, or what we have labeled reality, and other humans due to the similarities we all share in mind and body. By acknowledging this we acknowledge that we are all the same species of animal and have similar enough nervous system with which we observe reality.

Blah blah. If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?! The answer is that of course it does. Just because we don't observe something happening doesn't mean it doesn't happen. You can wax philisophical about this but to do so intimates that reality is a lie or some other load of crap. If you believe that then the sum of human experience is a pretty shitty reality filled with all sorts of atrocities, if they are all make-believe then kill yourself now as this is a pretty fucked up dream.

All scientists have done when they make 2 observations for the same phenomena in nature using two separate techniques is increase knowledge. Observing these techniques through the nervous system I have described above still places them in the same category as all science. They also create more evidence for fractal theory and the increased rate of knowledge doubling.

Wow. So 2 people did everything in human and science history!?!?! Diversity is involved, you can't ignore it.

I was giving you a history of human knowledge. I think you missed my point and assumed I was arguing with you when I was merely attempting to point out that science is not a perfect mechanism to observe reality b/c it assumes objectivity, and as time passes it is becoming apparent that no such a reality exists. Relevant realism is at the forefront of what exists. We can only observe information through our nervous system and sensory neurons. That is the limitation we face. So it becomes obvious that the way we change our observation is to change our nervous systems.

No I agree science is not perfect, as it too has to evolve as the knowledge evolves. The first distances were measured with an individuals feet and hands, but that has been refined (expect in a couple of backwards countries ) so that when we measure the distance to a star we aren't trying to get a bunch of people to walk to the sun.

As scientists began to experiment with drugs that change the nervous system it became apparent that no objective reality exists. The only reality that we face is subjective reality. The illusion of objectivity is created because humans all share a similar nervous system. This idea, which is supported by quantum physics and the necessity of an observer, only allows science to create relevant truths. The idea of any universal truth coming form science died with the German existentialists and then the rise of post modernism. This might seem depressing but it is quite the opposite in my opinion. Science can continue to be used to create relevant truths and description for issues that are important to life.

Again I think you are misconstruing the physics here. You are also assuming that subjectivity cannot be distilled to an objective reality. You are also assuming that somehow a bias in human makeup is debasing objectivity. It doesn't, but it will make the understanding of things subjective, but this changes as our knowledge evolves. Our understanding of gravity is a classic example of this.

With the idea of relevant realism the only real morality/philosophy one can generally adopt may be that we should respect all life because we all have the same right to make observations using different descriptions of reality. Value, like everything we observe in the universe, is subjective.

So you're saying that we mustn't destroy life? But life requires destruction
By that logic I can't eat anything for fear of destroying reality (gratuitous use of hyperbole)

 

[Hypocrisy86]

The only way we will ever know, is when we pass away, or die. so
shut it.

 

[Anabolicus]

Hypo has spoken lol.

 

[MrChewiebitums]

scobby und shaggy

 

[tim290280]

The only way we will ever know, is when we pass away, or die. so
shut it.

At best we have a level of divinity that will allow us greater enlightenment in an afterlife or brief moment between conservation of energy/soul between stages of transendental paths. At worst this is all an illusion and death would be as meaningless as everything else we have experienced. So even in the two extremes there is little chance you would ever know as it would require the spiritual aspects to be the case and that the creator to want to share all the secrets with you (assuming you would have the interest). Why would the creator share this knowledge unless you were to also become a creator or worthy of becoming so? How could you possibly hope to achieve or exceed the abilities of a creator who's understanding of all things has made existence itself possible?!?!? This would be shear arrogance.

 

[Pickle]

Oh and btw, Jesus never resurrected.

Jesus was cloned. He was all meh ill let one clone be crucified and the other can hang out in a cave until the times right. lollolol

 

[BigBen]

I may have done at that. But I still think your summary is flawed. Objectivity isn't as biased as you would claim, and you assume that reality cannot be measured yet physicists and mathematicians have been doing so for years. Have they perfected understanding, no, but they can question it and thus have some understanding. You would have us believe that we cannot understand anything at all.

You really took everything I have said out of context to make it easier to argue against my points. I agree with what I have made bold in the first paragraph of your response. I would say that we can only think we understand the universe relative to the technique we have used to observe and the language we have used to describe it.

Sorry but this is incorrect. The influence of perspective of measurements can be understood.

No, you just do not agree with it, that does not make it incorrect.

I can tell you now that if you understand the mechanism and the types of measurement then you can understand the flaws inherent and thus gain perspective, not make that measurement relative to anything.

The measurement is always relative to the method used and the observer interpreting the measurement. Scientist are part of the environment they observe. Perspective can only be understood if we compare the method and measurement to other data that we treat as true. The same flaw exists for every comparison we make with this method you have mentioned and that flaw is we must assume one of these flawed techniques for collecting dat is true. Then we are comparing each piece of data with every other piece of data and all data have the same inherit flaw. But Tim, I still think science is by far the most beneficial knowledge humans have created for predicting the reality that we co create. This process has given us useful data, I cannot argue that point, and I am optimistic b/c of it.

I've seen a classic example myself. There are several ways to measure soil nutrients, but none accurately describe the actual nutrients due to the flaws in the measurements (the perspective). Yet through comparison of all measures and understanding gained we now can assign understanding and accuracy of measurement. This is true of any field in science.

I have doubt in some of the aspects of this technique as mentioned above, but you are likely correct, the technique can be used to get a better idea of the relationships between measurements.

No the purpose of science is to generate understanding through measurement and observation. And no it did not originate in the time of Newton. Science and academic qualifications had existed for ~1000yrs before Newton, the method itself predates that by another 1000yrs (as far as recorded history goes, in truth scientific method may have been a contributor to the rise of writing and numbers, but it likely predates the first noted use of the method).

The scientific view grew up in the west between largely due to hermetacists. The scientific view and hermetacism are not in conflict with one another, basically, "find out what happens if you do 'this'." After the hermetic tradition faded into the background and the western world developed a science that had nothing to do with anything but pure reason. This is against the hermetic tradition b/c hermetacism believed their was no such thing as pure reason. First you had to correct any prejudices in the perceiving tool, the person, and then accept that the person is part of the environment that they observe. Then you could begin to approximate towards objectivity.

It was from Newton onward that the idea of 'it does not matter who you are if you follow scientific method you would find the truth,' developed. That idea began to break down after Sigmund Freud who pointed out that,

"scientists were human beings and may experience neurosis. And scientific method may be an extreme form of neurosis."

-Sigmund Freud

Which was followed by,

"Anthropologists reporting on alternative 'reality tunnels' that ended up showing no matter what reality tunnel a person experienced that reality would organize itself to that persons perceptions in order with that reality tunnel."

-Wilson

This is what you were referring to about perception. Science now has data about looking at science itself critically.

I would have said that astronomy was the founder of this. But you seem to place too much emphasis on "relativity" as though that precludes understanding of any kind. Nothing could be further from the truth.

If the measurements scientists take are not relative to anything then what are the purpose of the measurements? Relativity is extremely relevant to the philosophy of science and understanding what scientists are able to measure and understand. This helps avoid over extensions of scientific method.

Ummm not really. You seem to have this muddled. I know we have a couple of physics people here and I'd like them to comment. The model cannot be described without an observer, as you need an end point. You are suggesting something entirely different and have misconstrued the physics involved.

Quantum mechanics allowed physicists to discover that it was not possible to describe the quantum world in terms of Aristotelian logic. One aspect of this is that you cannot accurately describe anything on the quantum level unless you include the observer in your picture. There is no objective reality separate from us. All that we know is the co created reality that we partake in subjectively.

Blah blah. If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?! The answer is that of course it does. Just because we don't observe something happening doesn't mean it doesn't happen. You can wax philisophical about this but to do so intimates that reality is a lie or some other load of crap.

No, the tree does not make a sound b/c their is no nervous system to observe the sound. The observer cannot be taken out of the picture. If a tree falls in the woods and no one is their to intake sensory information then no observations can be made about the tree. If the human nervous system did not allow for auditory sensory input then we would not hear a sound either, or have any idea what the meaning of the word 'sound' meant. This is what causes me to say that the reality we observe and create scientific data about is only relevant to humans and our nervous systems. No Universal truth can ever come from science because we do not experience the universe, universally. The evidence of this is that when people change their nervous systems they change the co created reality they observe, and are able to describe they observe.

If you believe that then the sum of human experience is a pretty shitty reality filled with all sorts of atrocities, if they are all make-believe then kill yourself now as this is a pretty fucked up dream.

If this comment is directed towards me and my personal philosophy then have to say I have always had more of an optimists world view, but still recognize and acknowledge the imperfections in all theory.

Wow. So 2 people did everything in human and science history!?!?! Diversity is involved, you can't ignore it.

My comment was made in reference to the scenario you gave. I know diversity is involved and that was exactly my point. Science is the product of people and their prejudices are getting involved. Scientists cannot just say that they are going to be objective they have to change themselves from within. In order to change themselves from within they have to understand how to do that by gathering information on doing that.

No I agree science is not perfect, as it too has to evolve as the knowledge evolves. The first distances were measured with an individuals feet and hands, but that has been refined (expect in a couple of backwards countries ) so that when we measure the distance to a star we aren't trying to get a bunch of people to walk to the sun.

Americans

Your post makes me think of critical method. The method that scientists are able to further theory through better observations and creating new theory but at the same time keeping all that is still repeatable and accurate from older theory.

Again I think you are misconstruing the physics here. You are also assuming that subjectivity cannot be distilled to an objective reality. You are also assuming that somehow a bias in human makeup is debasing objectivity. It doesn't, but it will make the understanding of things subjective, but this changes as our knowledge evolves. Our understanding of gravity is a classic example of this.

I have addressed this below your quote where you accused me of muddling the philosophy of quantum mechanics.

So you're saying that we mustn't destroy life? But life requires destruction
By that logic I can't eat anything for fear of destroying reality (gratuitous use of hyperbole)

Wait, what? I am saying that no reality tunnel can be used to create a dogmatic world view, and that each person is entitled to their own reality tunnel. The idea is very post modern. You over extended that idea making it seem ridiculous and tried to use that over extension to argue against me. That is just further evidence to support the claim that each person will co create reality with their specific reality tunnel and that reality will change to meet the understanding that reality tunnel allows.

 

[tim290280]

^^ I haven't time to address this in point form now. But I do want to point out that you have again misunderstood a lot of what you have been using as your argument material.

Firstly is the origins of the scientific method and how it evolved. As I stated it is much older than you are insinuating and it is not bound by subjectivity as you would like to believe. The very fact that you can use several measures and arrive at the same conclusion for most science observations proves this point.

Second is the physics thing. I will paraphrase an article I was reading today in New Scientist: We can't be in two places at once as quantum mechanics works on subatomic particles while large objects are "rippled" by them. I have previously been led to understand that multidimensionality (outside of our current 3, 4 if you count time) is not actually being experienced as something about the universe's energy state requires 3D for stasis. Now I'm not a physics person but this basically throws most of your argument straight out the window as you are perverting the theory to support your argument.

And yes the tree has to make a sound. The conservation of energy requires that the force generated from the fall be converted into something. Some of this is invariably sound. Just because it isn't perceived doesn't mean that the entirity of physics breaks down.

 

[Deathmaggot]

quite hot topic!

BigBen, if a falling tree doesnt make any sound just because no "human ears" are listening, why do you believe in god if no "human eyes" can see him?

*movies doesnt count*

i consider myself a scientific defender, despite im not very knowledged about it and i cant explain myself as good as tim does.
Science makes human progress, motivates us to discover, learn and change our world.
In the opposite, religion anchor us to the past, teaching old theories based just on myths, with the fear as his biggest weapon to dominate people.

anything based on fear wont work.

@quantum mechanics, it will be interesting to see how things develop in the nexxxxt years, im interested in the topic despite i watch it very very abstract.

 

[Hypocrisy86]

At best we have a level of divinity that will allow us greater enlightenment in an afterlife or brief moment between conservation of energy/soul between stages of transendental paths. At worst this is all an illusion and death would be as meaningless as everything else we have experienced. So even in the two extremes there is little chance you would ever know as it would require the spiritual aspects to be the case and that the creator to want to share all the secrets with you (assuming you would have the interest). Why would the creator share this knowledge unless you were to also become a creator or worthy of becoming so? How could you possibly hope to achieve or exceed the abilities of a creator who's understanding of all things has made existence itself possible?!?!? This would be shear arrogance.

The Matrix.

 

[lifterdead]

Tim seems to be handling this one well but I'll put in my two cents tomorrow when I have time. Either way Ben, the essence of my argument is that you're misconstruing some basic science....

 

[BigBen]

^^ I haven't time to address this in point form now. But I do want to point out that you have again misunderstood a lot of what you have been using as your argument material.

I think we have not had clear communication.

Firstly is the origins of the scientific method and how it evolved. As I stated it is much older than you are insinuating and it is not bound by subjectivity as you would like to believe. The very fact that you can use several measures and arrive at the same conclusion for most science observations proves this point.

Modern day science was largely influenced by the hermetic movement. How can science not be bound by subjectivity, that is the only experience humans have is subjectivity. We compare subjective experiences and equate things that are similar.

I do not think we are communicating with each other properly b/c my points are widely accepted in the philosophy field. These ideas are not my own they are ideas of scientific and social philosophers that are widely accepted in those fields.

Second is the physics thing. I will paraphrase an article I was reading today in New Scientist: We can't be in two places at once as quantum mechanics works on subatomic particles while large objects are "rippled" by them. I have previously been led to understand that multidimensionality (outside of our current 3, 4 if you count time) is not actually being experienced as something about the universe's energy state requires 3D for stasis. Now I'm not a physics person but this basically throws most of your argument straight out the window as you are perverting the theory to support your argument.

I understand that quantum physics describes the subatomic level. I might not be getting my point across clearly enough. I think that you think I am saying something that would seem like quackery to me if I heard it. I would like you to tell me what you think I am saying so I can clear up any communication issues we are having.

And yes the tree has to make a sound. The conservation of energy requires that the force generated from the fall be converted into something. Some of this is invariably sound. Just because it isn't perceived doesn't mean that the entirity of physics breaks down.

I was not saying that physics break down. I think you categorized my arguments incorrectly and continue to read them to make your categorization of what I am saying as true to your categorizing. You are not grasping what I am saying, or I am communicating poorly.

You are grouping the matter of the trees interaction with other matter, and the observation of the physics from an organisms nervous system who can observe the event in a manner consistent with human senses.

This is what I am trying to get across. You must separate these concepts further. The matter of the tree interacts with the matter around it, but a sound is only relevant to the organisms that have the sensory neurons to observe sound. A tree only makes a noise if the noise can be observed. If you wanted to say the matter of the tree interacts with the matter around it and the results are this, the descriptions of physics, then that is something I could accept. But a sound must be observed by a nervous system for observing sound for it to occur. A sound and what you are saying are two separate ideas. The idea that physics breaks down b/c their is not an observer is not what I am saying. I am saying that sound can only be observed by life that has sensory neurons to observe the sounds.

Physics do not have to break down for that point to be widely accepted, b/c the point is widely accepted. Their is no reality separate from us, the only reality we can learn anything about is the reality we are co creators of, the reality conceived, perceived by our nervous systems.

 

[BigBen]

quite hot topic!

BigBen, if a falling tree doesnt make any sound just because no "human ears" are listening, why do you believe in god if no "human eyes" can see him?

You personalize an attack based on information that is no longer true. I would say I have a general agnosticism about every theory of human knowledge. You are trying to discredit my argument by attacking me personally. I do not believe in god. Where are you coming from with this post? You assumed I am defending religion b.c i pointed out flaws in science? That is wrong. You are making errors and misrepresenting me and my beliefs. I suggest you reread my posts b.c you have not understood the points I am making and further more you could not more incorrect about my belief system.

*movies doesnt count*

i consider myself a scientific defender, despite im not very knowledged about it and i cant explain myself as good as tim does.
Science makes human progress, motivates us to discover, learn and change our world.
In the opposite, religion anchor us to the past, teaching old theories based just on myths, with the fear as his biggest weapon to dominate people.

anything based on fear wont work.

 

[tim290280]

*sigh*

Ben the tree has to make "sound". THe energy that it creates is dissippated as a range of wavelengths across the entire spectrum. This ranges from heat to light. This conservation of energy occurs. This occurs regardless of whether we observe it or not. E.g. we do not see ultrviolet wavelenths from the tree falling but they do occur.

And I do understand your points. But the problem is that they are that crappy psuedo-interrlectual philosophy junk that LSD addicts came up with. "We are one and we are nothing". If our experience cannot be quantified or is purely relative then by that very statement we cannot believe anything. Therefore I can stop believeing in gravity and...... oh wait I'm still stuck to the ground. But I stopped believeing in gravity!!!!

 

[SerbMarko]

It's pointless to even debate on this topic..