The Moon and Design

Originally posted by twhitehead...
The universe appears to follow certain very strict rules of conservation. But within those rules, it seems anything is possible, and there is no direct causation going on....

I understand the concept of conservation, and that within that concept 'anything' is possible; but don't understand why any you claim that within a universe "there is no direct causation going on".

The concept of cause and effect are fundamental to our understanding natural reality. If anything happens within our universe, they happen for reasons, and causes are implicated. There is no way that we do not always search for the causes of events (if we wish to understand them). That's the 'period!' I think you've heard from chaney.

But I thought the issue was the origin of universe, the BB idea (that you have shined some light upon (for me anyway)). Anyway, the idea I'm talking about is that our universe (or the multi-verse) came from nothing and was uncaused. In that case, why is it that the uncaused appearance of universes is copacetic, but the uncaused appearance of magic giant turtles is not? Clearly there must be reasons for that prejudice! There must be rules that say new universes are okay but new magic turtles are not. And so causes are implicated, even with the formation of new universes.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
You have a point there - if (and only if) you can explain from where the turtle and the four elephants magically came into existence....

If that new giant turtle needs explained, then so does the new universe. And as you say, 'it just happened' is not good enough.

Originally posted by FabianFnas...
How the universe came into being is a scientific question in the Science Forum and a spiritual question in the Spiritual Forum. But you cannot ever discuss science in religious terms and religion in scientific terms.

See what happened with chaneys opinion that solar eclipses is designed by someone...[/b]

Science and religion are separate issues, sure, but they are not completely disconnected at all. Your last sentence, don't you dare give me guilt by association. 😉

Originally posted by humy
I take the word "magic" as meaning whatever we have reason to think cannot happen or doesn't exist so "magic" almost equates with "causally impossible" although...

I take the word 'magic' to mean see Arthur C. Clark. 🙂

"Supernatural is just nature we don't understand yet."
apathist

Originally posted by twhitehead
The biggest problem with the whole discussion is it is far from clear what is meant by 'universe' in given contexts.

As far as we know, space and time are properties of the universe, not properties of some container the universe is in. Now it is possible that what we call the universe is some subset of a larger entity with similar properties, or it could be the properties are continuous across the larger entity and the observable universe. But its far from being a given.

Agreed. And its problematic trying to pin down the best way to define the terms. 'Universe' should mean 'everything that exists'. But there are the concepts of 'observable universe', 'pocket (or bubble) universe', and 'multiverse'. I'd say the universe is the observable universe because we can never interact with those hypothetical other pocket universes - except that maybe there are interactions between them that we don't know about and which therefore move faster than light. Good fun! I like words.

Anyone who talks of causation with respect to the whole of reality, is being incoherent.
Disagree. Our universe may be eternal and has never not existed and so the question of 'primary' cause is moot.

But if it did have a beginning, then of course our understanding of 'cause and effect' which as you say are properties within our universe wouldn't apply. But something analogous would.

Stretch your imagination and climb into this futuristic time-machine that will take us back to before our universe (or the multiverse) existed. Stretch! Now, would logic cease to exist?

Its rather like asking how tall the sun is. Height is a concept that only applies to objects on earth. Time an causation are properties of the universe and do not apply to the universe as a whole. Its a category error.
Call it ubercausation then. Or hypercausation. Or that which must exist in order to birth a freaking mutiverse.

Whatever floats the boat.

Originally posted by apathist
Science and religion are separate issues, sure, but they are not completely disconnected at all. Your last sentence, don't you dare give me guilt by association. 😉

What is the connection between science and religion? I don't see any. Perhaps I am just stuck within my box of opinion.

And ... sorry. Guilt is a religious term so please don't feel any of ... such.

Originally posted by apathist
But if it did have a beginning, then of course our understanding of 'cause and effect' which as you say are properties within our universe wouldn't apply. But something analogous would.

Stretch your imagination and climb into this futuristic time-machine that will take us back to before our universe (or the multiverse) existed. Stretch! Now, would logic cease to exist?

And that is exactly what I am disputing, and it is all on you to demonstrate why your claim should be even considered. Its not about having an over active imagination. Imagining fairies does not make them more plausible.

If time is finite, then talk of 'before' time is simply incoherent.

Call it ubercausation then. Or hypercausation. Or that which must exist in order to birth a freaking mutiverse.

Whatever floats the boat.
The problem is, without the sea, talk of floating boats is simply incoherent. You are presuming something when you talk of 'birth' the universe. You are presuming a 'hyper time' with absolutely no justification for making such a presumption. To then use such a presumption to draw conclusions is jumping out of the boat.

To understand the problem of exceeding dimensions, consider the question of what is outside space. Lets assume space is finite. There is still no such thing as an edge of space or a 'beyond'. Its incoherent. There may be other spaces. But they are not in a position relative to our own as measured using our dimensions.

Asking what came before time, is like asking what is to the left of the universe.

Originally posted by twhitehead...
The problem is, without the sea, talk of floating boats is simply incoherent. You are presuming something when you talk of 'birth' the universe. You are presuming a 'hyper time' with absolutely no justification for making such a presumption. To then use such a presumption to draw conclusions is jumping out of the boat.

You are exhausting, tw. It seems to me that either you lack imagination, or more likely you are in the eternal camp. Me too. Although it may not be our universe (or multiverse) which had no beginning, but the uberverse! Or the uberuberverse! But anyway, yeah reality was, is, and will be.

Edge of universe, ends of time; if there is a boundary, then there are two sides. Which just stacks the turtles up, if you see what I mean.

Originally posted by apathist
I understand the concept of conservation, and that within that concept 'anything' is possible; but don't understand why any you claim that within a universe "there is no direct causation going on".

You are looking only at the macro world, where the rules of conservation rule supreme. You do not disappear in a puff of smoke because so many properties must be conserved. Conservation IS causation.
But look down at the quantum level and you see a very different picture. Particles are moving around, changing, from one type to another all seemingly at random - but within certain prescribed limits constrained by the laws of conservation. So an election cannot become a positron as charge would not be conserved. But a neutrino can quite happily become an electron and positron. There are constraints on when and where this might happen, but to say the change was 'caused' is a bit of a stretch.

That's the 'period!' I think you've heard from chaney.
And Cheney, as usual, makes statements without justification. Can you do better?

But I thought the issue was the origin of universe, the BB idea (that you have shined some light upon (for me anyway)). Anyway, the idea I'm talking about is that our universe (or the multi-verse) came from nothing and was uncaused.
And I dispute the 'came from nothing' as being incoherent. If time is a property of the universe, then there is no 'before' and therefore no 'came' and no 'nothing'.
You are, in your minds eye, imagining a large 'reality' in which sits a universe. This is not an easily justifiable position.

I realise that in this post there are two different arguments I am pursing. I hope it is not confusing. One is that there may be no 'before' and the other is assuming there is a before, what can we conclude from that.

In that case, why is it that the uncaused appearance of universes is copacetic, but the uncaused appearance of magic giant turtles is not?
I already explained that. In your minds eye of a super verse where universes are poping into existence, it seems reasonable to think there are nevertheless some constraints - say conservation of energy for example. If no such constraints exist, then sure, giant turtles seems perfectly reasonable. Yet you reject them for some reason do you not?

Clearly there must be reasons for that prejudice! There must be rules that say new universes are okay but new magic turtles are not. And so causes are implicated, even with the formation of new universes.
Rules does not equal causation.

If I throw a six sided die, there is a hard and fast rule that it will show one of six numbers. Is the resulting '3' therefore 'caused' by that rule?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
What is the connection between science and religion? I don't see any. Perhaps I am just stuck within my box of opinion.

And ... sorry. Guilt is a religious term so please don't feel any of ... such.

Well, same roots, for example. Both quest for understanding. Both involve spirituality, including faith. There's more; google what do religion and science have in common.

Why is guilt not a secular or pagan term as well as a religious term?

Originally posted by apathist
Well, same roots, for example. Both quest for understanding. Both involve spirituality, including faith. There's more; google what do religion and science have in common.

Why is guilt not a secular or pagan term as well as a religious term?

Same root? Perhaps from the beginning, but not today.
Quest for understanding? 'Goddidit' is not understanding.
Science doesn't involve spirituality. You cannot pray your way to a desired result in a scientific experience.
I will google.

'Guilt' is used so much in the spiritual world...

Edit: I did some googling and found a lot of opinions. Many christians wanting their 'truths' to be scientific, but aren't.
Every experiment based in religion has failed. Like the one when two groups with terminal cancer of which one was over without the members of that group knew about it. Which one had better chance to survive? None. The proof was that God didn't hear prays. My conclusion: It is as easy to prove things in religion as it is in astrology, numerology, reading cards etc. So science is one thing, religion another.
Give me an example that religion can be proven, or that an scientific experiment can be influenced by religion, I might change opinion. Until then I am convinced that there is a barrier between the two.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Same root? Perhaps from the beginning, but not today.

Roots are roots. They both began as part of philosophy. They follow different paths today, that is true of course.

Quest for understanding? 'Goddidit' is not understanding.
I agree, that would be a lousy explanation for anything. As a pagan, though, I'm a bit more sympathetic. Ignore the bible-thumpers and we have people searching for meaning. This is a spiritual thing, and scientists do this too.

Science doesn't involve spirituality. You cannot pray your way to a desired result in a scientific experience.
True, science doesn't involve prayer.

'Guilt' is used so much in the spiritual world...
Not accurate. It is heavily involved in some religions. Spirituality is not about guilt at all.

The proof was that God didn't hear prays.
Correct. Intercessory prayer does not work. Other types of prayer, though, are just forms of meditation which does have proven positive effects.

Give me an example that religion can be proven,
I think I just did. If we realize that while religion involves spirituality, we shouldn't conflate the two.

or that an scientific experiment can be influenced by religion,
Can't do that of course. But scientists are guided by spirituality, including a sense of wonder, a search for understanding and meaning, and a sort of faith in the natural world. Many scientists are religious, you know that, right? And many theists are comfortable with science. Really, it's important to not let our opinion of theism be corrupted by our culture's immersion in christianity (or islam) which are fairly rotten examples of the genre. I blame abraham.

Anyway, thx for having an open mind and I hope that doesn't change.

Originally posted by apathist
I take the word 'magic' to mean [b]see Arthur C. Clark. 🙂

"Supernatural is just nature we don't understand yet."
apathist[/b]

don't know what that has to do with "magic" not equating with "causeless". Besides, he was wrong if he said that; I can think of many things we didn't understand yet that we don't call supernatural. Like what causes high temperature superconductivity, or what exactly was the religious motive for the latest suicide attack in England. Here is two of my personal quotes I made a few years ago;

" You can, without the slightest effort of thought, easily explain anything away with a god or magic or the supernatural.
But, for a real explanation, you must do a lot better than that.
Real explanations requires real thinking. "

" Magic means it is impossible therefore if it happens its not magic. "

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Same root? Perhaps from the beginning, but not today.
Quest for understanding? 'Goddidit' is not understanding.
Science doesn't involve spirituality. You cannot pray your way to a desired result in a scientific experience.
I will google.

'Guilt' is used so much in the spiritual world...

Edit: I did some googling and found a lot of opinions. Many ...[text shortened]... gion, I might change opinion. Until then I am convinced that there is a barrier between the two.

Spirituality is not just prayer. It's a much deeper concept. Einstein was an atheist by every account, but one of his well-known quotes conflates religion with curiosity, or an aspiration towards truth and understanding.

“Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” - Einstein

In other words, science requires faith in reason. Scientific progress also requires a recognition of the added value to mankind that the knowledge creates (otherwise it isn't progress). The drive/desire/passion/[whatever you want to call it] to understand is a sort of religious dogma.

There's a lot of good literature on the subject too, in addition to the clearly misguided attempts in this thread to view scientific advances through the prism of ancient religious texts. See Stephen Jay Gould's Rocks of Ages. "Religion, on the other hand, operates in the equally important, but utterly different, realm of human purposes, meanings, and values—subjects that the factual domain of science might illuminate, but can never resolve."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria