BS: Logic and the laws of science

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Joe Offer
Date: 16 Jun 16 - 01:19 PM

Snail says: Saying that nature follows the laws implies that the laws pre-exist and, as I said at the outset, that sounds dangerously close to intelligent design.

And we mustn't lead anyone into Wrong Thinking by our casual use of language, right? So, of course we must complicate our language into gobbledy-gook, lest someone get a Wrong Thought.

Precious.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: TheSnail
Date: 16 Jun 16 - 02:12 PM

Joe, after some thought, I responded to what you said in your opening post. I'm sorry you don't like the answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Jun 16 - 02:26 PM

To experience like a child is good but is only like the forward to the introduction of seeing with all your being

There are viewpoints, keys to locks of perception, phrases and emotions and scratch the surface more deeply than being child like;

To see with better eyes.

Trust the subconscious, but verify.

Collate by things that are similar vs stand alone phenomena that have no simile and as a result may be invisible to others.

The subconscious will require translation. For some it is geometric, for others a transcendent image.

Try to learn everything on the shelf of multiple disciplines.

If you can obey the rules, do it.
If you can't, don't. One operators manual does not work for all brains.

Hard work and good sleep.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Jun 16 - 03:04 PM

Joe you should be thankful to Snail. Without a foil or a soundboard of an old familiar wood you could not compare soundscapes and recombinant tones we can make only today.

Gobbledygook has alternative meaning as a tool in propaganda, brain washing and hypnosis that may go beyond your knowledge or usage.
It is a psychological distraction that draws a person away from conscious listening and briefly brings the subconscious mind to bear when a sudden clear and understandable command is given more imperative power.

It is also just means gobbledygook.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Joe Offer
Date: 16 Jun 16 - 03:55 PM

Well, looking back through the thread, I guess what I'm saying is that I see a harmony in the universe, that things interact in marvelous ways. And that maybe it would be a good idea for us all to act in harmony with the universe, for the purpose of mutual growth and survival.

But as Snail said at the outset (whenever that was), "that sounds dangerously close to intelligent design."

Or not. Maybe things work together in a rational manner simply because otherwise, they would cease to function.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Ed T
Date: 16 Jun 16 - 04:53 PM

Could our universe be located within the interior of a wormhole which itself is part of a black hole that lies within a much larger universe?




part of something else? 

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Lighter
Date: 16 Jun 16 - 05:26 PM

> Could our universe be located within the...

Sure, why not?

The hot new theory is that ours is just a holographic projection of a two-dimensional space.

Yawn. Other U's might be more exotic still.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Ed T
Date: 16 Jun 16 - 05:30 PM

"The first person to think of the universe as a great organism was the Greek philosopher Anaxagoras, but the idea of ​​the universe as a living organism was largely formulated by Plato, then by the Stoics, Plotinus and Neoplatonism.

According to the "organismic" view, the structures that make up the universe, galaxies, black holes, quasars, stars, nebulae, planets and us included, should be considered as the tissue of a living giant, something as the parts of the body of the universe."

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Lighter
Date: 16 Jun 16 - 05:35 PM

Those are cosmologists talking, not philosophers or theologians. They use studies and equations that keep the false premises to a minimum.

However, what you see in the cosmos is usually what you get.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jun 16 - 05:49 PM

"The theory (as I would have it) of evolution and the subsequent theory of natural selection are undoubtedly the best explanations we have of the diversity and complexity of life that we see around us. They are probably the best explanations we will ever have."

Agreed, except that "the theory of evolution" is actually "the theory of evolution by natural selection." I agree with "probably." The beauty of science is that "probably" is as good as it ever gets. Other areas of human endeavour that espouse unwarranted certainty can be so ugly in comparison, in the ways they entrap millions of people.

"My objection is to either or both of them being referred to as "True" which converts them into a quasi-religious belief system and removes them from science."

Well I also object to theories being called true. Unfortunately, you are still refusing to understand my point about evolution being an incontrovertible natural phenomenon. That's the starting point for scientific investigation, and the scientific investigation of evolution has been one of the greatest triumphs of humanity. In stark contrast, religious belief systems, quasi or not, can't be subjected to the scientific process because they all start with a premise that has deliberately been put beyond rational investigation. To claim that my statement that "evolution is true" is putting it on a quasi-religious footing is patently ridiculous, and places you precisely and fully in pete's camp.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jun 16 - 06:23 PM

As for those pesky crows, well there's the ordinary black jobbie, Corvus corone. And then there's the hoodie. What of the hoodie? Well, I have a good few old natural history books that regard the hooded crow as a geographical race of the black jobbie. After all, it interbreeds very successfully with the common crow. In more recent years, the hoodie has managed to attain specieshood, as Corvus cornix. The great thing about the hoodie is that it isn't remotely what you might call black. Isn't science fun!

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Janie
Date: 16 Jun 16 - 07:48 PM

Joe - "Maybe things work together in a rational manner simply because otherwise, they would cease to function."

Don't want to get into nitpicking language, but I think you may have the cart before the horse. Seems to me that rational thought and logic are methods of thinking that can help us understand how or why 'things' happen and to predict or understand the interaction among different 'things.'   

Things do cease to function. Using logic or reason is/are tools for understanding the processes involved, but are not the processes.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Jun 16 - 10:44 PM

It is wonderful that so many great people are wondering where we are, where are we going, where did we come from and the most audacious question of all (beyond any known measurement) - WHY.

From all we learn, will the universe ever seem logical to a human brain? I DON'T KNOW

Is logic meaningful to only us as a tool to refine our understanding of certain disconnected relationships that repeat everywhere we look for them? YES.

What is great is that we continue to move from being self aware to become Universe aware.

Many of these ideas are not as practical as making a bird house but the amazing thing is we can do both at the same time.

We all have a different knowledge base and different abilities to animate knowledge in our mind's eye. A trick that I enjoy is Perspectivism. Put your self in Newton's skull but with all the knowledge gained since his death. Now animate what he may see as a galaxy with seen and unseen mass with all its structures corkscrewing around a loci of a super massive black hole.

What would Einstein see?

Some people do this with super computers, and others dream while awake.

There is uncertainly if space is too enormous to understand our home.
We seem to live at the fulcrum between the massive and Plank smallness.

From our point of view space time is short for our species, our
planet, our galaxy as well as for our
entire cosmos when it under goes an inevitable state change.

While the questions outnumber the answers, I am certain that surprises are yet to come.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Jun 16 - 12:26 AM

Janie says: I think you may have the cart before the horse. Seems to me that rational thought and logic are methods of thinking that can help us understand how or why 'things' happen and to predict or understand the interaction among different 'things.'   
Things do cease to function. Using logic or reason is/are tools for understanding the processes involved, but are not the processes.

Could it be that the cart and the horse are interchangeable? I'm sure there are those here who will disagree, but I think it's almost always true that 2+2=4. But then, it's also almost always true that 4=2+2. Nature follows patterns, and the patterns have a mathematical relationship. And for the most part, math=logic and logic=math. One can describe the processes of nature mathematically or logically, but one can also predict the processes of nature mathematically or logically.

I'm reaching for a little bit more, and I don't know that I've got it. It seems to me that logic and math follow patterns that "work"; and that functions of nature also follow patterns that "work" beneficially most of the time, although they sometimes fail so abysmally that they cease to exist.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jun 16 - 02:48 AM

Mathematics and systems of logic are servomechanisms for living thought. There are zones of thought where there usefulness and applicability are outstripped, but they are extremely useful in calculating how things run in a spacetime continuum. That does not mean that there are no other domains.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: TheSnail
Date: 17 Jun 16 - 07:06 AM

Steve, in a post yesterday I remarked that "You do have a bit of a track record of not seeing things I've said if they don't suit you". You may not have seen it because you seem to have completely ignored the post it was in.

Please read and respond to my post of 16 Jun 16 - 09:00 AM. It's the one with the quote from Darwin in it.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Lighter
Date: 17 Jun 16 - 07:59 AM

Let's remember that "logic" can mean the method of understanding as well as the phenomena itself ("the logic of nature").

Context makes the difference.

In fact, it's often forgotten context is essential to our understanding of all language.

Clarity isn't always easy.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jun 16 - 08:17 AM

I honestly don't know what you're driving at. I do try to take things on head-on. I don't know whether you just want to play devil's advocate forever, or whether you really think that evolution may be false, and you will insist on conflating a phenomenon that has been going on since Johnny Cyanobacterium was a lad with the slightly more recent valiant attempts of modern science to explain it. You seem only to believe in solid things that you can touch and smell. Well, if you saw my apple tree you'd only know it was truly an apple tree if you had a little knowledge. Many people wouldn't know what it was if they saw it only in winter or early spring. When it comes to evolution both you and I have more then a little knowledge. So, like Dawkins, I'm confident enough to stick my head over the parapet and declare that evolution is a true phenomenon of the planet Earth. The challenge FROM THAT POINT ON is to explain it. Explain it, not confirm it. It doesn't need confirming. The trouble is, like lots of other people, you allow the Petes of this world to sucker you in to arguing the fat on their territory. Bad idea. I have to make some pesto. None of that muck in little jars for me. See you later.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Jun 16 - 08:31 AM

I think you are right, Amos. It seems perfectly possible there are things inherently beyond mathematics and science, not just beyond them at the moment. For the sake of clarity I do think you can apply the scientific method to anything you want to investigate. It is simply not self evident that the process will always produce coherent results however hard we try.

Please don't bother asking for examples as I accept there may be none. I am uncertain: if I had an example I wouldn't be!

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Jun 16 - 11:50 AM

"... "that sounds dangerously close to intelligent design."

Here's how logic works:

IF there were actually intelligent design as the basis of how the Universe began, THEN a generic metaphysical/religious theory would be logical....

IF there was NOT any intelligent design, and the Universe 'just happened' and proceeded according to physical 'laws', THEN explanations based on scientific principles would be logical.

Because we weren't around to observe, we can never prove either theory 100%. Thus, we can only observe...umm... what we can observe.

This leads to some just deciding to observe & measure.... but that process is obviously tremendously difficult & never-ending. Attributing 'intelligent design' also leads to speculating ABOUT the nature of a designer, which is also subject to the obvious differences of opinion.

So.... in the case of we humans, what sounds 'logical' is a matter of choosing our premises.... and logic itself can be debated as to the proper way to choose premises.

I have MY opinions as to what premises are best accepted and avoided....

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Lighter
Date: 17 Jun 16 - 12:22 PM

> I have MY opinions as to what premises are best accepted and avoided....

So do we just believe what we want to believe, i.e. what makes us feel good about things and ourselves.

If so, *should* we just believe...?

If not, have we any choice anyway? Are thoughts determined solely by chemical reactions in the brain?

What does radical uncertainty tell us in any case? Is it anything useful?

Just askin'.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: TheSnail
Date: 17 Jun 16 - 12:54 PM

Bill D
proceeded according to physical 'laws'

Hmmm... Still not happy with that. Sounds as if the 'laws' came first and the Universe follows them. Where did those 'laws' come from?

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Jun 16 - 12:57 PM

Are thoughts determined solely by chemical reactions in the brain?

As I know full well, both Bill and Lighter are well aware that this has been a philosophical puzzle for a heck of a long time. A mechanistic view of the universe has always been a problem if you also think free will exists.

Fortunately, we have relatively recently discovered a possible way out of this. Research around 2009 strongly suggests avian eyes make use of effects at the quantum level. IF that is true, it at least opens the door to the possibility of quantum effects in other biological components, which fits quite nicely with some ideas Bill mentioned to me about free will.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jun 16 - 01:07 PM

What has belief got to do with it? I also have opinions on what premises are BEST ACCEPTED and which ones are best avoided. The ones I avoid, no matter how comforting and plausible they sound, are the ones with no evidence to support them and the ones I feel are BEST ACCEPTED are the ones with plenty of evidence to back them up. I'm fairly strict with myself as to what constitutes evidence, too.

Snail, the "laws" can't come before their stuff they're supposed to have following them. The laws are descriptions of the way things are. You can't have the laws without the things. Duh.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jun 16 - 01:17 PM

Thoughts may well be solely produced by chemical reactions in the brain. The Pastoral Symphony may well be solely produced by a mass of vibrations, originating from various body parts blowing, plucking and banging things, passing through the air.

Or we could enjoy life.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Jun 16 - 01:39 PM

Or we could enjoy life.

Indeed. But some odd people, like me, find these sorts of questions *are* a way of enjoying life!

I was thinking back a few days ago about what was my earliest remembered thought (which is not, of course, the same as my earliest memory). I can date it precisely, because it was a Christmas day, when I was three and a quarter, and the thought was "Isn't it funny how memory works?"

No hope for some people, from the outset ....

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Lighter
Date: 17 Jun 16 - 02:03 PM

> Where did those 'laws' come from?

The same place the universe comes from. They're baked in, part and parcel, inextricable. An essential feature of the universe is its very operation.

Unless we find out otherwise, which should go without saying.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Lighter
Date: 17 Jun 16 - 02:12 PM

> the possibility of quantum effects in other biological components

This isn't necessarily a good thing for free will, D.

If quantum effects are random, our sense of free will is then at the mercy of both macro determinism and micro randomness! Ouch!

I'm not sure it matters whether free will exists or not.

Our minds tell us that we have it, whether we do or we don't.

If I have no free will, and I "decide" I do, I still don't.

If I have free will, and decide I don't, I still do.

Life goes on much the same either way.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jun 16 - 02:23 PM

I suggest, Mister Day, that both conditions are partially true, and neither absolutely true. Any grownup comes to recognize that life situations are conflations of different vectors, and gradient conditions rather than Manichean (binary) conditions.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: TheSnail
Date: 17 Jun 16 - 02:25 PM

Snail, the "laws" can't come before their stuff they're supposed to have following them.

Precisely, Steve. That was my point. That was why I wasn't happy with Bill's statement.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Jun 16 - 02:40 PM

Steve Shaw says: Snail, the "laws" can't come before their stuff they're supposed to have following them. The laws are descriptions of the way things are. You can't have the laws without the things. Duh.

The "laws" are principles inherent within the "stuff." So, the "stuff" and the "laws" happen at the same time. And the laws, being inherent principles, are there whether some human defines them or not. Duh.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Lighter
Date: 17 Jun 16 - 02:41 PM

> Any grownup comes to recognize that life situations are conflations of different vectors, and gradient conditions rather than Manichean (binary) conditions.

I've been called many things, including "grownup."

But be that as it may. It may take some doing to prove that having a little free will, or a kind of free will, or intermittent free will, etc., is different, in trying to establish its existence or non-existence, from "having free will."

The issue right now is whether it exists at all.

If we conclude that it does, then we can puzzle profitably over just how much we have or need and why.

If you've concluded that we do have a dab or more of free will, please tell us how you know. Perhaps we'll be persuaded.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: TheSnail
Date: 17 Jun 16 - 02:55 PM

Well done Joe. It's quite simple to get right without talking "gobbledy-gook".

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Jun 16 - 03:06 PM

Correction.
The number of chromosomes is actually a poor indicator of complexity.

Counting the number of gene base pairs is better
Humans have 3.2 million gene base pairs
Octopus 2.9 million gene base pairs - but 3 times as many neuronal pairs 162 to human 68

My original contention that Joe was really letting intelligent design in through the back door past the hallway of logic and into BSstill works.

Joe are you afraid that if intelligent design rang the front doorbell, all the neighbors would see? Fuggetaboutit.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jun 16 - 03:50 PM

Well, what I would say is that life as we experience it is a melange of free will exericing in a deterministic spacetime continuum. Life or thought or free will itself tends to be counter-entropic, bringing order, while the mechanisms of the physical continuum tend to be entropic, bringing collapse, uniform distribution of energy, dissipation, condensation, and so on. A lump of coal is almost all deterministic, entropic, and left to its own devices will just decay. On the other hand the fired-up imagination of a young man in love is creative, seeking new ways of bringing order, and expansive; and seems to be full of inspired free will. Creative thought is a force to be reckoned with, and so are the predictable reactions of physics and chemistry, including entropy.

The normal quotidien human condition is a mixture of both--some days free will reigns, some days entropy steals a base and free will is disappointed. Any snapshot of such life is somewhere on a gradient spectrum from complete entropy to complete free-spirited will. Trying to resolve the complexities of the universe by claiming that the presence of either one nullifies the presence of the other is --to me-- over simplistic and naive.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: TheSnail
Date: 17 Jun 16 - 05:20 PM

OK, back to the Evolution.

I warn you, I'm in a bad mood. Southern Railways seem to have given up on the idea of actually running trains so this is not the evening I planned.

Steve Shaw
I honestly don't know what you're driving at.
Well let's face it Steve, you don't actually try very hard do you? After all, you KNOW.

I may have to take this a bit at a time. Couple of points to tidy up.
or whether you really think that evolution may be false
I have denied that so many times that I don't know whether you are too stupid to take the point on board or if it is simply a devious attempt on your part to discredit my arguments. Those seem to be the only choices.

The trouble is, like lots of other people, you allow the Petes of this world to sucker you in to arguing the fat on their territory.
Why do you have to do that sort of thing, Steve? Are you really that desperate to avoid engaging in intelligent debate that you need to resort to this crap? You claim to be a scientist. Behave like one. Debate the issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jun 16 - 06:23 PM

Gosh, you are in a moody. Do you ever engage with what I'm driving at? It's really very simple. We have a thing called evolution. I'm not going to debate its existence with Pete, Jehovah's Witnesses, you or anyone else. As far as I'm concerned, evolution is a phenomenon of planet Earth almost as old as Earth itself. There is no other process that could have led to life and its amazing diversity. Now evolution doesn't need human beings around. It's here, with us or without us. Just like the planet Earth itself, or Mount Everest, or my apple tree. Well I suppose some human or other (me) had to plant that tree, but apple trees in general get on very well without us. It doesn't take a scientist or the scientific method to confirm evolution, because evolution was going on its merry way millions of years before there were any scientists or a scientific method. When we came along, eventually we discerned that evolution seemed a good way of explaining life on Earth, so, with our insatiable curiosity, and applying as best we could the scientific process, we started trying to explain it. That meant having a theory. As it happens, it's a really good theory, so good that it is unlikely ever to be overturned, though never say never. But if an alternative theory does eventually gain the ascendancy, it will still be explaining the self-same phenomenon, not a different or modified one. We can modify the explanation, and we do, but we don't modify the phenomenon (well, except when we indulge in artificial selection, a process that strengthens the explanation, as it happens).

When I say I won't debate its existence, it means I don't regarded the phenomenon of evolution as science. I don't regard Mount Everest as science. There is science in explaining why Everest is where it is, what rocks it's made of, why fossils are found tens of thousands of feet up it, etc. With evolution, the science comes in gathering evidence for its mechanisms, looking at the fossil record, doing population studies and tying it in with our knowledge of biochemistry and genetics. Gravity isn't science. Gravity is a phenomenon that science tries to explain. Gravity, Everest, evolution and my apple tree are things. A fool may deny their existence. If you don't think they're true things, either your understanding of "true" isn't the same as mine, or you think they're not true (in other words, false), or you're just being vexatious. And you're bloody lucky to have any trains at all to get bad-tempered about. Try living in Bude. Thank you Doctor Idiot Beeching.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jun 16 - 06:47 PM

As for why do I have to do this sort of thing, etc., you must admit, Snail, that you've been a bit abrasive with me for a couple of days. As for me, I try to remain sweet-tempered yet annoying. It's good fun sometimes. I must say, you do deserve credit for being snarky with Pete recently. Rather like bad hypotheses about the colour of crows, Pete is a waste of time in conversations about science/evolution, so I suggest derision as a reasonable ploy rather than engagement. He may be a damn sight better singer than me, who knows. I think it's rather unfair to suggest that I haven't debated the issues in this thread. As a matter of fact, I've put a fair amount of effort into it. It helps that I've had the mother and father of a stinking cold for days, so have been staying indoors a lot, the weather having been unkind. I haven't had a cold for years, then I get one in June, and that's the truth. I have a hypothesis concerning viral contamination of Lidl trolley handles. The null hypothesis is that I didn't pick up the cold virus from Lidl trolley handles.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Jun 16 - 07:29 PM

Seems snail and Steve that there is a mudcat copper making sure that only pro evolutionists can comment on the subject. Wonder if you,ll see this before it also gets deleted.....

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jun 16 - 07:54 PM

I'm not pro- or anti-anything, Pete. All I want is evidence. These logic/science threads must be quite tough, Pete, n'est-ce pas? 🙄🤔

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Jun 16 - 08:06 PM

Donuel sez: My original contention that Joe was really letting intelligent design in through the back door past the hallway of logic and into BSstill works.

Huh? If so, I'm not aware of it. To have Intelligent Design, one needs an external designer - I think. Nonetheless, I think that things have properties that make sense, and have interactions that make sense. It's cause and effect, not random and not chaos. Things follow patterns that we can study, comprehend, and predict.

I'm a tinkerer, and I understand machines and materials better than organisms. But for the most part, I think organisms are just organic machines.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Jun 16 - 08:28 PM

mudcat copper making sure that only pro evolutionists can comment

That's right, pete, the "evolutionists" are out to get you. Be afraid! Be very afraid!

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Jeri
Date: 17 Jun 16 - 09:09 PM

Pete, this is about "logic and the laws of science". Joe said it wasn't about religion. Give up.

Amos, I don't know anybody who takes as much time finding so many complicated words as you do to explain what essentially, is pretty simple. Free will and entropy are not opposites. Listen to the Trumpster for a while, and realize that in his world, they are the same, as his free will is focused on promoting entropy.

But...
The creative thought process also IMO is why we question what it all means, which is where religion and everything born from imagination come from. I think it's the same reason it's so hard for us to understand that things just happen, and leads us to question and try to explain why. Which is where natural laws come from.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jun 16 - 12:50 AM

Jeri:

Sorry for being long-winded--I was responding to an overly short-winded argument upthread. :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Jun 16 - 03:23 AM

At the risk of sounding testy, may I remind everyone that while in mentioned crows I was merely using it as a illustration of the difference between img proving something and disproving it. That I mentioned crows was incidental: it could as easily have been pencils, Tupperware boxes or Knorr soup packets for all the difference it made.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Stu
Date: 18 Jun 16 - 04:29 AM

"The normal quotidien human condition is a mixture of both--some days free will reigns, some days entropy steals a base and free will is disappointed"

Whether we even have free will is a subject of some vigorous debate at the moment amongst those that study such things.


"I think that things have properties that make sense, and have interactions that make sense."

But do they make sense because they are subject to natural laws which we can naturally intuit, or because we are culturally conditioned to accept them as making sense? For example, there are plenty of things that don't seem to makes sense but are observable and quantifiable (I'm thinking quantum mechanics for example), that exist but challenge what most of us as laypeople currently understand about the universe.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Joe Offer
Date: 18 Jun 16 - 04:42 AM

Stu says: But do they make sense because they are subject to natural laws which we can naturally intuit, or because we are culturally conditioned to accept them as making sense?

That's what I'm trying to figure out, Stu. I tend to think it's the former. But is that because I believe there is a harmony in the universe, or because there is a harmony in the universe.

I dunno.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jun 16 - 05:09 AM

I thought we were trying to get away from "subject to laws." "Harmony in the universe" sounds suspiciously as if there is an ongoing driving force. That would mean laws that things are subjected to in order to avoid disharmony/chaos. How's about, instead, a unity that derived from the singularity at the Big Bang? No driving force needed. Why WOULD stuff from that point on "follow" disparate, inconsistent laws, or no laws at all? There is a universe because stuff behaves consistently. Well stuff all started together, so why wouldn't it behave consistently?

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Jun 16 - 05:22 AM

Just got an invitation for a one day seminar on current scientific thinking on consciousness. Tempting...

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: TheSnail
Date: 18 Jun 16 - 05:24 AM

OK Steve, simple question.

Everything you say about evolution just being there and having been there all the time could just as easily be said about natural selection. Why do you see the one as a natural phenomenon and the other as a theory?