Philosophical Vegan Forum

brimstoneSalad wrote:He doesn't want to say he knows anything "for certain". A lot of people are afraid of saying things like that.
Dillahunty likes to talk about "maximal certainty" - the greatest amount of certainty that can be had - and that's an interesting way to put it, but it probably just confuses people.

And then theists will turn that back around and say, "well you don't know anything, you admitted it!", as if lack of perfectly certain dogma negates knowledge.

Do you even know "for certain" that you're not a brain in a vat, hooked up to electrodes?
Do you know anything? Or are you opposed to "knowing" in general? Do you have something against using that word? Do you rail against anybody who uses it?

I hope not.

That's aside from the point, though, and irrelevant to the claim made that "nobody knows", which is a false one, as well as an unfounded assertion based on an argument from ignorance and attempting to shift the burden of proof.

The difference is that most claims can be backed up with evidence. Krauss' explanation of the start of the universe using his final version of nothingness (even no laws) is still just speculation. It's not just that he doesn't know for certain, there simply is no evidence to back it up (not that I'm aware of at least, before I get a reference to a fallacy ).

brimstoneSalad wrote:I linked to several fallacies- do you deny he is making them?

Nope. And I never claimed I knew that nobody knows—which I indeed can't. I just think you don't know either, while agreeing with you that Krauss is probably right. His explanation might be right, but I don't think it's justified knowledge yet.

brimstoneSalad wrote:It's like waking up in a room with a solid floor, ceiling, four walls, and one door.
How did you get into the room? Do you know?

Yes, of course you know how you got in the room. Any reasonable person would accept that word usage. The only reasonable explanation is that you came in through, or were brought in through, the door.

"Maybe" a bunch of pixies chiseled through the wall, brought you in through said hole, and then spackled it back up behind them when they left.

No, sorry, the only reasonable conclusion is that I entered through the door somehow. That's something I know.

Do I need to know if I came in forward or backward, or if I was carried or dragged to know it clearly has something very much to do with the door?
No.

You can make up all kinds of absurd alternatives, but that doesn't make them reasonable, and lacking that reason and substantiation, they are not knowledge.

I agree with what you say, but I think we disagree on how justified the explanations really are.

brimstoneSalad wrote:If we had even a remotely reasonable or viable alternative anywhere on the horizon, we might have to say "we don't know which of these two doors we came in through, but it was one or the other".

There might be a reasonable alternative you're not aware of, until there is evidence for Krauss' explanation you should let the door open (:D) for these alternative explanations instead of claiming it to be true.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Which is what we have to do with abiogenesis. There are many plausible and demonstrated routes by which life could have (as far as we know) arisen from "non-life"; we're just not sure which one it actually took (but at the same time, it doesn't matter).

Would that mean that we don't "know" how it happened at all? No. We still know, it's just a slightly less narrowed down explanation. There are some options there, but they share many of the same characteristics so we can generalize an explanation that covers all of them.

It's even a bit easier to explain with MWI rather than dealing with the details of vacuum fluctuations, but it all comes down to the nature of the universe and what it contains being wave functions.

I was going to write a response, but I actually agree with you when reading it more carefully. But that only means we know something about the beginning of the universe, but I think you should also be honest enough to not claim to have the complete answer (and if you didn't try that, I'm sorry).

brimstoneSalad wrote:Also:

Claim: NOBODY KNOWS!

Response: I know.

Defense: Nobody knows for certain.

You're really making a straw man here. Just because I did not mention that I agreed with you that bobo0100 made an argument from ignorance, doesn't mean I disagreed with you on that. I did not try to dismiss your argument—like I said, I hold the same conviction—but I just think you're overstating what you (not anyone) really know and I wanted to comment on that.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Please don't misunderstand me, I like both of you, you're also both very wrong.

I know, and I can handle that.

Volenta wrote: The difference is that most claims can be backed up with evidence. Krauss' explanation of the start of the universe using his final version of nothingness (even no laws) is still just speculation.

There's a difference between interpretation and pure speculation.

Interpretation has more to do with following the evidence using deduction, and applying what the math tells us to our understanding of reality.

Many scientists are loathe to accept interpretations, being wary of logic and even math in its ability to reflect actual reality.

For example, Hawking recognizes that The Many Worlds Interpretation is inherently true, since that's what the math tells us, but he's not ready to accept these other universes as "real" -- whatever that's supposed to mean.

How do you accept something as true but not real?

That's what a lot of this comes down to, when you press scientists for actual answers, because they're wary of making any connections that have 'only' been demonstrated mathematically or logically, and not verified empirically.

I don't have any problem making those connections, and I don't find them any less valid than strictly empirical ones, providing the evidence they are based on is correct.

Speculation is something different, and makes a few leaps to get to where it needs to be, rather than following a strictly deductive line of reasoning.

Volenta wrote: It's not just that he doesn't know for certain, there simply is no evidence to back it up (not that I'm aware of at least, before I get a reference to a fallacy ).

It depends on what you consider 'evidence' I suppose. Many scientists reject logical rationalism in favor of strict empiricism, and refuse to extend those observations to obvious conclusions. I don't consider that worldview valid.

Volenta wrote: I agree with what you say, but I think we disagree on how justified the explanations really are.

I guess our only options are to have a ten to twenty page discussion about quantum physics, or for you to agree that I might in fact know, but there's just not time to get into the why or how of it.

I'm OK with you not knowing whether I know or not, as long as you're not making the assertion that you know I don't know.

Volenta wrote:There might be a reasonable alternative you're not aware of,

Ahh... this is too complicated to get into.

Volenta wrote:until there is evidence for Krauss' explanation you should let the door open (:D) for these alternative explanations instead of claiming it to be true.

Well, it's not Krauss', this has been obvious for decades (probably about 50 years). He just took the time to put it all together and write a book about it
I haven't read his book (I haven't read any books by Dawkins either), I just know what they're about, and that they come highly recommended as layman's explanations of the subject.

I learned about this stuff in school long before Krauss was in the public eye as he is now.

Volenta wrote: I was going to write a response, but I actually agree with you when reading it more carefully. But that only means we know something about the beginning of the universe, but I think you should also be honest enough to not claim to have the complete answer (and if you didn't try that, I'm sorry).

The actual claim bobo made was just with regards to where matter/energy came from.
Where the fundamental laws that brought it about "came from", and the nitty-gritty details of the process I do not think were mentioned.

I'm not coughing up the Unified field theorem here; these are just very general explanations which are accurate, but lack a level of precision that isn't necessary for this conversation anyway.

Volenta wrote: You're really making a straw man here. Just because I did not mention that I agreed with you that bobo0100 made an argument from ignorance, doesn't mean I disagreed with you on that.

Oh, I took your defense as very general. Since I mentioned to bobo that it was irrelevant whether I knew or not and I didn't want to get into it more, because the thing I was criticizing was his claim that nobody knew.

I didn't understand why you were picking on that if you agreed with my criticism of his claim.

Basically: I don't think we can adequately discuss quantum physics here. So, it should only be relevant if you thought (as bobo does) that I have to "prove it" in order to argue against his unsubstantiated claim on logical grounds.

That's why I just referred him to a book.

There may be a better book to refer him to, but I don't know of one.

brimstoneSalad wrote:For example, Hawking recognizes that The Many Worlds Interpretation is inherently true, since that's what the math tells us, but he's not ready to accept these other universes as "real" -- whatever that's supposed to mean.

Doesn't he just mean it's mathematically coherent and corresponds with our current established view of reality? In that case I don't find his position very strange.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Speculation is something different, and makes a few leaps to get to where it needs to be, rather than following a strictly deductive line of reasoning.

I do agree with that. If it's strictly deductive I would—besides from empirical evidence—also accept it. And claiming something to be plausible or likely without empirical evidence is also justified in my eyes (if not in conflict with empirical evidence). But sometimes people make assumptions and then deductively work it out from there, and that's what Krauss' did in his book.

brimstoneSalad wrote:The actual claim bobo made was just with regards to where matter/energy came from.
Where the fundamental laws that brought it about "came from", and the nitty-gritty details of the process I do not think were mentioned.

Oh in that case I attacked a straw man myself. Then I actually accept the fact that you know (to some extend at least, because even that claim is not waterproof yet).

While some of Aquinas' arguments may be scientifically out of date, this summary is still valid. Everything that began to exist has a cause and it is now virtually undisputed that the universe had a beginning. Any cause would have to be outside the material universe so would be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, personal and all powerful – characteristics shared by the God of the Bible.

Calcator_Capitibus wrote:While some of Aquinas' arguments may be scientifically out of date, this summary is still valid. Everything that began to exist has a cause and it is now virtually undisputed that the universe had a beginning. Any cause would have to be outside the material universe so would be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, personal and all powerful – characteristics shared by the God of the Bible.

We have no examples of things coming into existence, only things being made from preexisting material. We dont know if things can begin from nothing, or even begin at all. All we know about the universe is that what we see around us started at a big bang. We dont know if there was a universe before the big bang, or that perhaps it is common that universes come into existence in a multi-verse.
I think its presumptuous to say that its virtually undisputed that the universe had a beginning (at least in some ultimate sense).

Calcator_Capitibus wrote:While some of Aquinas' arguments may be scientifically out of date, this summary is still valid. Everything that began to exist has a cause and it is now virtually undisputed that the universe had a beginning. Any cause would have to be outside the material universe so would be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, personal and all powerful – characteristics shared by the God of the Bible.

false. "The animal skeptic" also known as kanade on these forums, recently made a video in witch he addressed this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rp67uPa ... v8WNDWVS5Q it is the first argument he addresses.

the logic of your argument.
P1: everything that began to exist has a cause.
P2: the universe began to exist.
C1:the universe has a cause.
P3: that cause has to be; outside the material universe, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, personal and all powerful.
P4: the characteristics in P4 are all characteristics of the god of the bible.
C2: the universe is created by the god of the bible.

the logic is fatly because the meaning of began to exist changes between P1 and P2. in P1 it is the rearrangement of matter, nothing is actually coming into existence but rather changing from one type of existence to another. in P2 it is the matter (and the universe) coming into existence, its not simpily changing from one type of existence to another.

the animal skeptic concludes this section of his video by stating the logic.

P1: everything that began to exist has a natural cause.
P2: the universe began to exist.
C: the universe has a natural cause.

it is interesting to note that the earlier stated argument also disproves his logic.

Volenta wrote: Doesn't he just mean it's mathematically coherent and corresponds with our current established view of reality?

Wouldn't that make it real?

The issue is that many scientists are somehow afraid to make the jump from logically true to "actually" true in reality. There is no difference. But scientists aren't usually philosophers, so perhaps they are disinclined to understand any statements about reality that don't involve the direct results of experiments.

It's a very strange position to hold to be that skeptical of the results of logic and mathematics as they apply to reality.

Do you know, many mathematicians and scientists also don't accept proof by contradiction?

Volenta wrote: I do agree with that. If it's strictly deductive I would—besides from empirical evidence—also accept it. And claiming something to be plausible or likely without empirical evidence is also justified in my eyes (if not in conflict with empirical evidence).

Which is how I know these things. And the rejection of those means of knowing is why many scientists are shy about claiming such knowledge.

Volenta wrote:But sometimes people make assumptions and then deductively work it out from there, and that's what Krauss' did in his book.

What unproven assumptions do you think he makes?

Volenta wrote:Oh in that case I attacked a straw man myself. Then I actually accept the fact that you know (to some extend at least, because even that claim is not waterproof yet).

Although I will also claim to know where the universe as a whole came from. That's another topic.

Calcator_Capitibus wrote:While some of Aquinas' arguments may be scientifically out of date,

All of his arguments are scientifically out of date and/or contain logical fallacies aside.

Did you read and understand my refutation of the first argument?

If so, do you agree that the first argument is now refuted?

Would you like me to continue on to the second argument?

Or do you think you have improved upon Aquinas' arguments so much, that your summary here supersedes his original arguments, and is valid where his fail?

Calcator_Capitibus wrote:this summary is still valid. Everything that began to exist has a cause and it is now virtually undisputed that the universe had a beginning. Any cause would have to be outside the material universe so would be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, personal and all powerful – characteristics shared by the God of the Bible.

Do you want me to debunk this summary instead of Aquinas' arguments as summarized on the page you linked to?

Let me know what you want me to do here.

TheVeganAtheist wrote: We have no examples of things coming into existence, only things being made from preexisting material.

Things pop in and out of existence all of the time.
We understand that, and the why of it.
But it's essential to understand that when they do this, they do it without cause.
The primary effect of this is the contribution of information to our system.

To say that something can be caused to come into existence from nothing is an absurdity. Existence can not be caused, it can not 'begin'; it is inherently uncaused.

TheVeganAtheist wrote: We dont know if things can begin from nothing, or even begin at all.

The notion of beginning is a misunderstanding of time. We know that there are acausal events, though, which generate information relative to our slice of the universe. Objectively, this doesn't represent real information genesis, but is part of the universal wave function, an arbitrary slice of which appears chaotic and filled with robust information.

TheVeganAtheist wrote: All we know about the universe is that what we see around us started at a big bang.

That's not really true, and we know a lot more about the universe than that misconception of original causality.

The chaos effect magnifies quantum fluctuations into the macroscopic world constantly, meaning what we see around us is coming into existence continually as we witness it. In terms of the causal chain, even what we see on the cosmic scale is obscured by quantum noise since the big bang.

People give the big bang far too much credit, when it really didn't "do" anything.
By comparison, that's like giving the canvas the credit for the painting when it didn't do any of the work.

Causality is a misconception created by our peculiar view which is relative to an arbitrary position in the multiverse, and macroscopic in nature but highly limited in time- a sweet spot where quantum effects aren't directly obvious to most observers, despite having actually caused everything you witness.

The only thing we experience more or less directly from the big bang is microwave background radiation.
Without the seeds of acausal chaos, none of this would be here.

TheVeganAtheist wrote: We dont know [...] or that perhaps it is common that universes come into existence in a multi-verse.

This is known. To explain it more accurately, the universe is a wave function.
This is the simplest interpretation of our knowledge possible, and moreover is mandated by rationality when examining the only (and limited) apparent alternatives.

TheVeganAtheist wrote: I think its presumptuous to say that its virtually undisputed that the universe had a beginning (at least in some ultimate sense).

It's more a complete misunderstanding of time. Space and time are inherently linked- there is no one without the other, and the whole of it can not "begin" because beginning is a temporal process that can not occur without time.

You might say the universe has bounds, or a primordial edge to it, but this is not a beginning.

Talking about something before the beginning of the universe is like talking about a point closer to the center of a circle than its center. It doesn't make sense.
Now, the circle may be a slice out of a cylinder, extending in either conceptual "direction" eternally, but this ray through their centers is not a temporal or spatial structure.

bobo0100 wrote:the logic is fatly because the meaning of began to exist changes between P1 and P2. in P1 it is the rearrangement of matter, nothing is actually coming into existence but rather changing from one type of existence to another. in P2 it is the matter (and the universe) coming into existence, its not simpily changing from one type of existence to another.

That may be useful to point out, although it's important to remember that all events in P1 were caused by uncaused events too.

bobo0100 wrote:P1: everything that began to exist has a natural cause.

Most material and energy you witness has a pre-existing source (existing prior to your witnessing it, but not extending back infinitely) and an apparent short chain of causes which can be easily connected to its immediate apparent state, but that are all ultimately and truly the results of chaotic functions seeded by acausal events.

Although it's fair to say these things are naturally uncaused.

bobo0100 wrote:P2: the universe began to exist.

The concept that the universe "began" is incoherent. Time can not begin; that requires time.

bobo0100 wrote:C: the universe has a natural cause.

The universe is uncaused, but naturally so, if you like.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Although I will also claim to know where the universe as a whole came from. That's another topic.

Do you want me to make another topic for this? Or can you answer here?

So, since space and time didn't exist, this reality didn't exist aswell, right?
Then how did this reality come to existence?

EDIT: Never mind, I'll make a new topic.