The universe as a sentient being
Discussion
No I demonstrating the fact all you people who think you are intellectuals are basing your arguments on theories, deciding which theory is best and suits your own thinking.
I've never said I'm a intellectual, I obviously think differently to others, which I'm happy about.
Maybe this thread isn't for you if it makes you so upset thinking differently?
I've never said I'm a intellectual, I obviously think differently to others, which I'm happy about.
Maybe this thread isn't for you if it makes you so upset thinking differently?
mickythefish said:
No I demonstrating the fact all you people who think you are intellectuals are basing your arguments on theories, deciding which theory is best and suits your own thinking.
I've never said I'm a intellectual, I obviously think differently to others, which I'm happy about.
Maybe this thread isn't for you if it makes you so upset thinking differently?
No, we're not "deciding which theory is best and suits our own thinking", we are accepting the theorys that have empirical evidence to back them up. I did point this out in a previous post, and I also linked to an in-depth explanation of the meaning of the word 'theory'. Yet here we are again.I've never said I'm a intellectual, I obviously think differently to others, which I'm happy about.
Maybe this thread isn't for you if it makes you so upset thinking differently?
You're just going round in circles.
You seem to think that thinking different to others makes you exceptional. It doesn't.
I know you never said you're an intellectual, nobody's accusing you of that. Don't think anybody here has claimed to be an intellectual either.
This thread doesn't upset me. On the contrary. I'm laughing.
Edited by Super Sonic on Sunday 23 June 10:44
Skeptisk said:
ATG said:
Yeah, but your perspective is rooted in some philosophical assumptions that you've made. This is inescapable. Your assumptions may seem intuitively obvious to you, but you can't conclude that they are the only tenable assumptions that someone could make. None of this is about superstition or religion or science; it's a step before that.
It would be easier to follow your point if you were more specific about what philosophical assumptions I am making and the alternatives. Clearly I am assuming there is an external reality and that we don’t live in a simulation. Yes that is of course a possibility, but only because if you say that the simulation is indistinguishable from an external reality. So then it is pointless alternative and using Occam’s razor should be ignored as it introduces complexity for no good reason. I’m sure there are other similar assumptions that accord with our understanding of reality eg we assume that physical laws and fundamental constants will remain the same tomorrow as they are today (the universe as it currently is couldn’t exist without that). Again there is no proof that will be the case. But to question that is just philosophical navel gazing best done by first year philosophy students in the pub!
Super Sonic said:
mickythefish said:
No I demonstrating the fact all you people who think you are intellectuals are basing your arguments on theories, deciding which theory is best and suits your own thinking.
I've never said I'm a intellectual, I obviously think differently to others, which I'm happy about.
Maybe this thread isn't for you if it makes you so upset thinking differently?
No, we're not "deciding which theory is best and suits our own thinking", we are accepting the theorys that have empirical evidence to back them up. I did point this out in a previous post, and I also linked to an in-depth explanation of the meaning of the word 'theory'. Yet here we are again.I've never said I'm a intellectual, I obviously think differently to others, which I'm happy about.
Maybe this thread isn't for you if it makes you so upset thinking differently?
You're just going round in circles.
You seem to think that thinking different to others makes you exceptional. It doesn't.
I know you never said you're an intellectual, nobody's accusing you of that. Don't think anybody here has claimed to be an intellectual either.
This thread doesn't upset me. On the contrary. I'm laughing.
Edited by Super Sonic on Sunday 23 June 10:44
ATG said:
To take an extreme example, you can assume that consciousness is fundamental, not an emergent property. You can make the assumption that any model of the world you dream up must include a strong version of free will, i.e. the future is not determined entirely by the past because conscious things are genuinely free to make decisions.
You can make assumptions, but that doesn't mean they're true. People assume god is real. Other people assume he isn't. They can't both be true.You don't need consciousness to have a future that is not determined entirely by the past. This doesn't support your assumption.
Edited by Super Sonic on Sunday 23 June 10:55
Super Sonic said:
ATG said:
To take an extreme example, you can assume that consciousness is fundamental, not an emergent property. You can make the assumption that any model of the world you dream up must include a strong version of free will, i.e. the future is not determined entirely by the past because conscious things are genuinely free to make decisions.
You can make assumptions, but that doesn't mean they're true. People assume god is real. Other people assume he isn't. They can't both be true.You don't need consciousness to have a future that is not determined entirely by the past. This doesn't support your assumption.
Edited by Super Sonic on Sunday 23 June 10:55
Randomness would make the future unpredictable, but that doesn't relate to rejecting the idea of a block universe on the grounds that a block universe is incompatible with free will. If you believe in free will then the future can't be either entirely determined nor fundamentally random. You have to somehow have some agency. I cannot see how free will is possible without some dualist weirdness, and free will isn't on my list of axioms, but if you look at people like Roger Penrose, it's clearly up there on their lists and they strive to come up with fundamental physical models that allow it.
ATG said:
Skeptisk said:
ATG said:
Yeah, but your perspective is rooted in some philosophical assumptions that you've made. This is inescapable. Your assumptions may seem intuitively obvious to you, but you can't conclude that they are the only tenable assumptions that someone could make. None of this is about superstition or religion or science; it's a step before that.
It would be easier to follow your point if you were more specific about what philosophical assumptions I am making and the alternatives. Clearly I am assuming there is an external reality and that we don’t live in a simulation. Yes that is of course a possibility, but only because if you say that the simulation is indistinguishable from an external reality. So then it is pointless alternative and using Occam’s razor should be ignored as it introduces complexity for no good reason. I’m sure there are other similar assumptions that accord with our understanding of reality eg we assume that physical laws and fundamental constants will remain the same tomorrow as they are today (the universe as it currently is couldn’t exist without that). Again there is no proof that will be the case. But to question that is just philosophical navel gazing best done by first year philosophy students in the pub!
Skeptisk said:
If you are choosing your assumptions/axioms to agree with a preconceived idea then you are fixing the system to reach a conclusion you have decided is true. Those are then beliefs and not assumptions. That isn’t rational, logical or scientific.
Yes, if you're fixing the game, you're fixing the game. But let's be clear that there's nothing scientific about a choice of fundamental assumptions. Those assumptions come first, and only then can you start doing science. Saying something like "my fundamental experience of reality is me being a conscious thing that can exercise freewill" is not obviously setting out to fix the game, for example, and leads you to think there are a particular set of scientific and philosophical holes in our current theories. If you're not hung up on those two assumptions, but, for example, think that there is something fundamentally right about our direct experience of the passage of time, then you'll find a different set of scientific and philosophical holes in our current theories.ATG said:
Yes, if you're fixing the game, you're fixing the game. But let's be clear that there's nothing scientific about a choice of fundamental assumptions. Those assumptions come first, and only then can you start doing science. Saying something like "my fundamental experience of reality is me being a conscious thing that can exercise freewill" is not obviously setting out to fix the game, for example, and leads you to think there are a particular set of scientific and philosophical holes in our current theories. If you're not hung up on those two assumptions, but, for example, think that there is something fundamentally right about our direct experience of the passage of time, then you'll find a different set of scientific and philosophical holes in our current theories.
You know what an axiom is? The precise definition varies across fields of study. In classic philosophy, an axiom is a statement that is so evident or well-established, that it is accepted without controversy or question. Your 'Axioms' are none of those.If you make up your own axioms, any conclusions you come to are meaningless.
mickythefish said:
Explain have rocks created life?
Life evolved from nothing. Yet people are now deciding what are good science theories and bad based on their own ideology.
Nothing you have written is a scientific theory.Life evolved from nothing. Yet people are now deciding what are good science theories and bad based on their own ideology.
Learning what a theory is in science would be a decent use of your time.
Ken_Code said:
Nothing you have written is a scientific theory.
Learning what a theory is in science would be a decent use of your time.
All my theories have been taken from publications from scientists lol that was the whole point which seemed to have been missed by you and others Learning what a theory is in science would be a decent use of your time.
Newtonian mechanics is an accepted theory but doesn't actually work across all conditions.
Loads of scientific theories have been chucked on the rubbish dump,when found to be lacking or just false.
Edited by mickythefish on Monday 24th June 06:01
otolith said:
How would you know that your will was free, and why does it matter?
We think we have free will, but in reality we are a modular system. The brain is competing between each modulars in decisions.Some based on the chimp brain, some on reasoning and some on unreasoning. The image of ourselves, is in reality, a figment of imagination you create in your mind.
mickythefish said:
Ken_Code said:
Nothing you have written is a scientific theory.
Learning what a theory is in science would be a decent use of your time.
All my theories have been taken from publications from scientistsLearning what a theory is in science would be a decent use of your time.
From what I've clicked on though "your" theories originated from journalists musings in blogs.
Do you have a peer reviewed published astro-physicists paper which puts forward the evidential case for the Universe being sentient?
Edited by juliussneezer on Monday 24th June 09:14
mickythefish said:
All my theories have been taken from publications from scientists lol that was the whole point which seemed to have been missed by you and
Again, the word “theory” in science has a meaning in science, and what you are writing are not theories.It would benefit you to actually learn what the terms mean before trying to use them.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff