When you look up at the sky.........

User avatar
johnspenn
Reactions:
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 7:38 am
Location: Marietta, GA
Hammock: DIY TCF
Tarp: KNT12
Suspension: Whoopie/MSH
Insulation: MAMW/UGQ 20*
Contact:

Re: When you look up at the sky.........

#121

Post by johnspenn » Tue Dec 06, 2016 6:04 am

That's a lot of subject matter to respond to. I'll make an attempt.
GregD wrote:Case 2. Suppose some humans experience divine revelation. We know for certain that an awful lot of people have claimed to experience divine revelation, and we know that a very large fraction of these alleged revelations inconsistent with each other. Humans have come up with an extraordinary number and variety of religions going back to pre-history and taken together they say a lot of crazy and conflicting stuff. It appears to be an impossible task to discriminate the valid claims of divine revelation from all the invalid claims. Who to believe? Further, the scientific method has provided an experiment of what happens if humans systematically exclude divine revelation as a source of "truth". The result of that experiment is that humans are extraordinarily successful in figuring out the true nature of our reality when they reject divine revelation.
"Who to believe?" I would answer this question with- at the very least, believe the one that lines up with reality as we know it. IOW believe the truth.

"Further, the scientific method has provided an experiment of what happens if humans systematically exclude divine revelation as a source of "truth". The result of that experiment is that humans are extraordinarily successful in figuring out the true nature of our reality when they reject divine revelation."

I'd like to see this experiment. Please provide a reference to the work.
GregD wrote:In my view the evidence is overwhelming<emphasis mine>: regardless of whether there is, in fact, a god or two or four million floating around our reality somewhere, humans are far more successful when they assume there is none, and rely entirely upon their own best efforts to guide their actions.
I'd like to see the evidence you are referring to.
GregD wrote:"Philosophical arguments" are often, in my experience, little more than wishful thinking.
That is a philosophical argument. Is that argument wishful thinking?
GregD wrote:2. Current theory indicates that in space where there is nothing, matter will spontaneously form from nothing, and then disappear into nothing (look up Hawking radiation)<emphasis mine>. It hasn't been experimentally observed yet, so it is still a bit uncertain.
That is not an accurate assessment of Hawking Radiation. According to Wikipedia (feel free to get your definition wherever you choose), "Hawking radiation is blackbody radiation that is predicted to be released by black holes, due to quantum effects near the event horizon."

1. Even in what appears to be empty space, there is NOT nothing (double negative intended). Space, by definition, is not nothing.
2. Being "released by black holes, due to (<or, if you will, caused by>) quantum effects" is not "spontaneously forming from nothing".
GregD wrote:Philosophical arguments often sound profound and certain. They make sense. The problem is that our reality in some situations does not make sense to us. We often lack the experience and imagination to identify all of the possibilities. We really want things to make sense, to have a purpose, to happen for a reason. Philosophy appeals to these desires. However, it isn't calibrated with objective observations (experiments), and consequently we cannot see when it goes wrong. So it does go wrong, and we don't notice, not at first.
You say philosophy is not calibrated with objective observations. I disagree. Philosophy, done correctly, is entirely based on objective observations, such as the causal principle. As is science, by the way. Science is wholly dependent, let me emphasize- WHOLLY DEPENDENT on the causal principle. Without cause and effect, science is worthless and frankly undo-able. Name one experiment, one predictive model, one theory of science that does not rely on the principle of cause and effect. Were you to find such an example, I would argue that it is not science.

I'm going to stop there, as that is quite enough to be going on with at this point. Probably more than enough.



User avatar
sarge
Reactions:
Posts: 2066
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:14 am
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:
Contact:

Re: When you look up at the sky.........

#122

Post by sarge » Tue Dec 06, 2016 7:11 am

Philosphy is respected enough in the Academic community to be worthy of its own departments and degree programs.

In fact, it is so respected that the term "Ph.D" is the abbreviation of the Latin meaning "Doctorate of Philosophy"

IOW, you can get a Doctorate of Philosophy in Philosphy

I am very glad the Scientists aren't in charge of what knowledge and which pursuits of knowledge are worthy of scorn or praise.

The condition of the planet has benefitted from Eric Fromm, Kierkegaard and others who write about Love (including God's work on the subject in the Bible).

So, Gregg---

How does Science quantify---or even explain---Love?

Or, in failing to do so or lacking the ability to measure it, does it decide that it just doesn't exist?
You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My You Tube Channel

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 523
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: When you look up at the sky.........

#123

Post by GregD » Tue Dec 06, 2016 7:51 am

johnspenn wrote: That is not an accurate assessment of Hawking Radiation. According to Wikipedia (feel free to get your definition wherever you choose), "Hawking radiation is blackbody radiation that is predicted to be released by black holes, due to quantum effects near the event horizon."
Keep looking for a more complete description . The "quantum effect" is the spontaneous appearance of matter. See, for example:

http://www.universetoday.com/108870/why ... ack-holes/
Then in 1974 Stephen Hawking demonstrated that black holes do radiate light due to quantum mechanics. In quantum theory there are limits to what can be known about an object. For example, you cannot know an object’s exact energy. Because of this uncertainty, the energy of a system can fluctuate spontaneously, so long as its average remains constant. What Hawking demonstrated is that near the event horizon of a black hole pairs of particles can appear, where one particle becomes trapped within the event horizon (reducing the black holes mass slightly) while the other can escape as radiation (carrying away a bit of the black hole’s energy).
Key phrase: "pairs of particles can appear".

User avatar
johnspenn
Reactions:
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 7:38 am
Location: Marietta, GA
Hammock: DIY TCF
Tarp: KNT12
Suspension: Whoopie/MSH
Insulation: MAMW/UGQ 20*
Contact:

Re: When you look up at the sky.........

#124

Post by johnspenn » Tue Dec 06, 2016 8:09 am

GregD wrote:
johnspenn wrote: That is not an accurate assessment of Hawking Radiation. According to Wikipedia (feel free to get your definition wherever you choose), "Hawking radiation is blackbody radiation that is predicted to be released by black holes, due to quantum effects near the event horizon."
Keep looking for a more complete description . The "quantum effect" is the spontaneous appearance of matter. See, for example:

http://www.universetoday.com/108870/why ... ack-holes/
Then in 1974 Stephen Hawking demonstrated that black holes do radiate light due to quantum mechanics. In quantum theory there are limits to what can be known about an object. For example, you cannot know an object’s exact energy. Because of this uncertainty, the energy of a system can fluctuate spontaneously, so long as its average remains constant. What Hawking demonstrated is that near the event horizon of a black hole pairs of particles can appear, where one particle becomes trapped within the event horizon (reducing the black holes mass slightly) while the other can escape as radiation (carrying away a bit of the black hole’s energy).
Key phrase: "pairs of particles can appear".
It seems to me that the key phrase you have quoted is predicated on a prior phrase: "... Stephen Hawking demonstrated that black holes do radiate light ...". The pairs of particles appear because they have radiated from the black hole in question, presumably.

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 523
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: When you look up at the sky.........

#125

Post by GregD » Tue Dec 06, 2016 8:33 am

johnspenn wrote:That's a lot of subject matter to respond to. I'll make an attempt.
GregD wrote:Case 2. Suppose some humans experience divine revelation. We know for certain that an awful lot of people have claimed to experience divine revelation, and we know that a very large fraction of these alleged revelations inconsistent with each other. Humans have come up with an extraordinary number and variety of religions going back to pre-history and taken together they say a lot of crazy and conflicting stuff. It appears to be an impossible task to discriminate the valid claims of divine revelation from all the invalid claims. Who to believe? Further, the scientific method has provided an experiment of what happens if humans systematically exclude divine revelation as a source of "truth". The result of that experiment is that humans are extraordinarily successful in figuring out the true nature of our reality when they reject divine revelation.
"Who to believe?" I would answer this question with- at the very least, believe the one that lines up with reality as we know it. IOW believe the truth.
With that reasoning the book of Genesis, IMHO, can be discarded as wrong. The other problem is, who knows the truth?

johnspenn wrote: "Further, the scientific method has provided an experiment of what happens if humans systematically exclude divine revelation as a source of "truth". The result of that experiment is that humans are extraordinarily successful in figuring out the true nature of our reality when they reject divine revelation."

I'd like to see this experiment. Please provide a reference to the work.
GregD wrote:In my view the evidence is overwhelming<emphasis mine>: regardless of whether there is, in fact, a god or two or four million floating around our reality somewhere, humans are far more successful when they assume there is none, and rely entirely upon their own best efforts to guide their actions.
I'd like to see the evidence you are referring to.
Uhm, the discovery of the structure of the solar system, for example? And pretty much all of the discoveries documented in science textbooks for the past 100 years or more. The scientific method, by requiring repeatable objective observations, excludes divine revelation as a source of truth. The scientific method, by preferring more simple explanations to more complicated explanations virtually excludes the god hypothesis. The scientific method delivered an explosion of new knowledge.
johnspenn wrote:
GregD wrote:"Philosophical arguments" are often, in my experience, little more than wishful thinking.
That is a philosophical argument. Is that argument wishful thinking?
GregD wrote:2. Current theory indicates that in space where there is nothing, matter will spontaneously form from nothing, and then disappear into nothing (look up Hawking radiation)<emphasis mine>. It hasn't been experimentally observed yet, so it is still a bit uncertain.
That is not an accurate assessment of Hawking Radiation. According to Wikipedia (feel free to get your definition wherever you choose), "Hawking radiation is blackbody radiation that is predicted to be released by black holes, due to quantum effects near the event horizon."

1. Even in what appears to be empty space, there is NOT nothing (double negative intended). Space, by definition, is not nothing.
2. Being "released by black holes, due to (<or, if you will, caused by>) quantum effects" is not "spontaneously forming from nothing".
GregD wrote:Philosophical arguments often sound profound and certain. They make sense. The problem is that our reality in some situations does not make sense to us. We often lack the experience and imagination to identify all of the possibilities. We really want things to make sense, to have a purpose, to happen for a reason. Philosophy appeals to these desires. However, it isn't calibrated with objective observations (experiments), and consequently we cannot see when it goes wrong. So it does go wrong, and we don't notice, not at first.
You say philosophy is not calibrated with objective observations. I disagree. Philosophy, done correctly, is entirely based on objective observations, such as the causal principle. As is science, by the way. Science is wholly dependent, let me emphasize- WHOLLY DEPENDENT on the causal principle. Without cause and effect, science is worthless and frankly undo-able. Name one experiment, one predictive model, one theory of science that does not rely on the principle of cause and effect. Were you to find such an example, I would argue that it is not science.

I'm going to stop there, as that is quite enough to be going on with at this point. Probably more than enough.
I commented separately about Hawking radiation.

Lets look again at YOUR argument for a creator that YOU described as "philosophical":
johnspenn wrote:However, we do know from common experience that everything that begins to exist has a cause. So, we know that something caused the big bang. In other words the entire universe did not simply pop out of nothing, for no reason.

This knowledge lines up with the first verse of the first book of the five books written by Moses, AKA Genesis 1:1.
There is no observation that supports the idea that the cause of the big bang was anything like a god. If it was a god there is no observation that even if it was a god that god has any of the characteristics of the one described in the Bible - the Torah or elsewhere. On a far more simple point It is inescapably clear that Genesis gets almost everything wrong about the nature and formation of Earth / Sun / Stars / Diversity of life on Earth.

In principle philosophy is an application of logic and that should be a useful, reliable tool. Unfortunately the only resources we currently have to perform philosophy are humans, and humans have remarkably unreliable logic processors; when they "compute" a logical conclusion, they so often get the wrong answer if the "computation" is the least bit complicated.

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 523
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: When you look up at the sky.........

#126

Post by GregD » Tue Dec 06, 2016 8:46 am

johnspenn wrote: It seems to me that the key phrase you have quoted is predicated on a prior phrase: "... Stephen Hawking demonstrated that black holes do radiate light ...". The pairs of particles appear because they have radiated from the black hole in question, presumably.
I am giving an example of a phenomena - particles spontaneously appearing - by citing one effect of that phenomena - Hawking radiation. Particles spontaneously appearing happen all the time all over the place. Hawking radiation is caused by that process occurring at the discontinuity.

The point is, matter (matter/antimatter pairs) appear from "nothing" all the time, according to current theory, which isn't exactly "settled" but there is a lot of evidence to motivate this view. How does one apply to this situation the "philosophical principles" that "if there is a design, there is a designer", "order cannot come spontaneously from disorder", or "things happen for a reason". These are useful reference points, but they are not rock-solid logic. If they are used in a critical point of a logical analysis they don't seem to stand up to scrutiny.

User avatar
johnspenn
Reactions:
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 7:38 am
Location: Marietta, GA
Hammock: DIY TCF
Tarp: KNT12
Suspension: Whoopie/MSH
Insulation: MAMW/UGQ 20*
Contact:

Re: When you look up at the sky.........

#127

Post by johnspenn » Tue Dec 06, 2016 10:54 am

GregD wrote:
GregD wrote:
johnspenn wrote: It seems to me that the key phrase you have quoted is predicated on a prior phrase: "... Stephen Hawking demonstrated that black holes do radiate light ...". The pairs of particles appear because they have radiated from the black hole in question, presumably.
I am giving an example of a phenomena - particles spontaneously appearing - by citing one effect of that phenomena - Hawking radiation. Particles spontaneously appearing happen all the time all over the place. Hawking radiation is caused by that process occurring at the discontinuity.
So, in your estimation, particles that have been radiated from a black hole and particles "spontaneously appearing from nothing" are the same thing?

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 709
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: When you look up at the sky.........

#128

Post by BillyBob66 » Tue Dec 06, 2016 11:17 am

I would like to bring up some additional verses for discussion. This thread had gone pretty long at 9 pages, 126 replies and almost 1800 views. Mods or participants, should I put the questions in a new thread or just add them on here?
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
johnspenn
Reactions:
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 7:38 am
Location: Marietta, GA
Hammock: DIY TCF
Tarp: KNT12
Suspension: Whoopie/MSH
Insulation: MAMW/UGQ 20*
Contact:

Re: When you look up at the sky.........

#129

Post by johnspenn » Tue Dec 06, 2016 11:34 am

As the OP of this thread I would think you have the right to do either as you see fit.

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 523
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: When you look up at the sky.........

#130

Post by GregD » Tue Dec 06, 2016 11:37 am

johnspenn wrote:
GregD wrote:
GregD wrote:
johnspenn wrote: It seems to me that the key phrase you have quoted is predicated on a prior phrase: "... Stephen Hawking demonstrated that black holes do radiate light ...". The pairs of particles appear because they have radiated from the black hole in question, presumably.
I am giving an example of a phenomena - particles spontaneously appearing - by citing one effect of that phenomena - Hawking radiation. Particles spontaneously appearing happen all the time all over the place. Hawking radiation is caused by that process occurring at the discontinuity.
So, in your estimation, particles that have been radiated from a black hole and particles "spontaneously appearing from nothing" are the same thing?
You are misunderstanding the physics. The "quantum effect" happens all the time in lots of places. The "quantum effect" is the spontaneous generation of particle pairs. Usually the matter/antimatter pair almost immediately annihilate each other. But when it happens at the discontinuity of a black hole, some particles are captured by the black hole and some are not. Those that are not are the Hawking radiation.

I recommend you find a better resource than me to explain the physics. Apparently I am doing a poor job. The physics I am referencing, however, is the spontaneous formation of matter.

User avatar
johnspenn
Reactions:
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 7:38 am
Location: Marietta, GA
Hammock: DIY TCF
Tarp: KNT12
Suspension: Whoopie/MSH
Insulation: MAMW/UGQ 20*
Contact:

Re: When you look up at the sky.........

#131

Post by johnspenn » Tue Dec 06, 2016 11:51 am

I may indeed misunderstand the physics. In fact, I'm sure I do. So do many quantum physicists, and by their own admission.

I do however have a decent grasp on the English language. You supplied the quote: "Then in 1974 Stephen Hawking demonstrated that black holes do radiate light due to quantum mechanics. In quantum theory there are limits to what can be known about an object. For example, you cannot know an object’s exact energy. Because of this uncertainty, the energy of a system can fluctuate spontaneously, so long as its average remains constant. What Hawking demonstrated is that near the event horizon of a black hole pairs of particles can appear, where one particle becomes trapped within the event horizon (reducing the black holes mass slightly) while the other can escape as radiation (carrying away a bit of the black hole’s energy)."

According to this paragraph I can deduce that "particles can appear" because black holes "radiate light due to quantum mechanics".

Then you repeatedly claim that matter is spontaneously generated "all the time in lots of places." Is this example a case of matter spontaneously generating without cause, or is it not? Please let's have an answer to this very simple question- yes or no- before we move on.

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 523
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: When you look up at the sky.........

#132

Post by GregD » Tue Dec 06, 2016 12:08 pm

johnspenn wrote:I may indeed misunderstand the physics. In fact, I'm sure I do. So do many quantum physicists, and by their own admission.

I do however have a decent grasp on the English language. You supplied the quote: "Then in 1974 Stephen Hawking demonstrated that black holes do radiate light due to quantum mechanics. In quantum theory there are limits to what can be known about an object. For example, you cannot know an object’s exact energy. Because of this uncertainty, the energy of a system can fluctuate spontaneously, so long as its average remains constant. What Hawking demonstrated is that near the event horizon of a black hole pairs of particles can appear, where one particle becomes trapped within the event horizon (reducing the black holes mass slightly) while the other can escape as radiation (carrying away a bit of the black hole’s energy)."

According to this paragraph I can deduce that "particles can appear" because black holes "radiate light due to quantum mechanics".

Then you repeatedly claim that matter is spontaneously generated "all the time in lots of places." Is this example a case of matter spontaneously generating without cause, or is it not? Please let's have an answer to this very simple question- yes or no- before we move on.
You have the relationship wrong. Black holes can radiate light because particle pairs can appear, and when they do that at the discontinuity of a black hole they get separated by it.

Maybe it would be better to forget entirely about Hawking radiation and focus on the "quantum effect" that drives it:

http://phys.org/news/2010-12-theoretica ... acuum.html
https://xphysics.wordpress.com/2011/02/ ... ntimatter/
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang ... -for-noth/
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2 ... red-vacuum

Matter / antimatter pairs spontaneously appear all the time. That is the "quantum effect".
Last edited by GregD on Tue Dec 06, 2016 12:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 709
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: When you look up at the sky.........

#133

Post by BillyBob66 » Tue Dec 06, 2016 12:11 pm

Off Topic
GregD"..................................................
The point is, matter (matter/antimatter pairs) appear from "nothing" all the time, according to current theory, which isn't exactly "settled" but there is a lot of evidence to motivate this view. How does one apply to this situation the "philosophical principles" that "if there is a design, there is a designer", "order cannot come spontaneously from disorder", or "things happen for a reason". These are useful reference points, but they are not rock-solid logic. If they are used in a critical point of a logical analysis they don't seem to stand up to scrutiny...................................................
2. Current theory indicates that in space where there is nothing, matter will spontaneously form from nothing, and then disappear into nothing (look up Hawking radiation). It hasn't been experimentally observed yet, so it is still a bit uncertain.
Nothing? Like this?
Off Topic
Job 26:6-8(NASB)
7
“He stretches out the north over empty space
And hangs the earth on nothing.
8
“He wraps up the waters in His clouds,
And the cloud does not burst under them.
Interestingly, that is from the one book that many scholars think is even more ancient than Moses' writings.
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 523
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: When you look up at the sky.........

#134

Post by GregD » Tue Dec 06, 2016 12:18 pm

Bill, you are a master - or at least the determined practitioner - of the tortured interpretation of the isolated phrase.

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 709
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: When you look up at the sky.........

#135

Post by BillyBob66 » Tue Dec 06, 2016 6:17 pm

GregD wrote:Bill, you are a master - or at least the determined practitioner - of the tortured interpretation of the isolated phrase.
Well, thank you Greg! I will take that as a compliment however it was meant! :D It just struck me that you might be in agreement with Job, or Job might be in agreement with you. If so, I was wondering how such a thing could happen?

Nothing isolated about the 2 entire chapters from Moses over in "Moses, what did he know, when did he know it", over in "God".. But can't get one single comment, just lots of views. I'm surprised there is no one to point out how wrong I am, how I have once again done a poor interpretation even though I am simply taking those words as written.
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

Post Reply

Return to “Off-Topic Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest