Creation or Evoloution? Big Bang or Big Belief -- which is it?

[Lydiot]

This is me standing with the 100 inch Hooker Telescope on Mt Wilson (Above Pasadena, California), which Edwin Hubble used to make his discovery in 1929 that the universe is expanding and the Milky Way Galaxy is but one among millions. (Photo taken in 2009)

I love your mustache. Contrary to hipsters you've definitely earned yours!

[SkyBoat]

@IAHM-COL and KL-666:

As I think through the implications of your responses, rooted in the Cartesian model, with deep respect for your perspective, I have many, many problems with your epistomological and ontological arguments regarding the structure of reality.

For one thing, it borders on a kind of mysticism that strays far from what I would consider a rational approach to understanding what it means to merely be. Why? It fails to provide a grounding for the singularity of my being. If I can never be sure there is a core of reality in which there is even a kernel of truth within my identity, my-self-ness, how can I have an identity to begin with from which I can say that there is a boundary between that which is me and which is not me? Without having that epigenetic truth as a deterministic and ontological foundation, then I cannot define if I even exist, let alone begin to assign any forms of meaning to my existenc?. Lacking that, Cogito ergo sum is nonsense, because even if I think, I cannot know therefore if I am.

So, within the structure of the universe, there must be a source of connectivity to a cosmic truth. And I am not speaking theologically, here, although, I could write a treatise on the weaknesses of Descartes' theological arguments.

There is one truth in the universe as we know it, one not open to perception, and that is the Law of the conservation of Information. It is definitely a post-Cartesian postulate, and although Einstein would have had some familiarity with it, the Law has been perhaps the most profound discovery of String Theory, to date. It is such an immutable law that even Stephen Hawking initially got it wrong and had to revise his black hole theory after Leonard Susskind provided the mathematics to show that even when light crosses the event horizon of a black hole, the information is not stripped from it during that passage.

It is the implications of this law for cosmology and for the philosophy of science in general that directly challenges the Cartesian model and its successors. Simply put, the Law of the Conservation of Information is the essential ingredient for the universe to exist and "evolve." The unit of information is called the "bit," but it is not like a computer bit. The bit in this case is a Planck-sized "unit" of information, the smallest unit of space into which can information exist. Susskind defines it as:

The maximum amount of information that can be stuffed into a region of space is equal to the area of the region, not the volume

Source: The Black Hole War, p. 140

It is this rather unorthodox definition of the smallest bit-information building block defining the structure of the universe that for all intents and purposes, puts the final nails into the Cartesian coffin. For nothing can be more an absolute truth than that which cannot be divided by any form or integer in the cosmos.

In this, I stake out my philosophical position as not just a Lockian rationalist, but also a determinist in terms of my approach to science in general and astronomy and cosmology in particular. What I will explore in future posts is string theory's hypotheses regarding the holographic principle.

I leave you with the corollary to the above law regarding the bit:

The Maximum entropy in a region of space is one bit per Planck area.

Ibid. p. 295

Happy pondering.

[IAHM-COL]

@Lydiot

I don't get your questions. If you are asking whether Science is important. Off course it is. Just look around you. Just look at how much our understanding of the world has changed in the last 200 yr. That is why studying and applying a discourse and a method matters.


@Skyboat

Fair point. I just wanted to interject so you have a more clear perspective about the different postures. Not to convince you that one epistemological view is "the" epistemological view. Maybe just other one. For now... I keep sat in the edge of this black hole

IH-COL

[SkyBoat]

@ IAHM-COL,

Uh, just which point did think was fair? It's okay to play a tiny bit more at the event horizon as long as you don't slip too far in and get spaghettified, or your atomic structure split by quantum entanglement and instantly end up on two sides of the universe (that's one that just blows my mind every time I even begin to try to understand it )

BTW, did anyone notice the Hooker telescope is painted in that Russian fighter jet blue we all dislike so much? I was sure somebody was going to make a crack about that.

The mirror to the telescope is in a protected housing beneath the floor where I'm standing. The tour guide said the silvering process is only good for about a decade. (I think i have a shot of it from the underside. I'll see if I can find it). It has to be removed from the housing each time and resilvered.

I notice now on the Mt Wilson website the 100 inch Hooker is available for reserved viewing tours. When I was there in 2009, only the 60 inch Hale ( not to be confused with the the 200 inch Hale at Mt Palomar--same man donated money for both observatories ) was operational and available for group observing parties. http://mtwilson.org/

[Lydiot]

@Lydiot

I don't get your questions. If you are asking whether Science is important. Off course it is. Just look around you. Just look at how much our understanding of the world has changed in the last 200 yr. That is why studying and applying a discourse and a method matters.

I know it's important. I know you know it's important.

I'm asking about 'questioning reality'. What does it bring to the table in our discussion?

Just for the sake of explaining my point, imagine for example the people in the film "The Matrix"; they live their lives as the machines make them perceive reality. To them, reality is what they experience in the Matrix. Smells, vision etc. It's all reality to them. Now, for any given individual within the Matrix, somehow being presented with some argument that that reality isn't real, poses two problems: 1) there's no observational conclusive evidence for it. In the film a glitch in the Matrix is what humans call a Deja Vu, but the natural explanation to humans is plausible, more plausible than a software glitch. So without evidence, how does one actually come to the conclusion that reality isn't real? 2) Even if that was the case, with those people being trapped (we assume), what changes? Even if that 'reality' isn't real, that's all there is for those individuals. Their experiences and their lives all take place within that "reality", be it "real" or "fake". So since that's the case, and if it can't change, then why even bother thinking about it.

And so here we are. What can we possibly do as human beings to get to a point of greater knowledge? We can't claim absolute knowledge, but we can claim great knowledge about the high probability of events. Yet, at any point in time, the extrapolation of ANY such known event or "characteristic" of the universe can be objected to by saying "Well, we just don't know, because we don't know if reality is real". That is what's happening in this thread.

My previous question - not to you - was simply based on this seemingly unsolvable dilemma. If we're having a discussion about the shape of the universe, and someone questions whether or not the universe actually looks the way it is claimed and appears based on measurements, and uses the argument that we just don't know if reality is real, so we don't know distances really.... then it's an entirely appropriate question to ask just where it is reasonable to begin to question this specific knowledge (of the distances between bodies in the universe). Why would we question whether the galaxy clusters are where they are, but not the solar systems within the Milky Way? And if we don't accept that the solar systems in our galaxy are where they are, why should we accept that we know where our planets are in our solar system? And I've never been on the moon, so what's the evidence to me that the reality of the moon is real? It might not be. So doesn't that put into question tides?

The argument that we can question if reality is real just seems like it is infinitely regressive, and universally applicable. It can be used to question anything. And so when anything is questionable, what value does it really have in a discussion?

And the other question was extremely simple: If science can't figure out if reality is real, but it is possible to figure out, then what do we use to figure it out? Religion? Philosophy? Art?....

[IAHM-COL]

@Lydiot

You wouldn't use a hammer to dissassemble an aircraft engine. You would get the wrench instead.
It's just a matter of the proper tool for the job.

If you need big Truth. Use big belief. Religion is the correct discourse for that. Caveat: It is subjective. It is YOUR big Truth.

If you want to discuss, as we have done here, about the validity of the arguments, and the reasoning of reality. Use philosophy.

If you want to build an standardized discourse based on theories, observations and experiments to frame and limit uncertainty (not eliminate it), then Science is your tool. Caveat: It attempts at objectivity. Success on this is, factually questionable.

My position (philosophically subjective) is that these tools are not mix-and-match. They pose different questions, and answer to different needs. And to address all of our needs and questions as humans we need them all. Art: I just don't know how to cage this unlimitable topic.

[IAHM-COL]

@Skyboat.
Happy camper in the Event Horizon here

But if you "see" any photon split, and sending out its wave particle (escaping) without its mass counterpart... Ring me a bell.

[Lydiot]

@Lydiot

You wouldn't use a hammer to dissassemble an aircraft engine. You would get the wrench instead.
It's just a matter of the proper tool for the job.

My position (philosophically subjective) is that these tools are not mix-and-match. They pose different questions, and answer to different needs.

Judging from a lot of what you've written I'm not surprised you'd say that, and it seems that we sort of agree. But what I would say you have avoided answering directly is whether or not applying one to another in this thread actually brings us forward in any meaningful way. But I think it all boils down to the following:

If you need big Truth. Use big belief. Religion is the correct discourse for that. Caveat: It is subjective. It is YOUR big Truth.

If you want to discuss, as we have done here, about the validity of the arguments, and the reasoning of reality. Use philosophy.

If you want to build an standardized discourse based on theories, observations and experiments to frame and limit uncertainty (not eliminate it), then Science is your tool. Caveat: It attempts at objectivity. Success on this is, factually questionable.

So in the above we're still faced with a problem though. If we look at religious beliefs they actually do encroach on the fields of science. Many people, particularly those who are religious, will tell us that they're answering different questions, but they're at odds with each other. If religion tells us the earth is about 6-10,000 years old, then that is in direct contrast to what science tells us. Now, you use the word "truth" and "objectivity" above, but what do those words really mean then? When it comes to the age of our planet, is there a truth at all? The meaning of the word "truth" has nothing to do with subjectivity. If there is water on planet earth, then that is a truth. Your personal belief on that issue doesn't change whether or not IT is true. Therefore, it is more than a bit of an oxymoron to say that someone has "his/her own subjective truth". You thinking earth has no water doesn't make it true, no matter how much you think it's the case.

Because that's where the problem lies. If you say that science is valid in and of itself, for certain purposes, then we have to question whether or not it posits objective statements that we can - for all practical purposes - consider to be "true" (i.e. more likely than not). If religion talks about "big truths", and it says earth is young, then we have to make a choice: Either the religious belief is true, or the scientific theory is true. And so it appears, when using that line of reasoning, that while you're partially right that we use different "tools" for different "needs", there seem to be cases where the "needs" and "tools" overlap and we'll have to decide just what to do. This appears to be the case in this thread. Someone talks about the size and shape of our galaxy as illustrated in the video, and someone retorts that maybe reality isn't real. Is either of those statements of some kind of "truth"? They seem to be. But the latter ("philosophy"?) encroaches on the former (science).

The alternative is that they're both true simultaneously, which is what you imply when you say different "tools" for different "needs". But if that's the case, then the word "truth" is really close to meaningless, as is the word "reality".

[IAHM-COL]

@Lydiot

If I get you correctly, you are now insisting on barely in linguistics and semantics.

That is why I tried my best before to be very precise onto how to assign words (as you bold before) .. even thou English is not my fluent language.

I reiterate a bit. I am not concerned upon the existence of a reality, or of a factuality. I am specifically intending to clarify that in the sciences we work with unattainability of such. And thus, our specific need is into quantifying uncertainty and error. By quantifying those, you get a "knowing", not a "believing".

You claim that religion or religious groups hijack arguments from the scientific pursue. From my point of view (my as in subjective), religion can't. You gave the example of the age of the universe (an example I hate because we need a big premise first: that the Universe did not exist, until it did -- and thus asking for such age becomes relevant). Also, due to the distance, in time, of the event we can only collected either limited or too distant (in space) information. So I withdrew comments there. A religion group will tell you the universe has 1000[**] years. You get to choose to either believe or not. You don't get to choose to Know it. (Notice the semantics and the difference between knowing and believing).
A science study tells you it is 5x10^9[**] years. You don't get to believe it. You get to know it. And knowing here means a deeper understanding on the boundaries of the method of observations: basically two points: Know how you get the quantification (as in method and its assumptions, and how these work) and know the limits of uncertainty (errors, biases, limits in measurement, limits in calculations, possible sources of uncertainty, size of such uncertainty). You get to know all that stuff (or not -- your choice) but you don't get the semantics of a belief.

Linguistically -- I assigned the religion goal the name of "thruth". I assigned the scientific goal the name of "fact".

I preffer the example by Skyboat on the calculated distance to Jupiter. Because it is close, and more attainable. You can measure the distance. And then you get to know the methods used to measure such, the limitations and the errors imply (and other sources of variation).

So again, I feel we are going in circles... just out of a linguistic situation. Don't panic (D. A. said). I feel we are in total agreement, really. I am just talking about the "unreachability" of the fact == in the scientific discourse.

---

[**] Hypothetical numbers.

[Lydiot]

@Lydiot

If I get you correctly, you are now insisting on barely in linguistics and semantics.

That is why I tried my best before to be very precise onto how to assign words (as you bold before) .. even thou English is not my fluent language.

The reason we have to be careful with language is because some people will almost deliberately misunderstand what is being said if it appears to support what they think. The word "truth" is therefore very unfortunate. "Belief" or "opinion" is better. "True" is in opposition to "false" which we use in science as we "falsify" hypotheses. So as you can see, just by saying that something that is proposed by religion, such as a young-age earth, is the "truth" religious people will stick to that "admission" and view that as an agreement on a fact, not 'subjective belief'.

Words are important.

I reiterate a bit. I am not concerned upon the existence of a reality, or of a factuality. I am specifically intending to clarify that in the sciences we work with unattainability of such. And thus, our specific need is into quantifying uncertainty and error. By quantifying those, you get a "knowing", not a "believing".

I understand your intent now.