Present Evidence Here II

[TheCloser]

Never talk simple metaphysics to materialists ;-)  These questions are fundamental clues that we are looking in the wrong end of the telescope.  The answer of materialists is the pseudo-science of epiphenomenalism (or emergentism) .. which is in fact a philosophy subset to the philosophy of scientism (which isn't science, in spite of the duplicitous naming).

The problem is analysis (philosophical, not calculus) and abstraction.  I can have a ship.  I can model a ship and put it in a bottle.  I can have the idea of a ship.  These three are not the same.  I can analyze a person down to the atoms, and a rock down to the atoms ... and not surprisingly, I find that both are composed of atoms.  So I conclude, since atoms are primary to their assemblages ... that a rock and a human are one and the same.  In more abstract terms, this is how Pythagoras came up with the idea that there was no material reality either, just numbers (the whole numbers only, starting with one, two ...).  Material analysis aka physics and numerical analysis are both useful disciplines, as an engineer I used both ... but they aren't "Truth".  They are methods, not results.  Scientific method is ... a method, not a result.  Science doesn't produce "Truth" is produces better questions.

So idealists will idealize .. that there is no human doing the experiment, not human thinking the thought (we know this is wrong in QM and psychology).  There was even an attempt in psychology (Behaviorism) to deny that humans had any thoughts, only objectively observable external behaviors ... but while popular in the US during the mid-20th century, this fad faded.  All this abstraction goes back to Plato, anyone who does it is a follower of Plato, who was a philosopher, not a mathematician (like Euclid) nor a scientist (like Aristotle).  Our present day political science however, does go back to Plato's "Republic".

you can play with metaphysics if you want.  I am not into that kind of stuff as a rule.  I mean i'll play around with it so long as  we are honest about what we are doing.

I use what we have around us to describe how the universe works to the best of our ability.  If we have a mechanism, explanation for interactions, and prediction of future interactions we have a more valid claim then if we are missing one or more of those parts.

The claim that "we are part of a system that may be alive" fits observations, explains many events, and will make predictions.  I understand that it is incomplete but so is dark matter and energy.

If you are offering a counter claim, I am all ears. 

I am an atheist, so my claim is not about a literal religious god. 

[TheCloser]

Why is it more valid to claim we are in something alive?  And what does the word 'alive' mean? 

Of course we are part of something bigger.  So what?  We are also part of something much, much smaller (microbes).  So what?  The sun is bigger than me--does that mean the sun is alive?  I am much smaller than a redwood tree; does that constitute some sort of proof of something??? 

You use the phrase often--something bigger than us.  What are you driving at?  What is your point?

The world "alive" is complicated when we start digging but I think if we just keep it to mean the everyday use of word it would be just fine.  If I have to explain the word "alive" to you I am not sure what to do.  Would I also have to explain atom parts? or some basic earth sciences?  what other basics would I have to explain?

there is no christian god.  I thinks that's easy enough.  But what describes the system we are in using the best understanding we have?

[Baruch]

you can play with metaphysics if you want.  I am not into that kind of stuff as a rule.  I mean i'll play around with it so long as  we are honest about what we are doing.

I use what we have around us to describe how the universe works to the best of our ability.  If we have a mechanism, explanation for interactions, and prediction of future interactions we have a more valid claim then if we are missing one or more of those parts.

The claim that "we are part of a system that may be alive" fits observations, explains many events, and will make predictions.  I understand that it is incomplete but so is dark matter and energy.

If you are offering a counter claim, I am all ears. 

I am an atheist, so my claim is not about a literal religious god.

Though a theist, I am not literal nor religious.  You are making an argument from Natural Philosophy, circa 1800 ... modern physical science has debunked vitalism and panpsychism.  If you want to discuss this as science, you are wasting your time (unless you are wanting to talk about history of science circa 1800).  If you want to discuss Natural Philosophy ... I am afraid there is no way to escape metaphysics (it is what extends beyond physics).

My theistic POV is yes, the whole of reality (as humans can know it) is both spiritual & irrational.  It is impossible for humans to think outside of their human bias .. and a human is both alive and psychological (maybe in a way plants are not).  All human knowledge, is humanistic, part of the humanities.  The battle between Art and Science is a false battle, science itself is a human art, not something omniscient, omnipresent, eternal (aka G-d).

[Baruch]

The world "alive" is complicated when we start digging but I think if we just keep it to mean the everyday use of word it would be just fine.  If I have to explain the word "alive" to you I am not sure what to do.  Would I also have to explain atom parts? or some basic earth sciences?  what other basics would I have to explain?

there is no christian god.  I thinks that's easy enough.  But what describes the system we are in using the best understanding we have?

Christian gods (more than one) exist inside Christian heads .. it is an idea, not a physical entity.  If you aren't Christian ... then that idea doesn't exist inside your head.  On the other hand, Allah (more than one) exists inside Muslim heads.  Some people don't have any gods (human projections) inside their heads at all, such people are atheists (in the sense of non-theist).  This is descriptive, not prescriptive.  You don't need a god idea in your head, if you don't want one ... or an idea of pizza.

[aitm]

Most humans are like the drunk, who only looks for his lost keys under the streetlight at night, not because that is where he lost them, but that is where he can see them.

that is a very old Bazooka Joe cartoon, except the guy is looking for a quarter.

[Baruch]

that is a very old Bazooka Joe cartoon, except the guy is looking for a quarter.

I bet you put your used bubble gum on the underside of your school desk ;-)

[TheCloser]

Christian gods (more than one) exist inside Christian heads .. it is an idea, not a physical entity.  If you aren't Christian ... then that idea doesn't exist inside your head.  On the other hand, Allah (more than one) exists inside Muslim heads.  Some people don't have any gods (human projections) inside their heads at all, such people are atheists (in the sense of non-theist).  This is descriptive, not prescriptive.  You don't need a god idea in your head, if you don't want one ... or an idea of pizza.

I get ya.  But this is a personal opinion and not a descriptor of how the universe works.  The universe works the way it works and we are just trying to figure that out.

The system, at least this small volume of space, is best described as alive regardless of what some people have in their heads or not.  I am open to other claims that have observational support, explain the interactions around us, and make predictions.

So other then a personal opinion, what do ya have?

[Baruch]

I get ya.  But this is a personal opinion and not a descriptor of how the universe works.  The universe works the way it works and we are just trying to figure that out.

The system, at least this small volume of space, is best described as alive regardless of what some people have in their heads or not.  I am open to other claims that have observational support, explain the interactions around us, and make predictions.

So other then a personal opinion, what do ya have?

Nobody knows how the universe works ... except Platonists who know the abstract truth thru their magical Greek organs.  Pythagoras started this Illuminati bullshit, and they burned down his school and ran him out of town.  Plato tried to implement the philosopher-king, and his first student king put him in slavery for awhile.  You may think that because you have read the Golden Book of Physical Science ... that you know how the universe works.  In my experience it doesn't work at all, and ape men opinions aren't worth much either.

Yes, the vacuum is ... very active.  Do you understand Quantum Field Theory?  If so, you have gone to the wrong blog.  Nobody here understands it (though a few have made false claims).  But neither the vacuum (nor the particles) are alive.  You don't understand "alive".  Are you wanting to solve the renormalization problem?  We can discuss this in the science section, if you want, so that the regulars won't be bored.  Mostly we can share our opinions of Feynman videos or go full retard with the Feynman lectures.

[TheCloser]

Nobody knows how the universe works ... except Platonists who know the abstract truth thru their magical Greek organs.  Pythagoras started this Illuminati bullshit, and they burned down his school and ran him out of town.  Plato tried to implement the philosopher-king, and his first student king put him in slavery for awhile.  You may think that because you have read the Golden Book of Physical Science ... that you know how the universe works.  In my experience it doesn't work at all, and ape men opinions aren't worth much either.

Yes, the vacuum is ... very active.  Do you understand Quantum Field Theory?  If so, you have gone to the wrong blog.  Nobody here understands it (though a few have made false claims).  But neither the vacuum (nor the particles) are alive.  You don't understand "alive".  Are you wanting to solve the renormalization problem?  We can discuss this in the science section, if you want, so that the regulars won't be bored.  Mostly we can share our opinions of Feynman videos or go full retard with the Feynman lectures.

Yeah, I understand quantum field theory as good most non-college professors of quantum field theory, I guess.  And you're right, we do not know a lot.  In fact, it looks like we don't know more than we do know.  So we can base an opinion on what we don't know or we can base our opinions, conclusions, or ideas on what we do know.  Understanding that it is limited.

So back to my claim.  if you understand quantum field theory, even as little as I do, then you fully grasped the notion that we are really a net average of a series of events that we can call gluons, photons, atoms, molecules, people, and so forth.  We can really say that we really become is a set of events, or interactions, in a larger set of events.  It follows that we can get deeper, but I think you know it will just bring us right back to the same spot.

You are right, we do not know a lot.  So lets just use what we do know.  It  really comes to the notions of alive and/or not alive and the separation between the two volumes of space that we are defining as life and non-life.   Of course we do have the tweeners, like viruses, but the notion of a continuum between alive and not alive with the focus on the ends, for now, will do for this site.

Back to "how do we best describe this volume of space that we live in?" 

The notion that we are in a volume that is alive fits observations, offers mechanisms, and make predictions.  It is incomplete, but it's the best we can do.
I do not know, I am only saying "using what we do know it seems that ..." But I am willing to read about another conclusions that are supported by observations.

What notion do you have that best describes what we see around us?

[Baruch]

But I am not a materialist, and this isn't the place in this blog, or even the right blog.  And yes, I probably understand Quantum Field Theory as badly as you do.  Do you recall that Feynman said, anybody who claims to understand quantum mechanics, proves that they don't by making that claim?

But yes, there is a recent push in some quarters, that tries to quantify living vs nonliving in quantum mechanical terms, just as it can be done in classical physics, in terms of entropy.

You are redefining "alive" to "save appearances".  I suspect that is what those "new QM" folks are doing too.
This guy ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwgQVZju1ZM

The best description for me, is metaphysical.  I reject the monism of Thales and Pythagoras et al.  I reject the rationalism of Aristotle.  So my POV won't be of much interest to you.  I don't think you are genuinely interested in vitalism and panpsychism (which is pretty much what you are implying, yet you are trying to drag materialism into your argument).

[TheCloser]

But I am not a materialist, and this isn't the place in this blog, or even the right blog.  And yes, I probably understand Quantum Field Theory as badly as you do.  Do you recall that Feynman said, anybody who claims to understand quantum mechanics, proves that they don't by making that claim?

But yes, there is a recent push in some quarters, that tries to quantify living vs nonliving in quantum mechanical terms, just as it can be done in classical physics, in terms of entropy.

You are redefining "alive" to "save appearances".  I suspect that is what those "new QM" folks are doing too.
This guy ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwgQVZju1ZM

The best description for me, is metaphysical.  I reject the monism of Thales and Pythagoras et al.  I reject the rationalism of Aristotle.  So my POV won't be of much interest to you.  I don't think you are genuinely interested in vitalism and panpsychism (which is pretty much what you are implying, yet you are trying to drag materialism into your argument).

"metaphysical"? really?  so the base for your "beliefs" is "we don't know that."  That's odd, why would you based your conclusion on what we don't know?

You are right, I have little interest in philosophy that is not based in what we do know.  I am more of an engineer, if it works, it works.  If it doesn't, figure out why and try again.

So how can we ask for a proof of god or proof of no god?  Or proof of "god" being something different than theist or atheist think? That question seems funny to me if we are not going to talk about it using what we do understand about our region of space?

[Baruch]

Ape men don't "know" anything ... even the world "know" ... which refers to intimacy ... similar to sex (I knew my wife).  They also don't know what "science" is ... which is just Latin for knowledge in general terms, not something specific to post 1600 serious materialist research.

I was an aerospace engineer for 10 years, but I didn't get any wisdom from that, just employment ;-)

Change of topic back to the OP Title ... about G-d.  Maybe more later.  Proof?  In actual mathematics, this is a limited concept ... outside of mathematics it is bullshit.  One can have empirical demonstration, usually quantified.  But no G-d there either.  Earlier people found G-d in mathematics or physics ... but not today, when intellectual nihilism rules.

So can one derive supernatural from the natural?  No way that would be a logical contradiction given that these terms are treated as opposites.  The fact that one divides one's human experience into two ... is a prejudice, when one discards one half of what one divides things into.  It is rhetoric ... with an agenda.  I reject Thales ... reality isn't all "water" or any other unified field theory.  Monism in the materialist context .. fails.

[aitm]

But what describes the system we are in using the best understanding we have?

What if the description does not please you? Is it the description non-the-less, or do you require a description that agrees with your assumption? Common sense and reason tells us that if we do not have the answer we continue to look until we do or we expire. The reality is that many are unable to do this and are more comfortable making shit up that helps them cope. Which do you prefer?

[Baruch]

What if the description does not please you? Is it the description non-the-less, or do you require a description that agrees with your assumption? Common sense and reason tells us that if we do not have the answer we continue to look until we do or we expire. The reality is that many are unable to do this and are more comfortable making shit up that helps them cope. Which do you prefer?

I would rather cope with a wrong answer, than die with a right answer ;-)  And yes, continue to look, until you die.  Exactly what I am doing too.  But I don't have to use method X ... I can use method Y or Z also.

[Mike Cl]

The world "alive" is complicated when we start digging but I think if we just keep it to mean the everyday use of word it would be just fine.  If I have to explain the word "alive" to you I am not sure what to do.  Would I also have to explain atom parts? or some basic earth sciences?  what other basics would I have to explain?

there is no christian god.  I thinks that's easy enough.  But what describes the system we are in using the best understanding we have?

I still don't know what your point is.  The universe is alive or it is dead; or maybe, like a virus, neither.  What difference does it make?  An amoeba is alive; but does it have a purpose?  None that I can see, other than living.  That does not mean it does not have a purpose to an amoeba--but none that I can figure out.  But that does not make it any easier or harder to learn about amoebas.  Maybe the universe is like that.