Everyday I move a little closer to Agnosticism

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Originally Posted by Photon1001

Well, that's fine, his book can go find itself to the nearest bonfire fo all I care. The point I found interesting in the video is imagining higher dimensions (time, possibilities in alternate universes created by statistical probabilities and theoretical time travelers, etc) the way we imagine lower dimensions (the figures on playing cards, or the concept of Flatland). Seriously, are these analogies completely invalid and useless?

No, but you have to be careful in "imagining" them. Flatland is a bit different, in that we can imagine 2D and it is at least part of our 4D space-time. They (the "extra-dimensions") are actually not like that at all. The best way to see them is through mathematical lenses. We can't experience these dimensions, if they exist, therefore there's no actual way for our "middle-world brain" (as Dawkin's calls it) to understand something that which is so completely different. I know you said youre not mathematically minded, so that may be hard. Flatland, the story, was meant to show how it is possible for there to be dimensions "higher" than what we experience, even though I like Kaluza–Klein theory better as an introduction to this topic.

[Photon1001]

Are you familiar with Rudy Rucker's The Fourth Dimension? I'm not sure it is actually possible (yet anyway) to see those other dimensions other than through mathematical lenses.

[jimeigh]

Originally Posted by HughRuss

To put a definition to a supreme being is to automatically refute its existence.

so the definition of "supreme being" is: that which cannot be defined


and you don't see a glaring contradiction in this logic?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I'm familiar with it, but haven't read it in full.

Originally Posted by Photon1001

I'm not sure it is actually possible (yet anyway) to see those other dimensions other than through mathematical lenses.

That's why Bryanton's interpretations are bull.

You can use mathematical models to come up with geometric shapes that "simulate" (because it is a projection) a n-dimensional object (e.g., hypersphere, hypercube). You can project a higher-dimensional object into a lower dimension, but you lose information. An example would be making a bird in front of a projector, you loose the information about the 3-dimensional hands.

[Photon1001]

Yeah, I understand that, its just that not everyone can think so mathematically, and these ideas, flatland, etc. can help ppl envision space, time and dimension in different ways, and maybe come up with new insights that others who can understand the calculus can apply and test. So, in short, it may be bull, but that might not necessarily be a bad thing.

[HughRuss]

Originally Posted by jimeigh

so the definition of "supreme being" is: that which cannot be defined


and you don't see a glaring contradiction in this logic?

Hence the nonexistence?
or
rather
My disbelief?

Or, how about... the negation of all religions foundation?

Do those work for you?

[HughRuss]

Originally Posted by Photon1001

I take it you don't buy into the multiverse theories then? Fair enough, if the 3 or 4 dimensional universe is finite, then who's to say the universe itself is not divine? The universe, afaik, did create itself, no?

The Universe being divine? Wouldn't that complicate, or at least completely refute, the idea of a divine being? Wouldn't that completely destroy the idea of a god? (I believe that idea runs closely with pantheism, although I could be wrong).

[Photon1001]

Wouldn't that complicate, or at least completely refute, the idea of a divine being?

Well, idk about refutation, but complexity is exactly what makes the universe the universe. Random forces, and statistical variation, and all that. The fact that ordered patterns can exist in random systems at all.

Wouldn't that completely destroy the idea of a god?

I wasn't actually talking about God, or gods.

[jimeigh]

Originally Posted by HughRuss

Hence the nonexistence?
or
rather
My disbelief?

Or, how about... the negation of all religions foundation?

Do those work for you?

um, yes. they do. so, wait, were we ever at a point of disagreement?

[HughRuss]

Originally Posted by jimeigh

um, yes. they do. so, wait, were we ever at a point of disagreement?

I, uh, I don't think so.

My point was that man's idea of a god is illogical, and infinitely fallible, and thus not supreme.

Hi.

[Photon1001]

...a bit like man's idea of the universe...

[HughRuss]

Originally Posted by Photon1001

...a bit like man's idea of the universe...

How is man's idea of the universe illogical? Infinitely fallible? Not supreme?

Since our measurements are based off of mankind, I must say (and this has absolutely no bearing on this discussion) Man is the ruler of the universe. (I love puns)

[Photon1001]

^I love puns too, man is the ruler of man's universe. Too bad man doesn't own the universe, eh?

How is man's idea of the universe illogical? Infinitely fallible? Not supreme?

A bit pessimistically worded, but essentially, this is the ultimate question.

[HughRuss]

Originally Posted by Photon1001

^I love puns too, man is the ruler of man's universe. Too bad man doesn't own the universe, eh?

A bit pessimistically worded, but essentially, this is the ultimate question.

Stop calling me pessimistic, or at least alluding to it.

Now, back to point, if man's idea of the universe is infinitely fallible, illogical, etc. then science has been a mockery of human intelligence: essentially, it has been a waste of time, and a laughing stock.

I tell jokes.

[jimeigh]

Originally Posted by HughRuss

I, uh, I don't think so.

My point was that man's idea of a god is illogical, and infinitely fallible, and thus not supreme.

Hi.

oh, i thought you were trying to correct me or something before. Everyday I move a little closer to Agnosticism

hitherehowareya?

[Photon1001]

Originally Posted by HughRuss

Stop calling me pessimistic, or at least alluding to it.

Now, back to point, if man's idea of the universe is infinitely fallible, illogical, etc. then science has been a mockery of human intelligence: essentially, it has been a waste of time, and a laughing stock.

I tell jokes.

ITs okay, nothing personal, just reporting from the heart, or gut, or brain, or spleen or something.

Not that I mean to call you pessimistic just now, just that your question, had you meant it as the ultimate question, it would have been a pessimistic version of it.

As for science, no it hasn't been a mockery actually, quite the opposite, it just hasn't made logical sense of how the universe is the way it is. Gravity vs relativity, the mysteries of quantum mechanics, what happens to stuff that falls in a black hole, what existed before the big bang, and so on. Illogical, and fallible, and far from supreme, all of that stuff, but it is completely logical and supremely infallible to try and discover and figure them out.

As for infinitely fallible, well there's another noodle-grinder, will we, through science ever, truly know everything, or even know everything that we do not yet know? This reminds me of what I have heard explained as the four quadrants of knowledge, what we know we know (stuff that's been proved, evolution, size of the earth, etc), what we know we don't know (string theory, gravity problem, and so on), what we don't know that we know (a bit more complex, to look at like this, at one time, we thought we knew that the earth was the center of the universe, back then, that knowledge sort of would have fallen into this category, another better, more literal example, ie actually, literally didn't know that we knew, might be ancient incunabulum, we didn't know, that we had already had printing technology in the past, there are a vast types that could fit into this category), and the final, and perhaps, the infinite darkness, what we don't know what we don't know. How infinite that darkness is, that is quite a question!


...edit: okay, I know that 3rd quadrant sounds a little off, don't fixate yourself on it though, as I understand it, it just encompasses everything we are on the verge of knowing, or think we know, but don't, or got wrong, or just isn't common knowledge yet, thats just minor details.

[jimeigh]

Originally Posted by HughRuss

Hence the nonexistence?
or
rather
My disbelief?

Or, how about... the negation of all religions foundation?

Do those work for you?

since we werent actually debating i figure we can just continue this conversation.


when talking about the "nature" of god if someone responds to you by saying that "the nature of god is that he cant be understood" which is similar to that, "the definition of god is that he cant be defined" these answers are not sufficient. you dont describe a things nature, or define a thing, by saying what it isnt.

if someone asks you, "what is a dog?" the answer, "it isn't a horse" is insufficient in the same way.


which is not even to mention that a definition being "cant be defined" contradicts itself by being a definition

and to say that a thing "cant be understood" is contradictory because it implies that you understand an aspect of it - that it cant be understood.

[HughRuss]

Originally Posted by jimeigh

since we werent actually debating i figure we can just continue this conversation.


when talking about the "nature" of god if someone responds to you by saying that "the nature of god is that he cant be understood" which is similar to that, "the definition of god is that he cant be defined" these answers are not sufficient. you dont describe a things nature, or define a thing, by saying what it isnt.

if someone asks you, "what is a dog?" the answer, "it isn't a horse" is insufficient in the same way.


which is not even to mention that a definition being "cant be defined" contradicts itself by being a definition

and to say that a thing "cant be understood" is contradictory because it implies that you've grasped an aspect of it - that it cant be understood.

Or, I suppose, asking somebody to describe darkness.

Or a color, for that matter.

[jimeigh]

Originally Posted by HughRuss

Or, I suppose, asking somebody to describe darkness.

the absence of light

Or a color, for that matter.

refracted light



no i dont think its the same thing.

[jimeigh]

when someone says "X is unknowable" they are professing to "know" something about it - that it cant be known.

and much like chewbacca, this does not make sense.