Life From Dirt?

[Polymath257]

I think you are attributing too much to the ability of science and how far we have come in terms of knowledge.

I am not saying that our current ideas in science are the truth. In fact, I have little doubt they will be revised over time.

What I *am* saying is that something that is undetectable *even in theory* simply does not exist. That isn't a science question. It is simply a question of what it means to exist.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I am not saying that our current ideas in science are the truth. In fact, I have little doubt they will be revised over time.

What I *am* saying is that something that is undetectable *even in theory* simply does not exist. That isn't a science question. It is simply a question of what it means to exist.

What about imaginary numbers? Do they exist?

 

[Polymath257]

It's not the same discussion as with @Audie as far as I remember. That was Audie trying to fit an infinite number of regresses in a finite amount of time.

Which is also possible as long as there is no shortest time interval.

If there is no start however we run into the problem of what infinity is. As a number to me it is something that you cannot add do, it cannot get bigger, it is the biggest number, it is non existent. So and infinite amount of time in the past means that we cannot be here yet..................... imo.

Well, then you have the wrong definition of infinity for this context. It is quite possible to 'add to infinity'. Look at the set of even integers. That is an infinite set and you can 'add' any odd integer. For that matter, you can add the infinite collection of odd integers. And that will end up with all of the integers.

Furthermore, there are different sizes of infinity. The collection of all decimal numbers (real numbers) is a larger infinity than that of the counting numbers.

The way infinity works has been figured out over the last 150 years or so since Cantor. it isn't the same as how finite (enumerable by a counting number) things work, but it is logically and mathematically sound. Somethings are initially counter-intuitive, but that is simply because our intuition is formed on finite things.

OK, I am no doubt wrong.

Yes it no doubt does go beyong the evidence.


The laws of physics are descriptive for those who are working them out. Initially I imagine the laws could be applied. Even what some physicists (I think it was Stephen Hawking) say seems that way when they say that given the laws of physics initially, everything could come into existence.



So the first cause might be uncaused then and might never have come into existence.

Not the same thing. There are uncaused events in the universe (quantum events). And they can being things into existence.

I just worked out what I probably meant by the quantum environment. That would be the initial universe, the universe in which the laws of physics had not been applied, the chaos of the initial stuff that was there after the BB. But this stuff came into existence at the BB and out of the singularity.

Whenever there was mass, energy, space, and time, things had properties and so obeyed the laws of physics.

I have heard science and you say there is no before the BB.
So what are you saying now?

I am saying (and have always said) that the standard BB model says there is no 'before the BB'. But other models say otherwise. it is an active question and we simply do not know the answer. But you also cannot dismiss one possibility because it seems counter-intuitive.

That is what happens in science. It does not mean that the spiritual does not exist, it just means that it has been defined away to make a definition that is workable.

And how can you show that a spirit does exist? Is there *any* way to do so? if not, then it is, at best, irrelevant to any explanation.

 

[Polymath257]

What about imaginary numbers? Do they exist?

No. Numbers do not exist. They are a linguistic device. Math is a language.

But imaginary numbers are *useful* to describe things and so 'exist' just as much as the number 2.

Just to be clear: neither 2 nor 1+3i actually exist.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I believe it is reasonable to only believe in those things that can actually be detected.

...

How do you detect: I believe it is reasonable to only believe in those things that can actually be detected?

That is your trick. You use a narrow version of what is reasonable, but it doesn't apply to your rule for it.
As long as you don't get that, we will be playing garbage in garbage out for what the universe is.

 

[RestlessSoul]

No. Numbers do not exist. They are a linguistic device.

They are relatable to observable entities though. They have practical, tangible applications. So they are detectable, albeit indirectly.

 

[Polymath257]

How do you detect: I believe it is reasonable to only believe in those things that can actually be detected?

I don't. it isn't an existence question.

That is your trick. You use a narrow version of what is reasonable, but it doesn't apply to your rule for it.
As long as you don't get that, we will be playing garbage in garbage out for what the universe is.

You misapply the rule.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't. it isn't an existence question.

You misapply the rule.

Yeah, and that is in your mind and not a thing external to you.
Your rule is that your rule is not really a rule. It is how the world is and when I use another rule, you declare based on your rule, that my rule is wrong. But wrong is not a property of a thing. It is a process in your brain and wrong in this case has no objective referent.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yeah, and that is in your mind and not a thing external to you.
Your rule is that your rule is not really a rule. It is how the world is and when I use another rule, you declare based on your rule, that my rule is wrong. But wrong is not a property of a thing. It is a process in your brain and wrong in this case has no objective referent.

You are playing very silly games here.

@Polymath257 pointed out your error. And instead of acknowledging it and correcting yourself, you are doubling down and expanding on the error.

 

[Polymath257]

They are relatable to observable entities though. They have practical, tangible applications. So they are detectable, albeit indirectly.

Is the word 'cat' detectable? Does it have a practical, tangible, application? Sure. But is the word 'cat' something that exists independently of humans? No. We invented it to help us describe something about the world around us.

What we actually detect is a cat. The word 'cat' has an existence as a part of our language (and can be detected as a sound, or as a pattern on a screen, etc). But there is nothing about the word 'cat' that necessarily ties it to that animal. if you go to another country, the word will change, 'chat, gato, mao'. It is *our* invention, not a part of the universe.

In the same way, the number 2 is an aspect of language. It can help us describe the world around us. But there is nothing about the universe that decrees that number as necessary. it is simply useful for our descriptions. And, in that sense, complex numbers exist as well: they are useful for our descriptions of the world around us. But they are an invention of humans to help us describe things, not something 'out there' to be independently detected.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Is the word 'cat' detectable? Does it have a practical, tangible, application? Sure. But is the word 'cat' something that exists independently of humans? No. We invented it to help us describe something about the world around us.

What we actually detect is a cat. The word 'cat' has an existence as a part of our language (and can be detected as a sound, or as a pattern on a screen, etc). But there is nothing about the word 'cat' that necessarily ties it to that animal. if you go to another country, the word will change, 'chat, gato, mao'. It is *our* invention, not a part of the universe.

In the same way, the number 2 is an aspect of language. It can help us describe the world around us. But there is nothing about the universe that decrees that number as necessary. it is simply useful for our descriptions. And, in that sense, complex numbers exist as well: they are useful for our descriptions of the world around us. But they are an invention of humans to help us describe things, not something 'out there' to be independently detected.

All word don't have objective referents.
The problem is that for " It is simply useful for our descriptions." is not out there for useful or our. That is a case of limited cognitive, moral and cultural relativism and in effect a limited opinion in you as it is not an objective fact. That is your trick. You declare an in effect universal our and useful, that is not there.
You are a scientific skeptic and I am a general one, so I can catch your individual opinions.
You can be objective for all that is universal for humans, but as soon as we hit variations, I can catch you.

And the bold one is garbage in garbage out as that is metaphysics and not science. We can go over how it ends up as absurd through reductio ad absurdum. You are doing folk dualism in effect.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Is the word 'cat' detectable? Does it have a practical, tangible, application? Sure. But is the word 'cat' something that exists independently of humans? No. We invented it to help us describe something about the world around us.

What we actually detect is a cat. The word 'cat' has an existence as a part of our language (and can be detected as a sound, or as a pattern on a screen, etc). But there is nothing about the word 'cat' that necessarily ties it to that animal. if you go to another country, the word will change, 'chat, gato, mao'. It is *our* invention, not a part of the universe.

In the same way, the number 2 is an aspect of language. It can help us describe the world around us. But there is nothing about the universe that decrees that number as necessary. it is simply useful for our descriptions. And, in that sense, complex numbers exist as well: they are useful for our descriptions of the world around us. But they are an invention of humans to help us describe things, not something 'out there' to be independently detected.

So there are things which do not exist, but which are nonetheless functional, recognisable and communicable?

 

[exchemist]

So there are things which do not exist, but which are nonetheless functional, recognisable and communicable?

Aren’t such things what we call “abstractions”?

 

[Polymath257]

So there are things which do not exist, but which are nonetheless functional, recognisable and communicable?

Absolutely. Most abstractions are of this sort. They are linguistic conveniences.

let me give an analogy.

Does the game of chess 'exist'? Sure. In a certain sense, we can say that it does. But, it might require no actual pieces and could be played completely in the minds of the players (with communication).

So, in what sense does it exist? Certainly not in the sense that a chair or an elephant does. And that is the appropriate definition when talking about the external world.

Now, if you want to claim that 'God' is an abstraction, similar to the number 2, I might even be able to go along with that. It is a placeholder for our desires and fears and hopes. But it doesn't exist in the 'real world'.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Aren’t such things what we call “abstractions”?

But they don't exist in the universe.

 

[Polymath257]

But they don't exist in the universe.

Exactly. Abstractions are conveniences of language and not things that exist external to us.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Absolutely. Most abstractions are of this sort. They are linguistic conveniences.

No, they are first person processes in a physical brain without an objective referent, but still in the universe. The universe is an abstraction itself and not in the universe by your rule, because it is not a thing as such.

 

[Polymath257]

No, they are first person processes in a physical brain without an objective referent, but still in the universe.

Which is what I was saying.

The universe is an abstraction itself and not in the universe by your rule, because it is not a thing as such.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Exactly.

So how come I am a part of the universe and can do something that is not in the universe? BTW exactly is not in the universe. So how can you communicate something through the universe as the Internet as physical and I can understand that something, which didn't pass trough the universe from you to me.
You really have to learn when you are doing philosophy as in the end metaphysics and not natural science.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The first cause, causing other things to exist, through a mechanism that we do not know, sounds more reasonable than things just coming into existence from nothing and without a cause.

I find the idea that either the original substance had no beginning or came into being uncaused from nothing paradoxical, since each is counterintuitive. I also consider it a logical error to look at only one of those two, call it counterintuitive, and reject it on that basis. Also, calling that first substance conscious is unjustified. Why would it be, unless it evolved,in which case it's just another product of nature like man.

The scientific view point assumes the existence only of those things that it can test.

Only things capable of interacting with other things, which is what detecting means, can be called real or said to exist. Reality is the collection of objects and processes interacting with one another in space through time. To postulate that there exist things that cannot interact with what I call reality is to make an unfalsifiable and thus meaningless statement, and would exclude a god capable of creating or modifying our reality. Once you call something untestable or undetectable - and not just contingently so, undetectable for now until the right devise is invented - you are declaring it irrelevant and causally equivalent to nonexistent.

Assuming that and then defining life accordingly is not a proof that the definition is true.

Did you mean complete? The scientific narrative will be the simplest one that accounts for all relevant observations. We define life according to what we see, and we understand it as a far-from-equilibrium chemical state. No substances or forces not readily available are needed to assemble or maintain an organism through its lifespan, so none are included in the scientific narrative. The believer wants a job for his god, so he invents one. "God is the spirit part of a living thing." "What is that exactly, where can we find it, and what is it needed for that the chemistry alone cannot do?"

Why not attribute a spirit to a burning light bulb? "What is it needed for?" one asks. "It's the light force that makes matter able to glow. Let there be light, and the bulb was infused with the spirit." "We don't need that to account for the observed behavior of incandescent matter." "But you can't prove that the spirit of the bulb doesn't exist." "No. Nor need we to ignore the idea until we need it to explain something."

Those who define life in other ways can see a different nature in those things that are alive compared to a pile of chemicals,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, especially when those things are conscious.

Scientists also see a different nature in living matter and nonliving matter. Not all collections and arrangements of chemical are alive, but those that are remain assemblages of chemicals kept in far-from-equilibrium states by channeling ambient energy (sunlight, nutrition). A living organism is a dissipative structure like a tornado, hurricane, the red spot on Jupiter, and the polar hexagon on Saturn. I mentioned this yesterday with the Jeremy England link. That energy is your "spirit."

It's the same as the spirit that brings the tornado to life, organizes its elements into a twister and animates it going through town destroying the landscape. Like living organisms, they are all far from equilibrium structures that would have nearly zero chance of occurring without there being a pressure to have the ingredients come together and function cooperatively. This occurs when a system is channeling energy, and is frequently associated with energy (heat) sources like atmospheres and oceans that function as thermal reservoirs:

• "A Dissipative Structure is a thermodynamically open system operating far from thermodynamic equilibrium, that exchanges energy, matter, and information with. the external environment. In this kind of systems, organization can emerge through a spontaneous self-organization process"
• "A thermal reservoir, also thermal energy reservoir or thermal bath, is a thermodynamic system with a heat capacity so large that the temperature of the reservoir changes relatively little when a much more significant amount of heat is added or extracted. As a conceptual simplification, it effectively functions as an infinite pool of thermal energy at a given, constant temperature. Since it can act as a source and sink of heat, it is often also referred to as a heat reservoir or heat bath. Lakes, oceans and rivers often serve as thermal reservoirs in geophysical processes, such as the weather. In atmospheric science, large air masses in the atmosphere often function as thermal reservoirs."

Hopefully, you can read the titles below. This is the ground-breaking work of Belgian physical chemist Ilya Prigogine. I read only the leftmost of these books, decades ago, but it was enough to get the gestalt of this concept of dissipative structures and semi-stable, far-from-equilibrium states like living things:

Life is another example of a dissipative structure, a high level of self-organization to a far from equilibrium position that channels energy that it uses to maintain that status.