The problem with bouncy castle scenario is not the castle itself, but finding out "who pressed the button".

Answer: It was hideously ugly!

"who pressed the button" — Corvus

Isn't that a "leading question"?

Isn't that a "leading question"? — InPitzotl

It is an inferred question I suppose.

What counts as a causal explanation? Those who desire a reason why, a teleology, or some kind of intentional act or actor will find physical explanations inadequate.

That there is something is beyond dispute, even if there are some somethings here or out there so inclined to disagree. Why there is something cannot be answered by appeal to something, but cannot be asked if there was not something. The ability to ask a question, however, does mean that there must be a suitable answer to the question. And yet, some think that the question leads to a necessary answer. Some non-contingent being or ground of being. But of course such is not necessary. It is an expression of personal preference or a desire that there be meaning in existence. To the assumption that such meaning can be found rather than made, here too we can ask why.

Personally, I think two membrane's collided.

Why there is something cannot be answered by appeal to something, but cannot be asked if there was not something. — Fooloso4

:100:

It's a gross equivocation of the meaning of both. I have faith and trust in science, insofar as I accept that it is conducted by people of integrity who have both the education and access to the resources to investigate and validate these kinds of theories. I presume that, if I undertook the same training and viewed the same research, then I would probably arrive at the same conclusion. — Wayfarer

Amen. Apollodorus is heading for a ban. Shouldn't have to say this stuff.

That would have looked like a scene in Harry Potter. :) — Corvus

How many Slytherins to stir a cauldron? :grin:

What counts as a causal explanation? Those who desire a reason why, a teleology, or some kind of intentional act or actor will find physical explanations inadequate. — Fooloso4

I think the over-arching point is that it would have been inconceivable for classical culture to entertain the idea that the Universe is the product of chance or that it is not 'animated by reason' in a generally Aristotelian sense. The realisation of this possibility is part of the advent of modernity and a major theme of 20th century culture. I often cite Bertrand Russell's essay, Free Man's Worship, as a paradigmatic statement. For modern cultures it's normal, part of the air we breathe, so we don't notice how strange it is, and how strange we are. Or estranged.

In any case, it was one phase of cultural development. 'Freud remarked that ‘the self-love of mankind has been three times wounded by science’, referring to the Copernican revolution, Darwin’s discovery of natural selection, and Nietszche’s declaration of the Death of God. In a strange way, the Copenhagen Interpretation gave back what the European Enlightenment had taken away, by placing consciousness in a pivotal role in the observation of the most fundamental constituents of reality.' The anthropic cosmological principle likewise suggests that the evolution of rational sentient beings wasn't simply the fluke occurence that Russell presumed. I think culture is heading for a post-secular future, where the bleak materialism of the modern period is simply one cultural form, and an impoverished one at that. We need to realise a cosmic philosophy capable of sustaining a sense of there being a reason for existence, to replace the one jettisoned by The Enlightenment.

I think the over-arching point is that it would have been inconceivable for classical culture to entertain the idea that the Universe is the product of chance — Wayfarer

That assumes that they could not free themselves from the idea that the cosmos is a product. Aristotle argued that the cosmos is eternal, that it did not come into existence. The pre-Socrates explained things in terms of one or more elements. Anaximander's arche, (beginning, principle, cause) was the apeiron:

The apeiron is central to the cosmological theory created by Anaximander, a 6th-century BC pre-Socratic Greek philosopher whose work is mostly lost. From the few existing fragments, we learn that he believed the beginning or ultimate reality (arche) is eternal and infinite, or boundless (apeiron), subject to neither old age nor decay, which perpetually yields fresh materials from which everything we can perceive is derived.[4] Apeiron generated the opposites (hot–cold, wet–dry, etc.) which acted on the creation of the world (cf. Heraclitus). Everything is generated from apeiron and then it is destroyed by going back to apeiron, according to necessity.[5] He believed that infinite worlds are generated from apeiron and then they are destroyed there again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apeiron

In a strange way, the Copenhagen Interpretation gave back what the European Enlightenment had taken away, by placing consciousness in a pivotal role in the observation of the most fundamental constituents of reality.' — Wayfarer

Which of course is merely a speculative mystification and not itself scientific at all. Oh yeah, and wrong, or besides the point, in every significant way. CI briefly conjured up again is an exorcised spectre all but banished again from fundamental physics. Stop deluding yourself, my friend, by repeating that silly mantra.

Hey, thanks for attributing the Copenhagen Intepretation of quantum physics to me! Makes me feel even more significant.

I think culture is heading for a post-secular future, where the bleak materialism of the modern period is simply one cultural form, and an impoverished one at that. — Wayfarer

That may be a bit too optimistic. I think it will depend on which culture becomes dominant in the end. Advanced science cannot exist without substantial financial investment. It has, until now, chiefly benefited from the support it has received from Western capitalist society. But the world is changing very fast and as the West is rapidly declining demographically and economically, and rival systems like those of China and Islamic states are on the rise, science may soon find itself under the control of non-Western totalitarian regimes ....

I think the practice of science is itself becoming 'greener'. I mean, we're going to be relying on environmental science, food science, energy science, for Spaceship Earth to have a future (and I'm a firm non-believer in stellar conquest).

What is also needed is an alternative economic philosophy that doesn't rely on endless growth, consumption and the stimulation of artificial needs. What is needed is a social philosophy that encourages the cultivation of a superior state of being, rather than endless acquisition and consumption. That's the most difficult change to envisage.

What is also needed is an alternative economic philosophy that doesn't rely on endless growth, consumption and the stimulation of artificial needs. What is needed is a social philosophy that encourages the cultivation of a superior state of being, rather than endless acquisition and consumption. That's the most difficult change to envisage. — Wayfarer

Even I've been thinking along that line. There's something seriously wrong with the economics of this day and age. It's not that there are particular people, states, or forms of government to blame - economics, at the end of the day, is materialism maxxed out.

I maybe wrong about this but I've detected a positive development in economics in that knowledge is held at a premium - to fuel the "endless growth" you talked about, businesses need new ideas, new technologies, new philosophies, etc. However, knowledge is viewed as an adjunct, an auxiliary, playing only a secondary role in the economic machinery; plus the knowledge that's relevant to economics is just a tiny band, centered around technology and science, of the knowledge spectrum.

What we need to do is somehow flip this relationship between material goods and knowledge - people should want and be willing to pay for knowledge, the whole gamut, material goods then become means of acquiring knowledge.

I suppose it all boils down reworking our priorities:

1. Current state of affairs: material goods are needs, knowledge is a means of fulfilling those needs.

2. Proposed change: knowledge becomes a need, material goods help in the acquisition of knowledge.


If ever I start a company, say making mugs, my slogan would be "We sell knowledge. The mugs are complimentary". The mugs could have snippets of information on philosophy, science, religion, etc.

However, knowledge is viewed as an adjunct, an auxiliary, playing only a secondary role in the economic machinery; plus the knowledge that's relevant to economics is just a tiny band, centered around technology and science, of the knowledge spectrum. — TheMadFool

The 'instrumentalisation of reason' that the New Left describes.

The philosophical problem is precisely the elimination of telos, purpose, from ethics. The Universe is deemed to be inherently purpose-less - as Russell said, the 'accidental collocation of atoms', as the Universe goes on its merry way towards the ultimate heat-death.

I'm not pitching for a return to traditionalist ethics. There needs to be of re-envisaging of human goals knowing what we now know about cosmology.

But as I noted already in this thread, the very idea of the 'big bang' lends itself to religious interpretation - that is what the Pope wanted to do, but LeMaitre discouraged him from making pronouncements about it. But the big bang theory was and is resisted by some, because it seems too near to creation from nothing. I mean, when you think about it, it is saying that the entire vast universe burst into existence from a match head, in an instant. Fred Hoyle and many others always resisted the idea. I don't see anything inherently antagonistic between the idea of creation and physical csomology.

And the other point that really struck me about Russell's essay, a Free Man's Worship is that Buddhism, for example, always knew that 'the whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins.' It's not news to them! It's a result of deliberately narrowing the scope of philosophy to the phenomenal realm, the very realm of constant change and decay, and then boo-hooing about it.

Sorry - just riffing on a few of my favourite themes.

The 'instrumentalisation of reason' that the New Left describes. — Wayfarer

That's a nice way of putting it. I didn't know people were so lax with words though because the correct expression, in my humble opinion, should be "instrumentalization of reason and knowledge."

That said, now that I thought about it a little more, the purpose of knowing stuff is to apply it in our lives and materialistic application seems to be the most obvious way. Nonetheless, there are a lot of ideas out there that are not amenable to physicalization but useful still; given how economics, as I mentioned earlier, is an almost exclusively materialistic enterpise, such ideas might, to our detriment, die out. What kinda ideas, in your view, can't be commercialized in the current economic climate?

The philosophical problem is precisely the elimination of telos, purpose, from ethics. The Universe is deemed to be inherently purpose-less - as Russell said, the 'accidental collocation of atoms', as the Universe goes on its merry way towards the ultimate heat-death.

I'm not pitching for a return to traditionalist ethics. There needs to be of re-envisaging of human goals knowing what we now know about cosmology.

But as I noted already in this thread, the very idea of the 'big bang' lends itself to religious interpretation - that is what the Pope wanted to do, but LeMaitre discouraged him from making pronouncements about it. But the big bang theory was and is resisted by some, because it seems too near to creation from nothing. I mean, when you think about it, it is saying that the entire vast universe burst into existence from a match head, in an instant. Fred Hoyle and many others always resisted the idea. I don't see anything inherently antagonistic between the idea of creation and physical csomology. — Wayfarer

If you ask me, telos and ethics seem almost inseparable because telos justifies ethics. Even secular ethics such as utiliatrianism and deontology are teleological in a nature. Utiliatrianism's telos: maximum happiness for the maximum number of people. Deontology's telos: A fair society (no exceptions). Ethics becomes meaningless sans telos.

It's intriguing to say the least that a pope, no less, wanted to co-opt a scientific fact, the big bang, and give it a religious spin. The similarity between that piece of cosmology and Christian doctrine was just too good an opportunity with respect to how it could be treated as proof of creation for the Vatican to pass up.

And the other point that really struck me about Russell's essay, a Free Man's Worship is that Buddhism, for example, always knew that 'the whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins.' It's not news to them! It's a result of deliberately narrowing the scope of philosophy to the phenomenal realm, the very realm of constant change and decay, and then boo-hooing about it. — Wayfarer

Buddhism is about that which can be observed by any person, anywhere, at any time - change aka impermanence, the birth-death-decay process is central to its philosophy.

However, do you suppose that yes, the Buddhists are right on the money - the hallmark of phenomenal world is change - but, the million dollar question is, is the phenomenal world all there is to reality?

However, do you suppose that yes, the Buddhists are right on the money - the hallmark of phenomenal world is change - but, the million dollar question is, is the phenomenal world all there is to reality? — TheMadFool

'All compound things are subject to decay', but 'There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, escape from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned' ~ source.

What that 'unborn, unbecome' is, however, is never the subject of speculative metaphysics in Buddhist philosophy.

I should say however that Buddhist cosmology is not based on a linear model of history, like the Christian view, but on the (probably more archaic) cyclical view.

Check out this review.

All compound things are subject to decay', but 'There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, escape from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned' ~ source.

What that 'unborn, unbecome' is, however, is never the subject of speculative metaphysics in Buddhist philosophy.

I should say however that Buddhist cosmology is not based on a linear model of history, like the Christian view, but on the (probably more archaic) cyclical view.

Check out this review. — Wayfarer

So, Buddhism did have a finger in that pie though, it seems, they decided, for good reasons no doubt, not to open that can of worms. Good to know. Thanks. :up:

How many Slytherins to stir a cauldron? :grin: — Apollodorus

The Big Bang seems based on the material principle of inference, so I was trying to seek materially based inferences (the explosion and bouncy castle scenarios) of the possible causes for the BB, but couldn't quite come up with a reasonable understanding in both cases.

The Big Bang began as a theological concept. There's nothing about the Big Bang that is exclusive of God. There's nothing about the "Big Bang" (which is ridiculous terminology for an event our small minds can't possibly fathom) which proves "God does not exist."

They've tried to invent notions in which all of this could occur in the absence of any soul whatsoever, which is fine and dandy, I suppose. It still doesn't predict anything -- it can't -- and it isn't science.

To examine it using pure reason, though, we need to attempt to understand the universe from a scope that goes beyond the limits of our linear understanding of time. And I think we can do this, a little bit. Not completely...I don't think the human mind can or should understand that.

But yeah, to comprehend a beginning at all is to experience the universe from a three dimensional perspective, which our greatest minds have told us isn't a comprehensive perspective to possess.

What some less scrupulous minds are doing is to point to the Big Bang as "the beginning" in and of itself, as though it's understood. This works on the general populace, who don't really think much. They hear a scientist say, "The Universe began at the Big Bang," and think, "Wow. These scientists KNOW EVERYTHING. LITERALLY EVERYTHING." No. Beyond the first few seconds of "the Big Bang" (whatever that's supposed to mean) proper scientific minds readily attest to the fundamental principal that, even mathematically, they have no description whatsoever for what was actually going on.

They can make up weird ideas however much they want, but truly your guess is as good as mine or anyone else's.

To enable richer diversity in thought, we really should rely on the term "seems to" more often. The Universe seems to have begun to expand exponentially.

Because, truly, we can't accept that things are as they seem to us here. What can seem like expansion could just be a movement in another dimension farther away from the initial starting point.

View it like a CD for instance. If the initial starting point is one place on the CD with a laser hitting it, in the next moment it could be anywhere on the CD, and the independent information would have seemed to expand for however many bytes the CD is. And we may not even be dealing with a CD as such, but a "format", if you want to call it that, of information that is light years beyond our reckoning.

I don't even like to think about it really. It's too much. I'm glad we don't know. There's a lot here for us to explore...we shouldn't be tinkering with some of this stuff.

The Big Bang began as a theological concept. There's nothing about the Big Bang that is exclusive of God. — theRiddler

My initial post was asking, if the big bang was a scientific religious theory.

Oh neat. I wouldn't say it is that, either. Scientifically, it's really something we're still trying to understand. You don't have to believe it was God, though, on your own terms.

Still, anyone who tells you they understand what it was like is lying to you.

Even if it were to be taken for granted that linear time is the best time (or what have you) the rate of expansion being discussed is nothing like a "bang" and incomprehensible to the human mind.

You know...did it make a sound at all? Did it sound like a bang or a zipper being unzipped?

:up:

The Big Bang seems based on the material principle of inference, so I was trying to seek materially based inferences (the explosion and bouncy castle scenarios) of the possible causes for the BB, but couldn't quite come up with a reasonable understanding in both cases. — Corvus

Maybe a small step forward can be made by admitting that the "Big Bang" was not really a big bang but is only called so. We may then arrive at some sort of definition or understanding through elimination of what the "Big Bang" is not.

Sure. Good idea. :up:

↪Apollodorus Sure. Good idea. :up: — Corvus

I think so too. After all, if my understanding of the OP is correct, we are trying to look into the issue through philosophical inquiry. And in order to do so, we need to ask questions. Either that, or we don't have the discussion :smile:

I think so too. After all, if my understanding of the OP is correct, we are trying to look into the issue through philosophical inquiry. And in order to do so, we need to ask questions. Either that, or we don't have the discussion :smile: — Apollodorus

Philosophical logic and analysis are the methodical principle to sieve out the claims of pseudo science and science religions from the genuine scientific theories. :)