I should stop listening to Neil deGrasse Tyson - he glamorizes astronomy to no end. I bet he never had his eye frozen to a telescope. By the way I thought all modern telescopes, especially those used by astronomers, were computerized - no longer requiring the eye to to be in physical contact with an eyepiece. I dunno. :chin: — TheMadFool

You are correct about modern telescopes, which I played an early role in putting under computer control, beginning with the first astronomical space telescope, precursor to the Hubble instrument. The eyepiece got stuck in the sixties, when I did my hands-on observing.

There are other reasons for not listening to Tyson. Personally I put him into the "Brilliant Dipshit" category. You might find a pop-science magazine to be a worthy choice, offering a wider perspective.

ou will be ignored by most people here. You are a know nothing jerk. — jacksonsprat22

Please, please ignore me. Thank you.

You are correct about modern telescopes, which I played an early role in putting under computer control, beginning with the first astronomical space telescope, precursor to the Hubble instrument. The eyepiece got stuck in the sixties, when I did my hands-on observing. — Greylorn Ell

Sloppy. Correct about some telescopes, and nearly all, so far as I know, major telescopes. But there are areas of astronomy still done by eyepiece observers, mostly a whole lot of amateurs, who collectively do work that the major telescopes cannot get to.

I suspect that this shared mistake was the consequence of adherence to a fundamentally stupid philosophical principle known as "Occam's Razor." Perhaps we can discuss this next, with the expectation of adopting better ways of looking at ideas. — Greylorn Ell

So, Occam's Razor is, let's say, problematic as a philosophical principle. But the scientific method is concerned with creating working models of reality, and in that context choosing the model that has the best predictive power with the least complexity seems entirely reasonable.

Of course the devil is in the details when trying to decide which model actually fulfills these criteria.

So, Occam's Razor is, let's say, problematic as a philosophical principle. But the scientific method is concerned with creating working models of reality, and in that context choosing the model that has the best predictive power with the least complexity seems entirely reasonable.

Of course the devil is in the details when trying to decide which model actually fulfills these criteria. — Echarmion

You make some good sense; nonetheless I'm proposing a different approach that might appear nonsensical by your standards. It is, simply, that we first determine a good principle for evaluating the worth of a scientific concept. Then we can evaluate new concepts according to that standard.

You might consider this idea in the context of Rupert Sheldrake's thoughts about this, particularly his claim, "Give me a miracle of my choice and I can explain the universe."

If the Miracle of Choice is sufficiently complex (e.g. the "Singularity" or almighty God) it can indeed be used to explain anything. Why not consider simpler Miracles?

Whatever, I believe that you and the two other thoughtful individuals on this forum will appreciate Sheldrake, who is a genuine thinker, one who has also mastered the art of intelligent presentation.

You might consider this idea in the context of Rupert Sheldrake's thoughts about this, particularly his claim, "Give me a miracle of my choice and I can explain the universe." — Greylorn Ell

I went to the site referenced and listened to most of it, and most of it difficult to stand. At best, mid-level, gee-whiz nonsense - at best; seemingly best for uneducated but interested adults, emphasis on uneducated. But I invite others to watch and decide for themselves.

The idea of calling mature scientific theory a "miracle" is simply an abuse of language. I am sure that real scientists understand it as a kind of joke, because they understand very well the non-miraculous aspects of the work that went in to formulating the theory - as well as understanding what a miracle is. Does that mean the theory is right or must be regarded as right? Of course not. But to dismiss it as "miracle" is the kind of rhetorical trick that usually means someone is trying to sell something.

It appears, Ell, you are victim of the worst affliction that can occur short of disease or injury, that is, an inflated sense of yourself and of your thoughts, as if what your true interest is you find in a mirror. Whatever your personality flaws may be is well beyond our scope, here, but I will recommend three books that will address to some degree your errors in thinking, including ridding you of a number of your parish-pump ideas.

An Essay on Metaphysics
https://www.amazon.com/Essay-Metaphysics-R-G-Collingwood/dp/1614276153/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1587872089&sr=1-7

The Unity of Philosophical Experience
https://www.amazon.com/Unity-Philosophical-Experience-Etienne-Gilson/dp/089870748X/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=

The Idea of Nature
https://www.amazon.com/Idea-Nature-Robin-George-Collingwood/dp/161427570X/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1587872255&sr=1-4

These reasonably readable, and not the explanation of everything but a pretty good start. All it would take from you is a very modest investment of treasure, and some time and effort.

Thank you, Tim, for trying to educate me. It seems a hopeless task. I began reconsidering beliefs about the nature of the beginnings 60 years ago, as a physics student. Now, a few years after failing to recover from a broken back, I'm in the process of dying-- in as ornery a manner as possible.

Following up your book references (I'm not energetic enough to read a book, these days.) I looked up my own and found that my last book is selling for the ridiculous price of $890 plus shipping. (I can send you a pristine but cheaper copy for $25, free shipping within the US.)

i also checked out the status of my first book, published under my real name, which seems to have a unique audience. Hardcover copies are selling for $992. Brit paperback versions, $73. Wish there was a way for me to see any of that. Here's a brief review, from Amazon.

LOVE this book!!!!! I would definitely recommend to anyone, I'm not much of a sci-fi reader I guess you can say, but this book is just SO powerful! It really gets your mind thinking about life and human morals and ethic. I have re-read many times, it's so good!

I've done some good work in the past but not profited therefrom.

I'm an arrogant old fart who thinks that philosophy, except for Descartes and a few thoughts from Aristotle and the principles espoused by Mortimer Adler and Thomas Kuhn, is entirely bullshit. My background is physics (a deteriorating science), and I cannot imagine a useful philosophical theory coming from someone ignorant of physics, as are most people on this forum.

You might consider Kuhn's thoughts on the contributions of disagreeable people. Or not. I'm too tired and old to care.

Thank you, Tim, for trying to educate me. It seems a hopeless task. I began reconsidering beliefs about the nature of the beginnings 60 years ago, as a physics student. Now, a few years after failing to recover from a broken back, I'm in the process of dying-- in as ornery a manner as possible. — Greylorn Ell

Kudos. I'm sure those around here are more than capable of providing you with plenty of opportunity to be satisfactorily cantankerous.

I hope that you are right. — Greylorn Ell

Ah. So. Explained.

Even a widow's mite of humanity earns you a clean shave. In a sense we philosophers, here mainly wannabes (speaking for myself), are like women, eager to show the love if approached in the right way, even an old reprobate like Banno, sitting under his Southern Cross working through his weekly quota of five cases of Foster's - he's not by nature terse.., but bristly and dismissively disdainful if abused.

Following is an edited post from a couple of years ago about Ockham's Razor, fwiw.

From The Theological Origins of Modernity, Michael Gillespie, 2008. All quoted material below is from the book.

Some groundwork. Christianity was "adopted as the official religion of the Roman Empire under Constantine." This adoption did not resolve the tensions between the ecstatic and rational aspects of Christianity. The rediscovery in Western Europe of Aristotle led "to the rise of scholasticism, which was the greatest and most comprehensive theological attempt to reconcile the philosophical and scriptural elements in Christianity," the main form of which was realism, the "belief in the extra-mental existence of universals."

"Universals such as species and genera were the ultimately real things and that individual beings were merely particular instances of these universals.... [And] were thought to be nothing other than divine reason made known to man either by illumination, as Augustine had suggested, or through the investigation of nature, as Aquinas and others argued."

Roughly and crudely: God's realm is structured and subsumed under reason, by a perfect God of perfect reason.

Nominalism read into this an implication that God, being rational, was not (therefore) omnipotent and thus rejected scholastic realism - Ockham being a main engine of this rejection. Universals, Ockham argued, were a constraint on God's omnipotence and thus could not stand. "If there were no real universals, every being must be radically individual, a unique creation of God himself, called forth out of nothing by his infinite power and sustained by that power alone."

Scholastic realism: universals are real, and God's structure by which we can appreciate his perfect, rational Being. That is, universals are a part of truth. Nominalism: the rejection of realism in favor of an omnipotent God who is the only necessary being, and under whom all beings are unique individuals. "Omnipotence" in this context being just the power to be arbitrary, which a God of perfect reason cannot be.

We know Ockham's razor as the rule not to multiply explanations unnecessarily, or make them more complicated than they need to be. A fine and worthy rule; a good razor. But arguably not Ockham's! "Thus the guiding principle of nominalist logic for Ockham was his famous razor: do not multiply universals needlessly. While we cannot, as finite beings, make sense of the world without universals, every generalization takes us one more step away from the real. Hence, the fewer we employ the closer we remain to the truth."

You are dumb.

I suspect that this shared mistake was the consequence of adherence to a fundamentally stupid philosophical principle known as "Occam's Razor." — Greylorn Ell

I don't know why a discussion of Ultimate Origins, for which no one is an expert, has become so contentious. Anything you say will be a personal opinion, not a scientific fact. Anyway, here's a simple diagram of the Occam's Razor principle. It's not an irrefutable principle of Logic, just a heuristic shortcut. :cool:

Good illustration. Basic intro to rhetoric: Keep it simple.

These theories are equally stupid, and functionally identical.

Each proposes that the universe originated from a single thing or entity that cannot be identified or experimented upon, and is therefore absolutely non-scientific. — Greylorn Ell

Unless you have a better idea, I'd be careful about labeling serious conjectures about Ultimate Origins as "stupid". Any speculations on the First Cause or Prime Mover are necessarily Philosophical and not Scientific. Any notions about what came "before" the Big Bang are inherently Metaphysical, not Physical.

I agree that both the Theistic Creation and self-existent Multiverse theories are extrapolations from the known into the unknown, and are functionally equivalent. Both Ultimate Causes resulted in the "imperfect" world we know & love, or love to hate. But there is a philosophical distinction between them. Theism posits an explanation for the non-physical aspects of reality, such as Mind, Consciousness, Mathematics & Universals : an intelligent agent. But Multiverse Materialism leaves those significant features of reality as Black Box Brute Facts, to be accepted without question.

That's why I have worked-out a hypothetical Origins theory that combines the best of both worldviews. It's a philosophical thesis, based on physical evidence, but not empirically provable. It's not appropriate as a basis for either Science or Religion, only for a personal possible philosophical understanding of how & why the world is what it is. It works for me. :cool:

I agree that both the Theistic Creation and self-existent Multiverse theories are extrapolations from the known into the unknown, — Gnomon

I'd say from the unknown to the unknown, the other from the known to the unknown. Big difference, unless you know something about "Theistic Creation" that I do not. As to personal beliefs, more power to you! It's one of few areas where, "Works for me!" is a complete and comprehensive defense.

But Multiverse Materialism leaves those significant features of reality as Black Box Brute Facts, to be accepted without question. — Gnomon

The idea of a mulitiverse is to explain how the universe is. It implies no conception of causation of the universe.

I'd say from the unknown to the unknown, the other from the known to the unknown. Big difference, unless you know something about "Theistic Creation" that I do not. — tim wood

Theists, which comprise the vast majority of humans, reason from their experience of how the world works on a local scale to how it might work on a universal scale. Since the ancients had no knowledge of abstract Energy, they attributed all causation to intelligent Agents. Energy is invisible, and is only known via its effects on Matter. Likewise "gods" are invisible, and only known via inference from Effects to Causes. So their myths of gods were the primitive "science" of their day.

If you lived back then, you would have had no better explanation for Natural Causation. From your lofty perspective on the pinnacle of 21st century Science though, you can explain invisible causes in terms of the technical sounding word, "Energy". Which can be defined only mathematically, by what it does, not what it is. That "knowledge" may allow sophisticated moderns to feel superior to the ignorant theists --- ancient & modern --- but your Energy is a ghost too. That creative evolutionary energy (agency) may seem unintelligent to you, but it has constructed your amazing world from a pinpoint of potential. :cool:


Energy : what is energy made of ? Nothing but potential, abstract power, agency.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14444/what-is-energy-made-of

Energy is Immaterial : energy is agency
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/nothing-solid-everything-energy-scientists-explain-world-djurisic

Agency : 2, action or intervention, especially such as to produce a particular effect.

This theory I saw on the internet I appreciate very much. The default theory should be that the theory of everything is mathematics itself, but then mathematics properly understood. Because mathematics works everywhere in science. Any of what you might imagine the origin of the universe to be, it's got to be described with mathematics.

So then basically the universe would start with what is exhaustively described with the symbol 0. Then "somehow" we should derive the rest of mathematics, all the numbers, all the operators, and all the rest of mathematics in it's many strange forms, from the symbol zero.

For instance starting with 0, then we rewrite the 0 as a 1. (rewriting is same like in a computer you can rewrite from ram to a harddisk, or usbstick. or DVD. It's the same information, but then in a different form). So now we have the symbols 0, and 1, and we also have the boolean operator between the 0 and 1. (because 1 is a copy from 0, it's interchangeable).

etc. etc. "somehow" deriving all mathematics from the symbol 0, step by step

So then we would get an ordering of mathematical structures, ordered in respect to how many steps the mathematical structure is away from the symbol zero.

Supposedly then, the universe would originate, same like how the ordering of mathematics develops.

In the beginning there would be few options available to choose from how the universe ends up, later on in the universe there would be many options available to choose from.

And God the holy spirit can be said to be the agency of those choices, that's categorically a matter of chosen personal opinion.

The idea of a mulitiverse is to explain how the universe is. It implies no conception of causation of the universe. — jacksonsprat22

It's true that the Multiverse, like God, is assumed to be self-caused or self-existent. But most Mverse theories describe the Big Bang (emergence of known from unknown) as caused by some mysterious magical creative property of the Mverse. Regarding the topic of this thread, for Mverse believers, "Everything" may not have a beginning, but the only "thing" we actually know anything about certainly had a big bang beginning. Hence, we infer that it must have a cause : either A> Creative Intelligence or B> Creative Randomness (oxymoron).

According to atheist writer Howard Bloom, in The God Problem, the universe is inherently "creative" (positive causation), but he finds no good external explanation for that inventive power, and concludes that the universe itself is god-like. But, un-directed Energy is more likely to be destructive than constructive. Yes?

Ironically, CommonSenseAtheist quoted below, describes the Mverse in terms similar to Plato's First Cause, which also emerged somehow from primordial Chaos. But the actual construction from randomness to organization was attributed to an intelligent Demiurge (demigod).

Hence, a contingent (not self existent) Miniverse, with a scientifically-confirmed beginning, necessarily requires some "concept of causation". Don't you agree? :nerd:


Multiverse Generates Universe : All theories of the multiverse assume quantum physics to provide the element of spontaneity, to make the bangs happen. They assume pre-existing space and time. They assume the normal notion of causality, a whole host of pre-existing conditions." Davies said there are about "10 different basic assumptions" of physical laws that are required "to get the multiverse theory to work."
https://www.space.com/31465-is-our-universe-just-one-of-many-in-a-multiverse.html

First Cause : In contrast, the multiverse theories begin with pure chaos, out of which order must inevitably arise.
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=835