Explain this, you empiricists

[C~G]

If it can't be observed, studied & understood by humans, then it might as well not exist. It would make no difference to us.

Excuse me?
If it can't be observed, studied & understood by humans currently doesn't mean it wouldn't mean world to us. It might be able to be studied in the future.

However, if something does affect the Universe, even in a small way, that means that we can study it using a scientific process & come to some sort of a conclusion regarding it. If it affects the Universe - we can study it and understand it.

And I believe for this kind of phenomena the current scientific process is unequal to the task.

Speculation is fine, but unless you follow a scientific process, that's all it is.. speculation.. philisophical musings.

Of course it's philosophical musings. Which again is the easiest way to dismiss one way of thinking until scientific development catches up and might prove this "musing" to be something concrete.

I can speculate that invisible elves pull things down to the ground & that the theory of gravity we currently have is flawed. But that's all it will be - wild speculation, unless I can provide proof that I'm even partially right.

Have you seen these elves and how they have affected your life?

"Something weird is going on". There isn't even a theory... and you want the idea to be taken seriously?

No need to take anything seriously as I don't take seriously the concept that it is just coincidence that means nothing or has no value for studying.

Can't be explained using science = supernatural.

Now I know how Galileo must have felt.
Not part of biblically "proven" world view = unnatural

 

[brennan]

Excuse me?
If it can't be observed, studied & understood by humans currently doesn't mean it wouldn't mean world to us. It might be able to be studied in the future.
And I believe for this kind of phenomena the current scientific process is unequal to the task.
Of course it's philosophical musings. Which again is the easiest way to dismiss one way of thinking until scientific development catches up and might prove this "musing" to be something concrete.
Have you seen these elves and how they have affected your life?
No need to take anything seriously as I don't take seriously the concept that it is just coincidence that means nothing or has no value for studying.
Now I know how Galileo must have felt.
Not part of biblically "proven" world view = unnatural

What rubbish. You are talking about ephemera that are nothing more than speculation. Demonstrate a reality before you start spouting.

 

[Corlindale]

No, but when it comes explaining things that happen in the world in everyday reality we seem to seek the most simplistic explanation and sweep everything that might endager it under the mat as non-important. And when asked people say "because science and logic says so".

Then please tell me of the alternatives to this "simplistic explanation" afforded by science. It is actually a core ideal in scientific theory to always seek the most simple of theories possible to explain a phenomenon, in order to focus on what can be known about the issue at hand. Beyond this "simplistic explanation", nothing can be known.(Skepticists might argue that nothin g whatsoever can be known, but I still think that science has a higher standard of truth than other ways of understanding the world).
Let's say I see a cluster some myserious lights in the sky. The simple and most likely explanation may be a meteor shower. But if I want to, I can say that I believe it to be UFOs. One of my friends might maintain that it is in fact a space dragon out hunting, while another will argue that an evil spirit lurking somewhere in the garden is playing with our senses. Do all these statements have equal value? Should they all be treated as equally likely and valid just because they have been made? The world might be more interesting if it was a space dragon, but that does not serve to make it true. The first explanation is reasonable because it can be based off scientific evidence and empiric observation of previous meteor showers of a similar appearance, but the others are just speculation.

Tell me the reason for Bozo's dream. Tell me the explanation, why did he dream as he did and why was the dream followed by an actual event? I think it was a coincidence, and that his mind (naturally enough) made a connection when confronted by a reality mimicking his dream.

 

[warpus]

That's a rather anthropocentric view to take. If something doesn't make a difference to humans, then it may as well not exist? As though the only thing that matters in the universe is how something affects humans.

My view is that if it doesn't affect the Universe, then it might as well not exist. If it affects the Universe, then it will leave traces that we can study and analyze, even if we don't have the equipment to do so now.. If, in theory, this entity leaves no traces whatsoever & doesn't affect the Universe in any way, then we may assume it does not exist.

Perhaps I misworded my previous statement. I used humans as an example, because we're the only creatures that we know of who can study the Universe and make predictions based on the observations. I hope I cleared that up.

(I realize that if it doesn't affect us in any way, then for our purposes it may as well not exist when we consider the universe, and this is what warpus meant. But that doesn't affect its existence as such.)

The thing is that if it doesn't affect the Universe in any way, then it's impossible to determine whether it actually exists or not. We assume that it doesn't exist, because you could easily come up with an infinite amount of entities which don't affect the Universe & can possibly exist. Do we go through this infinite list and assume that all of these might exist? No, we assume that none of them exist.

No, but when it comes explaining things that happen in the world in everyday reality we seem to seek the most simplistic explanation and sweep everything that might endager it under the mat as non-important

There is nothing to be swept under the carpet in this case. You are merely picking up things from underneath a carpet and bringing them into the light. Let's leave the carpet out of this.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Well, just because we are not capable of detecting the effects something leaves on this or any other universe doesn't mean it doesn't exist, just that we can act as though it doesn't. But it would be mighty arrogant of us to say it actually couldn't possibly exist.

 

[Corlindale]

Now I know how Galileo must have felt.
Not part of biblically "proven" world view = unnatural

What? You are ending your argument against relying on the scientific method by comparing yourself to the man who played the greatest part in inventing it?
Now I don't understand anything anymore...
And please don't equal science with religious dogma. Galileo managed to change the worldview precisely because of his observations and experiments conducted through the scientific method. He had something to show for it, in other words.

 

[brennan]

Is it arrogant to assert that there are no invisible teapots orbits nearby celestial objects?

Is it arrogant to assert there is no invisible pink elephant on my desk?

Such assertions are not arrogant, they prevent us from considering total inanities every second of every day.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

No it is not arrogant to say such things don't exist. It is, however, arrogant to say that if they do exist they don't matter, just because they don't matter to us.

 

[brennan]

But I do not do that, because I do not say they exist at all.

 

[Sidhe]

You are wrong about that.

What this kind of discussion is but laying foundations into things that can be studied further later when we have enough knowledge and possible means to study the subject? But some seem not to be interested since like always birds fly because they have wings. No need to study it further.

Agreed as long as we understand the limits of such musings and don't try to extrapolate hypothesis from hypothesis then there is no issue.

I haven't even done any conclusion yet still you seem to dispute it. That is the problem what I see here. It's the blind obstinancy basing everything into proves gained from test based into scientific methods. You make it sound like we shoudn't even speculate it since it would be heresy towards science and logical thinking of humans.

Science doesn't place bounds on thinking, people do that, you only have to look into two theories of Physics of recent times to see the areas science will explore without rational or experimental evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

Growing in popularity amongs some theorists, despite it sounding more like sci fi than science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

What if the logical conclusions and scientific methods we know this far don't work with things like these?
If you ask me I find this current atmosphere of scientific explanations, logical conclusions and using academic language to dispute things as mass psychosis of people in order to make them believe world is as simple as someone would like to make us believe so. And that is our mind who would like to convince us with the simplest model available so it satisfies us and keeps our planets on their radar where we have used to have them.

In other words, when the order of nature in which we have accustomed ourselves seem to be as it has been before, we feel safe.

Science is never comfortable with what we know now, that is why a good scientific theory is always falsifiable, Big Bang theory: goog theory, spaghetti monsterism: not a good theory.

Science is never comfortable with unknown either, that's both it's antithesis and it's greatest friend, but it does not limit itself to merely thinking about the knowable you seem to have a strange view of what science does and does not discuss at some levels most physisists are merely discussing what they think is happening at the fundemental level based on experimentation and limited by the unkowable,really it is little more than educated guesses form the currently held theory: Copenhagen theory ; science postulates vast numbers of theories(or more correctly hypothesis) about the nature of the universe without ever resorting to evidence or experimentation, the difference is these theories fall out of favour when more evidence for another theory presents itself, and later may leap back into popularity if something else presents a better view of the world.

Wake up with a hypothesis disprove it over breakfast, then you are ready to work.

Anonymous scientist.

Well, just because we are not capable of detecting the effects something leaves on this or any other universe doesn't mean it doesn't exist, just that we can act as though it doesn't. But it would be mighty arrogant of us to say it actually couldn't possibly exist.

Science doesn't deal in absolutes and could never state anything absolutely, nor does it deal with intangables of an unkowable nature(although it might speculate) but it does not dismiss them out of hand, it simply does not acknowledge them within a scientific framework without proof, science does not set out to prove whether God exists or creationism is valid, because it is beyond the remit of science, that it leaves to philosophy and theology.

These things are not important to Brenan, they may be important to a scientist, but they should not impinge upon his work unless he wants to lose some credibility, it's not a science against religion thing, it's just they are two very different fields with very different criteria or goals. Saying they are not important is not exactly right, a better way of expressing it is they are not important to science.

 

[warpus]

Excuse me?
If it can't be observed, studied & understood by humans currently doesn't mean it wouldn't mean world to us. It might be able to be studied in the future.

Let me re-word what I wrote: If it would be impossible to observe, study & understand it then it might as well not exist AKA if it doesn't affect the Universe then it might as well not exist.

And I believe for this kind of phenomena the current scientific process is unequal to the task.

You are basing this on nothing but a hunch. You have no evidence that might suggest such a thing. Statistics, on the other hand, explain such events perfectly.

Of course it's philosophical musings. Which again is the easiest way to dismiss one way of thinking until scientific development catches up and might prove this "musing" to be something concrete.

But until that time that's all it is - Philisophical musings, a random hunch.. Call it what you will, but it isn't based on anything concrete, therefore it does not deserve to be valued as highly as a scientific theory, or even 1 measly piece of evidence.

Have you seen these elves and how they have affected your life?

No, because our current instruments are not sensitive enough to detect the elves. Sometime in the future, though, we will detect them and will update our theories about the structure of space-time accordingly.

No need to take anything seriously as I don't take seriously the concept that it is just coincidence that means nothing or has no value for studying.

But you have no alternate theory, nor even a place to start, and you are even claiming that we are unable to study alternate theories @ this point in time. If you at least had an alternate theory, you would at least have something.

You have nothing.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

But I do not do that, because I do not say they exist at all.

But it is safe to assume that somewhere exist things which leave no trace we can observe on the universe. It would be a mistake to say they don't matter just because they don't affect us. If there are parallel universes, then what happens there doesn't affect us, but matters greatly to those within them.

 

[brennan]

But it is safe to assume that somewhere exist things which leave no trace we can observe on the universe

I object to your initial assumption as it is unwarranted speculation, not falsifiable and has zero predictive power. IOW it would be like discussing the allegorical teapot.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

It is not falsifiable and has no predictive power - yes I agree. But that just goes to show that the scientific method, great as it is for figuring out things we can observe, cannot be used to conclusively disprove the existence of things we cannot observe, or to comment on their significance. I certainly do not act as though invisible teapots exist. But if they do exist, we will never know now will we?

 

[warpus]

But it is safe to assume that somewhere exist things which leave no trace we can observe on the universe. It would be a mistake to say they don't matter just because they don't affect us. If there are parallel universes, then what happens there doesn't affect us, but matters greatly to those within them.

We're not saying they don't matter, we're saying that they might as well not exist, as far as we're concerned.

We have no way of proving or disproving their existence. So, if you come to me and you say: "There is an alternate universe out there, populated entirely by deer on bikes", what can I say in regards to that?

We can't study your claim. We can't detect the deer, nor the bikes. Do they exist? Who knows? Maybe? Maybe not?

Is it likely that they do? Probably not.

And the 'probably not' is why it's sensible to just say 'it might as well not exist'

 

[C~G]

What rubbish. You are talking about ephemera that are nothing more than speculation. Demonstrate a reality before you start spouting.

Do you expect really me to comment that?

There is nothing to be swept under the carpet in this case. You are merely picking up things from underneath a carpet and bringing them into the light. Let's leave the carpet out of this.

Yes I am. And I see there's lot things under the carpet which seem to be forgotten there just because someone has wanted to escape the hard reality of cleaning up.

Tell me the reason for Bozo's dream. Tell me the explanation, why did he dream as he did and why was the dream followed by an actual event? I think it was a coincidence, and that his mind (naturally enough) made a connection when confronted by a reality mimicking his dream.

I already stated that it might be because Bozo's brain calculated such thing as being possible scenario. I don't believe dreams are just random (I believe they have patterns), neither do I believe they have some "secret message from elves".
What I'm most interested is how these kind of coincidences actually construct our reality without ourselves understanding it and how someone could interpret these coincidences in order to determine ones future thoughts, actions and behaviour in overall.

Statistics, on the other hand, explain such events perfectly.

Do you have statistics about reoccurring dreams of same night that have then happened to this person after mentioning it to a friend? That's what I'm pointing out here.

but it isn't based on anything concrete, therefore it does not deserve to be valued as highly as a scientific theory, or even 1 measly piece of evidence.

Not maybe by you but maybe by me.
I don't see even there's really scientific theory for this kind of event. Only thing people point out is law of probability.

No, because our current instruments are not sensitive enough to detect the elves.

I asked in personal level. Don't you think your conscious thoughts and subconscious affect your life?

You have nothing.

That is probably how someone who is starting to study some subject might think at first. Even if I would have such theory I wouldn't try to demonstrate it here. I would be lynched just like I'm whipped here now just because I dare to even consider the possibilty there's something wrong with scientific thinking and that there's more to this "case of Bozo" than just mere coincidence.

BTW, I have had this kind of whipping also before, mostly by academic folk who never seem to be able to disapprove something they just dismiss with the weapons of debate language which they have gathered during their years in college.

 

[brennan]

It is not falsifiable and has no predictive power - yes I agree. But that just goes to show that the scientific method, great as it is for figuring out things we can observe, cannot be used to conclusively disprove the existence of things we cannot observe, or to comment on their significance. I certainly do not act as though invisible teapots exist. But if they do exist, we will never know now will we?

Their significance is zero. Otherwise they would have some affect on us and be subject to analysis.

 

[Fox Mccloud]

Ive been debating whether to bring this up, because its the sort of thing that automatically gets people labelled a nutcase. But what the hell, I AM a nutcase Ok here it is:

I dreamt repeatedly about their being a blackout. I wake up. A short time later, Im discussing it with someone, and specifically say, "Well, lets see if the lights go out." A few minutes later, theres a major brownout, and parts of the area locally are left without power for a number of minutes. Me and this person looked at each other, and he said that Im a 'Brujo' (warlock)

So whats the 'logical' explanation?

coincidence. There's 6.5 billion people in the world and at least 3 billion of which sleep on most nights. There is definately going to be a few coincidences.

Me and this person looked at each other, and he said that Im a 'Brujo' (warlock)

Let me guess, your friends must be nerds, right?

 

[Corlindale]

I already stated that it might be because Bozo's brain calculated such thing as being possible scenario. I don't believe dreams are just random (I believe they have patterns), neither do I believe they have some "secret message from elves".

I actually kind of agree with you here, though I suspect our ideas of patterns may differ. I do believe there can be certain patterns to dream, there are for example examples of people who dreams a similar dream many nights in a row. What I am most interested in is your explanation of what made the actual event happen after the dream, if it wasn't mere coincidence.

What I'm most interested is how these kind of coincidences actually construct our reality without ourselves understanding it and how someone could interpret these coincidences in order to determine ones future thoughts, actions and behaviour in overall.

I agree that coincidences play a part in constructing our reality, and I can also follow the Chaos Theory argument of great consequences from small coincidences, like the famous quote:

"A nail was missing and the shoe was lost. A shoe was missing and the horse was lost. A horse was missing and the rider was lost. A rider was missing and the battle was lost. A battle was missing and the war was lost."

However, I'm dubious as to whether it is possible to deduce future thought, actions and behaviour through this. I'm not sure I fully understand the argumentation here.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Their significance is zero. Otherwise they would have some affect on us and be subject to analysis.

No, they may very well have significance to themselves. An object need not matter to humans for it to matter at all. That was the point of the post I made before; not that we need to act as though something exists which leaves no trace we can detect, just that we are not therefore able to judge conclusively on its existence.