The Water

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by The God, Mar 9, 2017.

  1. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,927
    For the simple reason that there is no objective criterion for determining the presence of "design". Scientific evidence for"design" is therefore impossible to obtain.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,539
    I think that 'physical' usually refers to the ontology assumed by physics. (Of course, it isn't entirely clear what kind of universe is necessary in order for physics to work and the propositions of physics to be true.)

    At the least, it's the universe that interacts with our senses, that we are equipped to know about. That would have to include extensions to our senses, such as telescopes and microscopes, to all sorts of instruments for detecting things that we can't directly perceive, and for entities inferred theoretically on the basis of what those information sources tell us. So our concept of physical reality tends to grow more elaborate (and less certain at the edges) as physics evolves and elaborates.

    'Physical' would seem to refer to matter and energy, and to properties such a spatial-temporal position, mass, size, shape, motion, hardness, electrical charge, magnetism, gravity and a whole host of things like that. More abstract entities are often included such as numbers, sets and mathematical structures and relationships.
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2017
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,927
    Could one say physical means objectively observable? Or is the difficulty of establishing perfect objectivity an insuperable barrier? I'm trying to get at the second "sensible", "corporeal" meaning in CC's quote.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,817

    The same way anything about BB, Dark matter , dark energy in speculation created by mathematical models ,
    we cannot measure directly . Why are we using this entity as facts ?
     
  8. Baldeee Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    914
    Eh?
    The Big Bang theory, dark matter, and dark energy are testable scientific hypotheses (to the best of my understanding).
    They are oft disputed, but they do have a certain weight of evidence behind them.
    They are models of what is required to achieve our current understanding of the cosmos, and thus testable and falsifiable in that any observation must fit with the theories, or the theories are falsified.

    (Intelligent) design, however, is utterly untestable and unfalsifiable.
    It is unscientific.
    So no, it is not the same as the BB, dark matter or dark energy in any such regard.
     
  9. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,780
    To pretend that aspects of the following are not arguably already the case, for the sake of clarifying how "physical" was indeed defined...

    If physics truly wants to keep its toes out of philosophy, then the distinctions made between its affairs (especially the abstract ones) should be treated as functional rather than ontological. Or to put another way: Its entities should be regarded as "objects of knowledge / research" rather than declared ultimately real or existential objects (metaphysical territory). Just by being so immutable, the residents of the latter classification should not belong in the "open to future revision" nature of science. Though of course the "absolute" status is perhaps acceptable in some philosophy of science views.

    The extensive definition which "physics" has is undeniable (including the catalog of matter properties and relationships). Thus a species of physicalists -- who do abide in philosophy -- can simply declare that "we recruit the furniture of _X_ science and not that of intellectual speculation". With respect that "physical" in their camp can be an adjective meaning nothing more than "of physics", which modifies and couples with a noun like "world" accordingly. Thereby in turn they might potentially avoid much of the metaphysical commitments, semantic controversies (or quarreling interpretations) which conventional physicalism is rumored to roil in (or the overall umbrella concept of it).

    "Physical", again, can also pertain to the whole spectrum of the physical sciences (not just the divisions of physics). Given all the diverse regions which physicalists of any stripe wanderingly stick their noses in (including issues of brain science or mind), then that broader range for "physical" is likely to be necessary.
     
  10. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    We live in a quantum universe, which has been proven by science. A quantum universe implies that not all states are possible. Rather only certain quantized states are possible. A quantum universe precludes random, since random gives odds to any and all states. While quantum loads the dice so only certain sides of the dice are possible and others are impossible. Quantum is an intelligent design.

    For one thing, a quantum universe saves time. If an infinite number of states were possible; continuous functions, and A and B need to appear before we can form C, it would take forever to build up C, by randomly cycling through all the options to get both A and B at the same time. On the other hand, if A and B are quantum states, and all other possibilities are eliminated, C can form in record time.

    The irony is, before we knew of the quantum universe, science assumed continuous functions. Determinism was also more popular, with science looking to determine the answers to the mysteries of nature Once we discovered the quantum universe, random become more popular. This made no logical sense other than being due to an atheist philosophical bias. The discovery of quantum had made determinism more likely, since it narrowed the options even more than previously assumed.

    The most important tool of science is the human brain. All the other tools are like extensions of our sensory systems. The processing of data is still done by the human brain through theory, math, and computer programming. Even though the brain is a key tool, there is no rule in science that says the brain has to be calibrated to a universal standard. The problem this creates is, if you use any tool out of calibration, the best lab procedures and theories can still lead to the wrong results; biased high or low.

    Say we wanted to measure the dimensions of a room. We have a meter stick that is not calibrated. We can still go through the motions of measuring the room, and look very official to the layman. But the results, no matter how carefully we measure, will always be biased high or low, with us not knowing which it is. Quantum should have calibrated the mind farther away from random, not closer toward random. But due to lack of calibration, the irrational is allowed to rule. Lack of calibration is why philosophy and dogma comes into science. These are attempts at a calibration standard, but without a natural standard.
     
  11. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,488
    False.

    No.

    And still doesn't preclude "random".

    Balls.

    Utter drivel.

    False.

    No.

    As evidenced by the vast majority of your posts.
     
    Sarkus likes this.
  12. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,817
    Do you ever have anything to offer then yes , no, false, Can you stick your neck out and offer your statement ?
     
  13. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,488
    Other thAn.

    There is no "design".
     
  14. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,492
    how do you know it has no intentions or motivations? no plans as nature doesn't have much foresight.
    nature sure does seem to have a motivation and that is to eat and reproduce to keep replicating. we eat because we will be punished by starvation and reproduce so we won't be lonely here. that is definitely something motivating life but it's a motivation that is not what we would consider conscious. more like a hostage situation.

    so motivation but no plan.
     
  15. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,734
    It (nature) has no intentions or motivations because it isn't an entity.

    Living organisms eat and reproduce. Nature does not. A grain of sand doesn't eat or reproduce but it's still part of nature.

    No plan = no designer.
     
  16. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,492
    nature is defined as and pertaining to life's vantage point. i agree that there is no set plan but there is a design in the sense that certain reactions take place for it to happen. whether that design hints at a designer is speculative.

    since this is in philosophy, i see the problem with an idea of a 'designer' is that encouraging such beliefs tempts some to run with it to conclude that a design was intentional and therefore right and justified. this can be further extended to condone anything. it's really not much different than darwinism except it tacks on a conscious plan. i don't agree that the way life replicates itself within these universal laws is necessarily a good design. it's just the way it is. hypothetically, even if it were intentional, so what?
     
  17. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,734
    No it isn't.

    What's the difference between a design and a plan? What do "certain reactions" have to do with designs or plans?
     
  18. karenmansker HSIRI Banned

    Messages:
    638
    WW: I agree that we "exist" in an observable, measureable quantum (quantizable) universe. But IMO, our 'universe' is also permeated by an unquantizable (using current toolage) subplanckian (subquantum) aspect that we have not yet sufficiently investigated due to our difficulty in measuring physical unobservables on subplanckian scales. Admittedly, this opinion is not shared by many within the Standard Model (SM) community since unobservables to them infer non-existables (my term). I think (IMO) the dichotomy of opinion is in part due to observational resolution (fineness) limitations - and pre-conceived notions. The subplanckian domain is simply too fine-grained to reveal an observational (quantum) 'bumpiness ' that can be differentially measured (i.e., detected, sensed) using our currerntly-developed tools. Processes occuring at subplanckian scales may also be 'grainy' (bumpy). but they would 'appear' continuous using current tools that are inherently designed to detect coarser (quantum) scales.
     
  19. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Random is a man made tool. It is a very useful tool, since it allows us to make predicts when logic is lacking. If you look at a gas, we will assume random molecular collisions and energy levels, which average into the shape of a bell curve. The random assumption still follows a larger scale pattern. The tool helps us deal with complexity.

    It would be too complicated to assume the quantum nature of every gas molecule in a sample of gas, when there are 6.02 X 10[ 23] molecules per mole of gas. It is easier to average this with the assumption of random. This useful procedure, when done too much, has led to the cart leading the horse and the assumption of a random universe. This is a lot easier that assuming a quantum limitation for each molecule and then keeping track of all the possible interactive quantum states. The biggest computers could not keep up.

    If you apply this random schema to simple things, where logic can be used, your ability to use logic becomes atrophied, to where random is all you have. The universe then become in the image of a man made model. Determinism is not a done deal in terms of having all the answers, but rather it is a goal that precludes a man made universe based on what is convenient in applied science.

    Random is not new. This has been around before people were rational. Before the age of enlightenment or the age of reason, the alchemists thought chemicals could randomly change into other things; lead into gold. This is not much different today when random is applied to situations where logic is lacking. If you don't have a logical foundation of the possible quantum states of lead and gold, interconversiom may appear possible using a random model.
     
  20. Counter Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    385
    I think it was made that way.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    On a side note why do we drown when immersed sufficiently in water, given that it contains oxygen?

    I did not drown when I put my head in a basin of water and inhaled deeply. I was simply breathing underwater. :s
     
    Last edited: May 5, 2017
  21. sweetpea Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    631
    Your talking of normal H2O right? In which case, how long did you continue to breathe?

    Or this would be a case of ghost writing.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_breathing
     
    Last edited: May 6, 2017
  22. Counter Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    385
    Well I did not time how long I had my head underwater but I could not inhale water into my lungs. I believe I was breathing air from my stomach.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,927
    ......he writes.......

    ........from a secure psychiatric unit somewhere..........

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page