The Age of the Universe

[karlhenning]

Nothing wrong, of course. Only he presented it as a kind of big and definitive scientific achievement, which in the current stage it certainly isn't.

By its nature, science is a work-in-progress.  What we find on threads like this, is some people grasping at scientific achievement with the desire that it has somehow rendered all non-scientific endeavor unnecessary, or even cast it into the bin of Superstition.

And I for one wonder why ; )

[Florestan]

What will happen to a plane if the pilot will stop operating it? It will most definitely fall and crush,

That's not true. As countless movies have shown, some smart guy among the passengers will eventually land it safe and sound. 

[MN Dave]

That's not true. As countless movies have shown, some smart guy among the passengers will eventually land it safe and sound. 

G-d is your co-pilot?

[Opus106]

The claim that the machine is about quarks is not mine, but Scarpia's --- so you should address the issue at him.

He made a claim about a machine, while you particularly alluded to the current Darling of the science press and the engineering problems it faced a couple of years ago.

Only he presented it as a kind of big and definitive scientific achievement, which in the current stage it certainly isn't.

HA! Do you seriously mean that making a scientific discovery is not a big achievement? (I don't know anything about definitive; that would be putting words into Scarpia's mouth.)

[Florestan]

G-d is your co-pilot?

Based on Hollywood evidence, the copilot is rather a good-looking female flight attendant but I don't hazard to presume a purpose for that. 

[karlhenning]

Do you seriously mean that making a scientific discovery is not a big achievement?

The greater bulk of them are small achievements;  the nature of the work, of course.

[Florestan]

He made a claim about a machine, while you particularly alluded to the current Darling of the science press and the engineering problems faced a couple of years ago.

A couple of years? It was just last autumn. Does your time flies faster?

HA! Do you seriously mean that making a scientific discovery is not a big achievement?

When the discovery will come up, I'll applaud it as such. But it hasn't showed up yet. (With reference to the CERN machine, of course).

[Daidalos]

And why has there been such a process? 

Oh, har har.

Aren't you being a little totalitarian here? Must not? Why not? (Another why-question, you see ) We needn't? Why not? I think the intellectually and logically honest position is that you say "I personally needn't and mustn't assume it" and leave others their freedom to follow you or not.

Oh, I think there's been a grammatical snafu... I translated from Swedish "måste inte" to "must not"; I didn't mean so strongly. With "must not" I meant something along the lines of "there does not necessarily and absolutely need to be".

But I must (must!) disagree with your egalitarianism somewhat. I can impugn another person's contention that he or she needs to assume purpose or intelligence where I don't think it is warranted. Certainly if another person keeps asking "why"-questions that I think are unfounded, as has been done in this thread, I can challenge their assumptions. That's what forums are for, no?

We do. But the pioneers of science didn't. They (think Kepler, Galileo, Newton) pursued their inquiries on the purely faith-based (and theologically motivated) assumption that there must be some laws. And voila!: there they were.

All right, get back to me when your "why"-based inquiries have progressed to the point where purpose in the universe can be divined to the same extent that laws can be inferred to govern the universe.

Damn, I wanted that to be snappier, but couldn't quite manage it, but you get the gist.

Either I misunderstand you, or you seem to imply that things about which "we don't know", or are outside the scope of our factual knowledge, are not worth exploring or thinking about and formulating questions regarding them is a waste of time. By this kind of reasoning, no science could ever appear, let alone develop. Could you please clarify?

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I object to the assumptions inherent to some "why"-questions, I disagree with the a priori assertion that such questions are relevant. Some "why"-questions might be pertinent, but not all. Now, if you have reasons to take some inquiry in that direction, that is another matter, but you shouldn't from the get-go assume that there needs to be a purpose behind a specific phenomena.

I'd argue that science seldom blindly strikes out into the darkness; there is often some justification to venture there. My contention was that "purpose", in some instances, lacks justification alltogether. Now, if you still go ahead and investigate with no reason, and strike gold, good for you, but until that time I'm going to treat such unjustified attempts with a large degree of skepticism. To use my favourite example, positing a purpose behind evolution is unnecessary and unjustified, but if reasons can be found to indicate purpose in evolution it would be perfectly acceptable to investigate it. And even if there isn't a reason, but investigation reveals a purpose, the investigator will we rightfully praised for his or her intuition; but if no reason is provided, I'm free to be somewhat dismissive of the notion before it yields results.

We are in agreement here.

How nice.

Might not be is not a scientific assertion. Either you have positive evidence that it is not, or you don't, in which case might not be is just as equally valid a position as it might be. Choosing one or another is a function of many things, none of them having anything to do with science.

I'm simply expressing the principle of parsimony. Of course I have no evidence of a lack of purpose in the universe, but I vehemently disagree with the notion that it is therefore equally valid to say that there "might be purpose". Down that road there is chaos, for any unprovable assertion can be made without fear of contradiction. The default position, in the absence of evidence or reason, must be nonexistence. I see no evidence of purpose, therefore it is reasonable to work under the assumption that there is no purpose. I could use plenty of examples to illustrate this point, but I imagine everyone already knows what examples I talk about, and those examples tend to provoke emotional responses so I'll refrain from making them. I'll say that generally, the operating procedure must be to believe based on evidence, and where there is no evidence or reason one must express uncertainty, which I have done. I have not categorically stated that there is definitely no purpose in the universe (even though I might have used an inapt phrase previously), only that it is unreasonable to assume that there is.

[Opus106]

A couple of years? It was just last autumn. Does your time flies faster?

No, I suppose I just keep track of these things better than you do.  It was shut-down for repairs for a problem that occurred in late '08, and was started again in late '09.

When the discovery will come up, I'll applaud it as such. But it hasn't showed up yet. (With reference to the CERN machine, of course).

So, to re-iterate: Scarpia was not talking about the LHC, the latest of the "CERN machines" which as recently as a little over a week ago was successful in achieving half its target energy, but about (legitimate) scientific discoveries (big achievements, indeed) unrelated to it.

[karlhenning]

I'm simply expressing the principle of parsimony. Of course I have no evidence of a lack of purpose in the universe, but I vehemently disagree with the notion that it is therefore equally valid to say that there "might be purpose."

Now, the only problem I see here (regardless of the question of whether I quite agree with you or not) is in your vehemence.  There may be value in entertaining the idea that is equally valid to suppose that there is a Divine Purpose.

Down that road there is chaos, for any unprovable assertion can be made without fear of contradiction. The default position, in the absence of evidence or reason, must be nonexistence.

Here, though, you may have slipped into scientism.  Not all of life is ruled by evidence, no matter how useful a requirement that is in the field of science.  Perhaps this is the driver for your vehemence:  the mistaken demand for evidence in everything.

Chaos, you know, is part of life.  I think it is unnecessarily limiting, to refuse to consider a question legitimate, because there is the chance of chaos.  I might have refused to enter into the state of matrimony, because at the time I did not have evidence that the end of that road would not be chaos.

[Scarpia]

No, you didn't assert that even remotely. That is what you asserted:
Quite the contrary of what you claim having asserted.

I'm somewhat puzzled by your objection, my statement is just as I characterized, I said I did not believe that science has limits, but that this assertion can't be proven.

Please provide one example of (1) a great philosophical question current during Beethoven's time that has been answered with experimental data, (2) the respective answer and (3) the corresponding data.

The origin and purpose of man has been determined (evolution from primative life, and the outcome of biological evolution).  The question of morality has been established in biological terms (moral creatures produce a population more fit to survive than immoral creatures). the nature of matter has been established in more detail than could have been imagined in Beethoven's day

This is the theory as per AD 2010. Could you guarantee with a reasonable amount of certainty that in 50 years time it will still hold water?

Einstein's general relativity has held up for 100 years, the observations leading to the big bang hypothesis have been confirmed.  Certainly the more speculative aspects of the theory are somewhat fluid but I am confident the basic outlines of the theory will survive intact, just as Newton's theory remains valid within the regime in which it was formulated.

A machine that went out of work immediately after start up and it took almost half a year to fix it. Stay tuned for the next failure.

Your unconcealed glee is telling.

Who are these "we" you are refering to? Are you able to do what you just claimed? Or do you know anyone who is able to do it?

It is certainly possible to synthesize a viral or bacterial genome in it's entirety using a very expensive machine.  It is likewise possible to synthesize active protein molecules.  This is in some sense the essence of life, and it can definitely be made in a test tube.  Making an actual bacteria from scratch is problematic within reach.  The tricky part is the cell body, which contains some very complex structures mainly composed of lipids and lipid-protein complex.  It is being worked on but I am not sure how close it is.  The problems are technical, rather than fundamental.  We certainly have the capability to make a human being incorporating a gene synthesized in a machine, although that is cheating since you are hijacking biological processes to complete the process.

No, "we" can't. Not even the most performant computer one might imagine can calculate ad infinitum. (I trust you are familiar with the notion that the number of Pi's decimals is infinite)

I did not say you could calculate it to completion.  What I said is that any finite number of digits you ask for can be computed.  That will of course leave an infinite number of digits uncomputed.  Just as in science, I believe any definite question you ask can be answered eventually, but that still leaves an infinite number of remaining questions.

You might ask, "what is the purpose of life."  The answer from science is that it is unnecessary to assume a purpose exists.  Science has demonstrated a mechanism by which life can be generated without a purpose.  If you need to believe that there is a purpose, science gives you liberty to invent any purpose you please, since the purpose itself is superfluous.   

[karlhenning]

A machine that went out of work immediately after start up and it took almost half a year to fix it. Stay tuned for the next failure.

Your unconcealed glee is telling.

You mistake;  I read weary sorrow in that last exhortation.

[Florestan]

Certainly if another person keeps asking "why"-questions that I think are unfounded, as has been done in this thread, I can challenge their assumptions. That's what forums are for, no?

Of course.

I'll say that generally, the operating procedure must be to believe based on evidence, and where there is no evidence or reason one must express uncertainty, which I have done.

From a strictly scientific point of view, the highlighted part is common-sense, but you haven't done that. You took a step further by saying:

The default position, in the absence of evidence or reason, must be nonexistence.

Your leap from "uncertainty" to "nonexistence" is not warranted in any scientific way.

[Daidalos]

Now, the only problem I see here (regardless of the question of whether I quite agree with you or not) is in your vehemence.  There may be value in entertaining the idea that is equally valid to suppose that there is a Divine Purpose.

You are free to argue for that supposition, but I stand by what I said.

Here, though, you may have slipped into scientism.  Not all of life is ruled by evidence, no matter how useful a requirement that is in the field of science.  Perhaps this is the driver for your vehemence:  the mistaken demand for evidence in everything.

Chaos, you know, is part of life.  I think it is unnecessarily limiting, to refuse to consider a question legitimate, because there is the chance of chaos.  I might have refused to enter into the state of matrimony, because at the time I did not have evidence that the end of that road would not be chaos.

I don't think I slipped into scientism. I did not only say evidence, I also said "reason", and I mean that in the widest sense: justification or motivation. Evidence is a form of justification for holding a particular set of beliefs, but there might be other kinds of justifications. However, I haven't seen those other kinds of justifications demonstrated, at least not in this thread. There must be a tether connecting a belief to something else in reality (again, in the widest sense); for me, I hope science and reason serves as my tether to my beliefs, my motivation, and I seek to justify that by explaining them as clearly as I can. I haven't seen a cogent attempt from the other side of this debate.

Of course.

From a strictly scientific point of view, the highlighted part is common-sense, but you haven't done that.

Oh, yes I have. I have said that there might not be purpose. That is not an absolute statement. I have expressed the problems I have with unjustified assertions, such as the notion that purpose exists in the universe (except for the intelligent beings that inhabit it). You misinterpreted what I wrote as something much stronger than intended. There "might not" be purpose, not "there is definitely no" purpose.

You took a step further by saying:

Your leap from "uncertainty" to "nonexistence" is not warranted in any scientific way.

Actually, I'll grant you that. I should have written that the default position should not be belief in the existence of any particular concept.

[karlhenning]

I don't think I slipped into scientism. I did not only say evidence, I also said "reason", and I mean that in the widest sense: justification or motivation.

I did mark that you also said "reason."

[Daidalos]

I did mark that you also said "reason."

Yes, but in your reply you wrote:

Here, though, you may have slipped into scientism.  Not all of life is ruled by evidence, no matter how useful a requirement that is in the field of science.  Perhaps this is the driver for your vehemence:  the mistaken demand for evidence in everything.

Chaos, you know, is part of life.  I think it is unnecessarily limiting, to refuse to consider a question legitimate, because there is the chance of chaos.  I might have refused to enter into the state of matrimony, because at the time I did not have evidence that the end of that road would not be chaos.[/font]

I did not say that all life was ruled by evidence, I did say that arguments require an underpinning of evidence and/or reason. Otherwise, I can dismiss them out of hand.

The relevant question to ask would be, "Why should I, a disbeliever in what you hold to be true, be convinced of the veracity of what you assert?" For that, reasons, evidence, or something must be provided. If you don't seek to convince anyone, or explain why you believe as you do, you are not obliged to provide any justification, but then conversation is meaningless.

Regarding the do's and don't's of matrimony, I think that there are reasons that factor into the decision. You feel a certain way, you are hopeful that the object of your affection reciprocates and you have seen some indication that he or she does; those are reasons, even if they aren't consciously contemplated. If you wish to marry someone out of love, you must be in love with that person, but if you see that he or she doesn't feel the same way, you might be disinclined to propose.

[71 dB]

Do you think man has any limits?

It depends on how you define "man". At some point man becomes superman. 

The way I define man means man has limits. The question is whether man is enough for the challenges of limitless science. Are the answers to everything finite? That's the most interesting question!

[Florestan]

I'm somewhat puzzled by your objection

And yet it's very simple. First you wrote:

I strongly disagree with the notion that there are any definite limits to what can be learned from scientific/empirical inquiry.  I wouldn't claim that it can be proven that there are no limits, but neither do I believe that there is any evidence that such limits exist.

Then you wrote this:

I did not assert that science has no limits.  I asserted that there is evidence that science has limits. 

So, in the former post you don't believe there is evidence for science's limits, while in the former you assert that evidence exists. The first and second post are mutually exclusive. Which is true, then?

The origin and purpose of man has been determined (evolution from primative life, and the outcome of biological evolution).

You talked about "great philosophical questions". The origin of man is a theologic / scientific question, not a philosophical one. The purpose on the other hand is, but Daidalos just told us that science has no answer to that question.

The question of morality has been established in biological terms (moral creatures produce a population more fit to survive than immoral creatures).

That is not science, but wishful thinking.

the nature of matter has been established in more detail than could have been imagined in Beethoven's day

Once again you're confusing philosophy with science.

I am confident the basic outlines of the theory will survive intact

I guess we can't do anything more but wait and see.

Making an actual bacteria from scratch is problematic within reach. 

Shouldn't it have been "our reach", to keep it consistent with your previous posts on the topic?

You might ask, "what is the purpose of life."  The answer from science is that it is unnecessary to assume a purpose exists.

That is not an answer, it is a way to avoid answering.

Science has demonstrated a mechanism by which life can be generated without a purpose. 

Wrong. Science has pinpointed a mechanism by which life can be generated, period. Purpose or lack thereof lies completely outside its scope.

[Daidalos]

I think I want to expound a bit on what I meant with "chaos", and use matrimony and love as an example.

My view was that when there no evidence or reason, it is unreasonable to assume the existence of something. So, in the absence of reason, is it equally valid to assume that a random person you meet on the street loves you as it is to assume that he or she does not? Most, I think, would agree that it is reasonable to assume that the stranger does not love you until you've seen some reason that he or she does. If you disagree, you could try to approach some celebrity that you've stalked and convinced yourself that you love, and see how open he or she would be to your advances. I think, as a general principle, lack of belief in something is the more rational alternative.

To some extent, this holds for all propositions. When reasons or justifications accumulate, you might change your opinion. From my viewpoint, purpose in the universe falls into this category. I see neither evidence nor reason (nor necessity) for purpose in the universe, therefore it is reasonable to not believe that there is. It would definitely not be reasonable, on the same grounds, to believe that there is purpose.

Chaos would follow if you hold all propositions to be equally valid in the absence of evidence. I think this is a bad thing, not only on the scientific level, but on the personal as well. There must not be absolute proof to justify belief, but there must be something. I'd ask for those who disagree with me to provide examples where there's no reason to motivate either an action or a belief, but where it'd still be wise or right to either act or believe anyway.

[Daidalos]

You talked about "great philosophical questions". The origin of man is a theologic / scientific question, not a philosophical one. The purpose on the other hand is, but Daidalos just told us that science has no answer to that question.

I'd just like to note that if the purpose can be contained within the framework of science, it can be explained. For instance, if supersmart aliens made us, we can investigate their purposes for creating us by using the methods of science. The aliens are beholden to the same laws that we are, after all. This is a "short-term" purpose, however, not an ultimate purpose, which I agree cannot be answered by science. But, that doesn't mean that question even has an answer, or one that we can comprehend.