Creation or Evoloution? Big Bang or Big Belief -- which is it?

What is your belief?

Big Bang. In the beginning was nothing. Then, bang. Evoloution did the rest. God did nothing
3
38%
God caused the Big Bang, then Evoloution did the rest.
0
No votes
I'm a compromiser. Gap Theory / Day-Age Theory etc.
0
No votes
Science goes against Christianity. Evoloution.
0
No votes
I beleieve in Creation because my parents do.
0
No votes
I believe in Evoloution because my teachers taught me it and they must know a lot.
0
No votes
Science points to Intelligent Design -- a personal Creator.
3
38%
The Universe never began and never will end.
2
25%
 
Total votes: 8

KL-666
Posts: 1610
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 8:42 am

Re: Creation or Evoloution? Big Bang or Big Belief -- which is it?

Postby KL-666 » Mon Dec 07, 2015 11:39 pm

Well, Lydiot here you prove again that you are in for a quick win by distorting the discussion. You keep repeating this in every post because you think you made a smart find.

Lydiot wrote:This appears to be the case in this thread. Someone talks about the size and shape of our galaxy as illustrated in the video, and someone retorts that maybe reality isn't real. Is either of those statements of some kind of "truth"? They seem to be. But the latter ("philosophy"?) encroaches on the former (science).


Well, let me inform you, you are not smart.

1) This part of the debate is not about winning, but about explaining backgrounds, so we understand each other better.

2) All my effort has been on strict separation between science within the reality, and provability of realness of reality. Science has a completely valid logic internally. But statements about the meaning of life should be left to the area of realness of reality.

Yet you manage to accuse me of using realness of reality arguments to discredit facts within the area of science. Really sickening this. And i will not react on this any further. Just read and try to understand, and quit with that fighting mentality of yours. It brings you nothing but just making yourself look silly.

Kind regards, Vincent

Lydiot
Posts: 554
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2015 1:30 pm

Re: Creation or Evoloution? Big Bang or Big Belief -- which is it?

Postby Lydiot » Tue Dec 08, 2015 12:42 am

KL-666 wrote:Well, Lydiot here you prove again that you are in for a quick win by distorting the discussion. You keep repeating this in every post because you think you made a smart find.

Lydiot wrote:This appears to be the case in this thread. Someone talks about the size and shape of our galaxy as illustrated in the video, and someone retorts that maybe reality isn't real. Is either of those statements of some kind of "truth"? They seem to be. But the latter ("philosophy"?) encroaches on the former (science).


Well, let me inform you, you are not smart.


So far a very convincing rebuttal... what else do you have?......

KL-666 wrote:1) This part of the debate is not about winning, but about explaining backgrounds, so we understand each other better.


"winning"? Speak for yourself. I wasn't even talking to you in that quote.

KL-666 wrote:2) All my effort has been on strict separation between science within the reality, and provability of realness of reality. Science has a completely valid logic internally. But statements about the meaning of life should be left to the area of realness of reality.


"the meaning of life"? Did I talk about that in any of my posts? Did I address you talking about it? I think the answer to both is 'no'. So I have no idea why you bring that up now.

KL-666 wrote:Yet you manage to accuse me of using realness of reality arguments to discredit facts within the area of science.




You: "Nice animations. But i am sorry to say, to me the are like average disney productions. The reason for that is, that i do not see the need to pick one abstract calculating model and promote it to "that is how it really happened" by visualizing it. "

"Visualizing is steering people in one direction of belief. "

"Scientists need calculating models that work for them. Fine, but why on earth visualize one arbitrary model among equals?"


Me: "So in the video I posted, at what point does it no longer show reality? I presume you think that our solar system is accurately described and understood by us. How about nearby solar systems? Our galaxy? Nearby galaxies?"

Given your previous statements it's an absolutely legitimate question. If distances aren't what astrophysicists have defined then at some point our understanding clearly falters. You previously mentioned one principle not being applicable on different magnitudes... The small not applicable to the large, and/or vice versa. So, again, it begs the question of whether our solar system is well and accurately described - and if it is - when things begin to no longer apply. Your answer to that:

You: Though it is your good right to believe what you like, you are stuck in the basic assumption that there is a real reality out there.

If the way the solar system is described constitutes "facts within the area of science", why bring up "real reality" if it has nothing to do with such facts?

Or it does not constitute such a fact, in which case it is still valid to ask when it ceases to be a fact - on what scale.

A clear answer by you to my questions to you had been easier than you talking about "realness of reality". Deepak Chopra would be proud.

KL-666 wrote:Really sickening this. And i will not react on this any further. Just read and try to understand, and quit with that fighting mentality of yours. It brings you nothing but just making yourself look silly.

Kind regards, Vincent


I would normally ask someone like you to read up on Dunning-Kruger, but I doubt you'd comprehend it. Perhaps you could tone down your narcissism a bit... from say "11" to "8"?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

KL-666
Posts: 1610
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 8:42 am

Re: Creation or Evoloution? Big Bang or Big Belief -- which is it?

Postby KL-666 » Tue Dec 08, 2015 12:48 am

No need to have posted all those letters. As i said, i will not react more to your ravings. Such a waste of bytes.

kind regards, Vincent

Lydiot
Posts: 554
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2015 1:30 pm

Re: Creation or Evoloution? Big Bang or Big Belief -- which is it?

Postby Lydiot » Tue Dec 08, 2015 12:56 am

KL-666 wrote:No need to have posted all those letters. As i said, i will not react more to your ravings. Such a waste of bytes.


Dunning-Kruger.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

KL-666
Posts: 1610
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 8:42 am

Re: Creation or Evoloution? Big Bang or Big Belief -- which is it?

Postby KL-666 » Tue Dec 08, 2015 1:08 am

Hello Skyboat,

One of the hardest thing to do is to let go of a preconception that is instilled in us from birth. Believe me, i have been unsettled for years, not wanting to let go of reality as greatest realness. But founding any meaning of life on a construct that has no proof for it's realness was an even worse horror. Nowadays i am perfectly comfortable with having truth open ended. The revolution in view did not kill me :-)

I do not recommend for you to do the same. I still respect people that choose reality as greatest realness. What i am looking for are common grounds. It would help us having a meaningful debate within science, if we refrain from statements about the realness of reality or the meaning of life from within science. Then both our worlds can meet. As you may have understood by now, there is no meaningful way i can handle statements about the realness of reality or the meaning of life from within science.

Looking forward to more interesting posts on discoveries in science. Your posts are really great in explaining complex things.

Oh, and on where might be a possibility of any sureness of realness: I think we have to take the observer more into account. In observing there are both the observed and the observer. Yet in current science most emphasis is laid on the observed.

Kind regards, Vincent

User avatar
SkyBoat
Posts: 306
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2015 3:54 pm
Location: Eugene, Oregon; Home Airports: KEUG, KPDX, KXTA
Contact:

Re: Creation or Evoloution? Big Bang or Big Belief -- which is it?

Postby SkyBoat » Tue Dec 08, 2015 5:28 am

My dear Vincent,

I respect your life's stance as your being comfortable with truth being open ended, and that the the realness of reality is, if I am understanding you, a constant flow of the Uncertainty Principle from you who are the perceiver and that which is perceived, because in the very act of perceiving it, both you and it might be changed.

In that respect if I may speculate a moment, you analogize yourself as a being of an energy/mass-integrative form, bearing in some quantum construct a wave/particle function. Two questions then arise from this state of existence. First, how do you describe your ontological existence? That is, what is the ground of your being in its most fundamental sense; from where do you derive your identity of Vincent-ness? The second question is equally profound. How do you prove that you actually do not exist?

Neither of the questions are facetious. Both seemingly are logical extentions of the philosophical approach to life you espouse in which truth and reality are open-ended floating points. In asking them, I'm not attempting to dissuade you from your current life view. I am actually fascinated with how you will frame your responses and, therefore what I will learn about you and your life's perspective.

I am very much looking forward to your reply.
SkyBoat

"Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large. Then make the dream real."
Donald Douglas

Lydiot
Posts: 554
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2015 1:30 pm

Re: Creation or Evoloution? Big Bang or Big Belief -- which is it?

Postby Lydiot » Tue Dec 08, 2015 8:33 am

SkyBoat wrote:the realness of reality


Well, perhaps you can help me here. I was under the impression that something either is or is not real. Therefore, "realness of reality" is just another way of saying "the question of whether something is real". When something exists, it is real. When it does not, it is not real. To me the line of reasoning that seemingly stems from using language this way is nothing more than questioning whether or not we can trust our perception. In other words, if there is a real world out there, then we can either perceive it correctly or not. If there is no real world out there, then our perception is clearly 'broken'. But regardless of that, there's not "realness of reality", there just is or is not reality. Things are or are not.

I just don't see any meaningful implication of these word games. Can you explain to me just what the value is in relation to:

- the first post ("the Origins of this Universe")
- the videos we posted
- the data and theory the videos were based on

I'm genuinely at a loss here.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

User avatar
SkyBoat
Posts: 306
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2015 3:54 pm
Location: Eugene, Oregon; Home Airports: KEUG, KPDX, KXTA
Contact:

Re: Creation or Evoloution? Big Bang or Big Belief -- which is it?

Postby SkyBoat » Tue Dec 08, 2015 10:09 am

@Lydiot,

It's very late to launch into a comprehensive examination of what KL-666 has been arguing for. But what I can say briefly is that his construct for what forms both the basis of truth and reality are based on a quite different set of epistomological assumptions than is usually held by the man on the the street. In his frame of reference truth is never an absolute, rather like dividing a number by an ever increasing fraction of 1.0. You get closer and closer to the number but never actually arrive at the full number itself. Reality, on the other hand, for Vincent, is always a moving target limited both by the senses, which by definition are insufficiently reliable to be trusted to give one a clear picture of what is being measured, divided by the Uncertainty Principle, which dictates you can measure the speed or direction of an object but not both at the same time (if I remember right this late at night), the result of which is a reality that, for lack of a better term I call a "floating point."

If you read my previous post, you know I put some very, very high level questions to him, not to entrap him, but in the hope he can explain what he means. I hope he has the language, even if he has to write it out in Dutch and translate it into English, or give it to us in an interlinear translation, so I can begin to figure out what the heck he's really talking about. I do have a bit of an ace in the hole, so to speak, in that my sister's husband is Dutch and I can always ask him to also provide an alternate translation along with the one Vincent gives us if he thinks it might be helpful.

Here's hoping we both understand what he's talking about more clearly!

p.s. Dunning-Kruger? Low-blow. Out-of-bounds. Does nothing to contribute to the conversation. Bad form, IMHO.
SkyBoat

"Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large. Then make the dream real."
Donald Douglas

KL-666
Posts: 1610
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 8:42 am

Re: Creation or Evoloution? Big Bang or Big Belief -- which is it?

Postby KL-666 » Tue Dec 08, 2015 12:33 pm

Hello Skyboat,

All right, we can talk about this a bit more, but then not in relation to the content of science. First i have to say that i am certainly not living a word game. Would i be on the lookout for things that may have some more certainty than reality, and then just pick a word game to declare real? My word choice may be not too good, because i am far from a scholar in this. Anyway, it would be better if i talk about me here, so there is no chance that i misrepresent any wise man. (Possible language issues here will stem less from language itself, but much more from my lack of knowledge of the theories).

Maybe it can help in understanding this, if you are prepared to temporarily declare a consciousness as real as you do with reality. Not as a little psychological speck within reality, but as real and "big" as reality. This must be doable, because we also bluntly declare reality as real.

Descartes could not be sure of anything, well except for his famous quote. Not being sure of anything is a good starting point. But can i maybe find things that i can be more sure of than others? I think i can. Where i can not be sure of things in reality, i can be a bit more sure of having consciousnesses of things. Such consciousnesses are in my consciousness, so i should be able to touch them. At least better than things in reality. (A house i watch is not in myself, but i have a consciousness of a house).

Now, should i keep the blown up consciousness as a starting point, or the blown up reality? Then i choose the one where i think to be able to find more certainty, through being better able to touch the matter i work with.

Sure such choice has consequences. I am not a speck in reality anymore, but kind of all encompassing. What does that mean for what we perceive as reality? The best i can make of it is that there is a high level of agreement on certain consciousnesses of things. Whether these consciousnesses are based on something that is really out there, that can not be determined. Yet there is enough agreement to do a lot of things together, even as large as science. For the sake of a sensible working environment for science, i could go as far as that we may suspend our disbelief and assume reality real. Yet not declare it real.

In such manner i can understand Einstein's quote, if he is referring with "persistent" to a "high level of agreement".

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.


About my existence i do not have much complex thoughts. Occam's Razor tells me that it is not necessary to make up big stories about where did i come from, and where do i go. I actually can not know anything about that. All i can know is that i am now, being that all encompassing consciousness, that has to get up every morning, go to work etc... One day it will probably end as suddenly as it began. Proving to not exist is a contradictio in terminis. If i do not exist, i am not, so there is no i to prove anything.

Btw. You do not need to excuse yourself for asking, because i am confident that you ask to understand. In the same manner as i stand in this conversation.

Kind regards, Vincent

Lydiot
Posts: 554
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2015 1:30 pm

Re: Creation or Evoloution? Big Bang or Big Belief -- which is it?

Postby Lydiot » Tue Dec 08, 2015 4:39 pm

SkyBoat wrote:@Lydiot,

It's very late to launch into a comprehensive examination of what KL-666 has been arguing for. But what I can say briefly is that his construct for what forms both the basis of truth and reality are based on a quite different set of epistomological assumptions than is usually held by the man on the the street. In his frame of reference truth is never an absolute, rather like dividing a number by an ever increasing fraction of 1.0. You get closer and closer to the number but never actually arrive at the full number itself. Reality, on the other hand, for Vincent, is always a moving target limited both by the senses, which by definition are insufficiently reliable to be trusted to give one a clear picture of what is being measured, divided by the Uncertainty Principle, which dictates you can measure the speed or direction of an object but not both at the same time (if I remember right this late at night), the result of which is a reality that, for lack of a better term I call a "floating point."


See, that's actually not entirely what I'm getting from the use of terminology by him and others, when discussing the "realness of reality". What you describe above seems to me to be a 'benefit-of-the-doubt' analysis of what was said, based on your understanding of the world. As such I don't disagree. Of course there are limits to our perception, to our intellect and to the tools we use. Scientists frequently point out that theirs is an exercise in figuring out probabilities of events.

Now, the difference is seen in the third sentence above starting with "In his frame of reference truth is never an absolute", and then juxtaposed to what follows "rather like dividing a number by an ever increasing fraction of 1.0. You get closer and closer to the number but never actually arrive at the full number itself.", and made more clear in the next sentence "Reality" "is always a moving target limited both by the senses"

If you look at those two sets you should see a difference that almost passes by unnoticed, but has huge implications. The latter statements indicate, to me, that which scientists have been saying for years and years, that there is at any given point in time a limitation on our ability to correctly perceive and describe reality, and thus on knowing the absolute truth. BUT, the former actually says something completely different; namely that it is the truth itself that is never an absolute. Those are two extremely different points being made.

If we place the two on a scale we end up with some bizarre conclusions in some cases. In the extreme science will tell us that a lot of things (anything?) are possible, but not necessarily likely. On the other hand the postulating that there never is an absolute truth allows for saying that a tree is never really a tree, because we just don't know the truth about that statement, and we never can. It is the extrapolation of the principle that we can never know the "realness of reality" that puts us (them) in that position. There's a huge difference between postulating that we can never know the truth about whether or not there is a tree and whether or not there actually is a tree.

So then for all practical purposes one absolutely has to disconnect that view of it all from science, simply because the two appear to be at odds with each other, from a practical standpoint. After all, what use is it to always voice the caveat that "we don't and never will be able to know" in science? It can be used against any theory, and be equally "valid" in all cases. But it doesn't bring us forward in science, not one bit. So best then to disconnect it from science and claim that the discussion applies to a different realm. But there's a problem with that...

What do we really know about 'us'? We know we have five senses. We know we have consciousness. The two tells us there's a world outside of our consciousness, that which we presumably call "reality". Now if you subtract "reality" from that, what are you left with in terms of attaining knowledge? You're left with nothing. And what are you left with in terms of an ability to affect anything other than those two (sensation / consciousness)? You're left with nothing. So in other words, to borrow from a parallel discussion in another forum, if you compare a "brain in a vat" to a real human, and if you postulate that our reality isn't real, and we're just brains in a vat, so what? We, as brains in a vat, with no surrounding reality, cannot change that which does not exist (reality outside the vat), and thus our exercise is of no use. At that point one should even question whether or not the brain in the vat is real... after all, a brain in a vat is a reality; distinctly different from that which the brain in the vat perceives, but a reality no less, and as such reality still exists, and it is still the problem is still only with our perception....

Even if you came up with a brilliant argument for why the "realness of reality" is zero, it actually doesn't prove anything, because not without irony you are part of that non-existing reality from my perspective, meaning any and all things said that disproves reality has to be taken with more than a grain of salt. It's actually not unlike the good'ol "The next sentence is true. The previous sentence is false". You aren't me, you are outside of me, you tell me that which is outside of me isn't real. You aren't real. What you said isn't real. Therefore the outside might exist. In which case you might exist after all, and might be right after all....

SkyBoat wrote:p.s. Dunning-Kruger? Low-blow. Out-of-bounds. Does nothing to contribute to the conversation. Bad form, IMHO.


Bad form? This is his interjection into the conversation I had with others:

" you are in for a quick win by distorting the discussion. "
"let me inform you, you are not smart."
" Really sickening this. "
" making yourself look silly."

What about that, and this is a serious question, "contributes to the conversation"? I see nothing above that does. The question that might occur to some is why you'd choose to get down on my comment after having actually responded to his objection - in detail - when he himself resorted to only the above?

The fundamental problem with some groups is that it is allowed to not answer what people say directly, but rather just make new statements. Requesting an answer to what was actually asked is called "tit-for-tat" or "nit-picking" etc. But if we wanted to just voice our opinions we should use blogs, not a forum format.

So again - follow the discussion:

1. We posted videos.
2. He diminished them.
3. I asked at what point the reality depicted in them ceases to be practically true.
4. He answered talking about the "realness of reality".
5. THEN he complains that I am trying to connect that with science, when science is what gave us those videos in the first place.

I think the other question apart from the semi-rhetorical one above is: What difference does it make? I asked a serious question, got the "real reality" answer, and then an angry post denying the two were connected. What do you propose at that point?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Return to “42: The Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests