Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   the underlying assumptions rig the debate
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 1 of 246 (321510)
06-14-2006 4:16 PM


Recently, I had a request that seemed reasonable to me at first glance that a couple of areas that I tend to bring up, such as the past not being fixed, be left off from threads because they could be used to challenge nearly any evo position on any thread or some such. This is not to complain about that request, but thinking on this, it illustrates a simple fact.
Assumptions rig how we interpret data, and thus what we accept as a fact.
Let me illustrate. Let's say we are talking about whether the Bible fits in with the data in respect to the scripture that death entered into the world through Adam's transgression.
Assuming a linear perspective of causality and time, one would assume that there should be a record of no death prior to mankind, and then radical changes after Adam's fall (or the other approach could be to say the biblical passage is not literal). For sake of argument here, let's just assume the correct interpretation is there existed no death prior to the Fall (not sure that is right, but just to illustrate a point).
Well, the critic of the Bible would say it's not true because we have a record of things dying (fossils) that predate man, but is that an accurate criticism.
Let's look at the earth and the universe in a more scientific and holistic manner. The earth can be described not just as a sphere floating in space travelling through time, but as a streak within space-time (time being relative). So we have this system that does not include death.
The assumption is that the introduction of death into the system was introduced into a system only from one point forward rather than into the whole system. if one thinks of death as entirely outside the system, then the introduction of death should have well affected all points in the system, including the past.
Think of it this way. Reality is generated by a program that does not contain death, and then death is added to the program generating reality so that now, physical reality contains this principle. Another way to get your head around it is to think of the universe as the collapsed state of a quantum superstate on a macro-scale, and with new information, the state of the time-line is changed entirely so that a new path is indicated, one that contains death.
If this was true, we would expect the general patterns in the original creation to be true, but to be changed significantly and probably still changing.
This is just one example, but it shows how what is a fact is determined by what assumptions one uses to interpret data. If one assumes a linear time-line of causality (which imo is fading as scientifically valid), then it is a fact that death preceded man perhaps. If one assumes the system can be affected as a whole, and that non-linear causality is possible, then it is not a fact that death preceded the creation of man.
I would submit on every thread, the underlying assumptions ought to be fair game to be challenged as these assumptions determine what is a fact and what is not.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminWounded, posted 06-14-2006 5:44 PM randman has replied
 Message 5 by Modulous, posted 06-16-2006 6:59 AM randman has replied
 Message 6 by Larni, posted 06-16-2006 7:16 AM randman has replied
 Message 9 by ikabod, posted 06-16-2006 9:27 AM randman has not replied
 Message 11 by nwr, posted 06-16-2006 10:54 AM randman has not replied
 Message 12 by Jazzns, posted 06-16-2006 11:43 AM randman has replied

  
AdminWounded
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 246 (321541)
06-14-2006 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
06-14-2006 4:16 PM


Where did you see this being discussed? [forum=-11]
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by randman, posted 06-14-2006 4:16 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by randman, posted 06-14-2006 10:38 PM AdminWounded has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 3 of 246 (321639)
06-14-2006 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminWounded
06-14-2006 5:44 PM


I am not sure?
Maybe Miscellaneous or Showcase?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminWounded, posted 06-14-2006 5:44 PM AdminWounded has not replied

  
AdminWounded
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 246 (322116)
06-16-2006 4:31 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 5 of 246 (322129)
06-16-2006 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
06-14-2006 4:16 PM


Yes it's possible
This is just one example, but it shows how what is a fact is determined by what assumptions one uses to interpret data. If one assumes a linear time-line of causality (which imo is fading as scientifically valid), then it is a fact that death preceded man perhaps. If one assumes the system can be affected as a whole, and that non-linear causality is possible, then it is not a fact that death preceded the creation of man.
Indeed, the assumption 'assuming time is linear' is an assumption.
Should we concerned about this? Well I don't think so, but some people like yourself are. If science is to seriously consider that their assumption is questionable, we must search for some evidence of this reality changing entity. Some evidence that things such as 'death' have been added to the program. Your concept sounds pretty unfalsifiable as it stands. After all, why would there be any evidence? If all of history is changed, then all the evidence changes to, so we are left with nothing.
As such, it sounds like a philosophical objection, which is entertaining its possibilities, but not something we should seriously consider in our daily lives.
I could say that there is a more important assumption, that outweighs yours in scope by several orders of magnitude. We assume that reality as we perceive it is reality as it is. We could just be 'minds/brain' in a 'jar' being fed 'sensory' information simulating an alternative reality with whole new rules. Rules which we have to figure out - but which we are given a limited amount of time to explore. Any of our observations therefore could be part of this 'game/experiment/coming of age ritual/whatever' and the rules could change at any time, including making those rules retrospective.
In your scenario we could have a fake reality where death doesn't exist (maybe death doesn't exist in reality), but people grew bored of staying alive and they introduced a death algorithm to the fake reality...
We could make Cartesian type objections on our assumptions such as this till the cows came home, it's fun and its a great way to develop interesting sci-fi (eg The Matrix, Dark City). It's not, however, a really great objection to scientific theory and perceived facts based on the evidence.
Can you imagine it? "No your honour, I didn't commit the murder! The evidence was added to the system", or "The fact that I committed murder was added to the system, retrospectively. I had no control over this process so I cannot be held morally responsible".
I would submit on every thread, the underlying assumptions ought to be fair game to be challenged as these assumptions determine what is a fact and what is not.
I disagree that it is practical to do this - since any assumption can be challenged by any party at any time. Threads would end up getting bogged down in philosophical quagmires. Such asides should be raised as asides, and if they start to become a focus point of the topic a new topic should be proposed. Can you imagine a topic that was about the nature of the fall getting bogged down with 'you are assuming the bible supports a fall happening' and 'you are assuming the bible is inerrant'? Topics would quickly become boring and unfocused - indeed we see that this happens often enough as it is, and mods have to step in as asides become tangential marshland.
Topics cannot do with this kind of thing. That an objection exists can be raised, but should rarely be the central focus of the topic unless the objection is reasonable and directly related to the topic at hand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by randman, posted 06-14-2006 4:16 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Percy, posted 06-16-2006 8:32 AM Modulous has not replied
 Message 13 by randman, posted 06-17-2006 5:04 PM Modulous has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 6 of 246 (322135)
06-16-2006 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
06-14-2006 4:16 PM


Event horizon
Randman writes:
If one assumes the system can be affected as a whole, and that non-linear causality is possible, then it is not a fact that death preceded the creation of man.
If death was added to the system and the entire sytem attained a new system state you would need something unaffected by the system state change to recognise the new state/old state difference.
What do you propose that is?
The system state change would be an event horizon would it not?
This would preclude any information from the old system state being carried over to the new.
No one would know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by randman, posted 06-14-2006 4:16 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by randman, posted 06-17-2006 5:08 PM Larni has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 7 of 246 (322148)
06-16-2006 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Modulous
06-16-2006 6:59 AM


Re: Yes it's possible
I agree. I object to this approach for the same reasons you described.
At heart this is just a variation of Last Thursdayism, the difference being that in this perspective the universe was modified last Thursday instead of being created last Thursday.
I don't know why anyone thinks this could be a reasonable argument. It allows anyone to argue, "Well, that may be what the evidence says, but that's not what actually happened because the evidence was changed, and no trace was left behind of the change."
Since science is based upon evidence, and since this approach by its very nature claims that the process of change leaves behind no evidence, this cannot be a scientific position. It is, as you say, a fun mind game suited for sci-fi movies.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Modulous, posted 06-16-2006 6:59 AM Modulous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by jar, posted 06-16-2006 10:41 AM Percy has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 8 of 246 (322161)
06-16-2006 9:08 AM


A few comments
Firstly, I have often seen it said that supporters of evolution will accept any wild idea rather than admit to the existence of a creator. But the suggestion given here qualifies as exactly the sort of wild and implausible that is meant (more so than the ideas actually attacked by this means).
I am far from sure that modifications of the past are in fact possible, but if they are I see no reason that human actions could rewrite reality on a major scale - and if it is possible I woudl expect it to require some very special circumstances which don't seme to apply.
Even if miraculous intervention is assumed then we are still left with the dubious theology of God either causing the effects Himself or setting up what amounts to a booby-trap.
If, on the other hand we assume that ordinary human actions can rewrite the past wholesale then pretty much anything goes. We could blame anybody for anything. If I suggest that Fall occurred because Randman started this thread there's no way to show that that is wrong.
The whole idea is non-productive and that is an excellent reason for keeping it out of the vast majority of discussions.
I would finally suggest that it would be very odd to suggest that a debate was "rigged" because one side wasn't biased enough.

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4492 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 9 of 246 (322164)
06-16-2006 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
06-14-2006 4:16 PM


does this not come down to the question of are there any limits on god's power to do anything god wants to do ?
either ..
1. god has power to do anything .
2. there are some things god can do somethings god cant do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by randman, posted 06-14-2006 4:16 PM randman has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 10 of 246 (322194)
06-16-2006 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Percy
06-16-2006 8:32 AM


Re: Yes it's possible
I don't know why anyone thinks this could be a reasonable argument. It allows anyone to argue, "Well, that may be what the evidence says, but that's not what actually happened because the evidence was changed, and no trace was left behind of the change."
It has other even more practical implications.
I believe that my car will stop because the last time I stepped on the brake pedal that was what happened. Unless the evidence of that was just inserted and it was not the break pedal but the accelerator that I stepped on last time.
The medicine that the doctor is prescribing for me was shown to be three times as effective as a placebo. Unless of course that wasn't really the results of the test and the placebo was actually far safer.
The assumption that the past changed (the reality of the past, not what we know of the past) is one of those ideas that must simply be rejected and thrown away if there is to be an progress whatsoever.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Percy, posted 06-16-2006 8:32 AM Percy has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 11 of 246 (322205)
06-16-2006 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
06-14-2006 4:16 PM


The Bible as nonsense
randman writes:
This is just one example, but it shows how what is a fact is determined by what assumptions one uses to interpret data. If one assumes a linear time-line of causality (which imo is fading as scientifically valid), then it is a fact that death preceded man perhaps. If one assumes the system can be affected as a whole, and that non-linear causality is possible, then it is not a fact that death preceded the creation of man.
The Bible is obvious nonsense. You are making the absurd assumption that what you read in the Bible is what was written thousands of years ago. But once we abandon the idea of "a linear time-line of causality" we must recognize that there is no basis for these assumptions about the Bible. The text in copies of the Bible might well have been changing over time, and the thousands of years ago past might not yet have happened.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by randman, posted 06-14-2006 4:16 PM randman has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 12 of 246 (322246)
06-16-2006 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
06-14-2006 4:16 PM


Others have raised many good points against your OP all of which I tend to agree with.
I think another thing to notice is the extent of the mental gymnastics going on here to bring some kind of harmony to the discord between the fact of an old earth/universe and supposed "literalist" theology.
Reasons To Believe (Home - Reasons to Believe) do something similar although I find their doctrine to be MUCH more plausible than some kind of time manipulation phenomenon for which we can never verify.
I also have problems with the following:
linear time-line of causality (which imo is fading as scientifically valid)
You have to have some reason to believe that linear time is scientifically invalid which means you must have some evidence. Others have asked for how you would even begin to find evidence for such a thing so I wont repeat that request here. What I want to point out is that even this discussion of assumptions has a built in assumption for you. Scientific validity or refutation can be based on 'IMO' rather than evidence according to you. I am sorry but this just does not fly.
Science DOES have some basic assumptions. One of those is simply that the universe is capable of being objectivly described by us using our senses or an extension of our senses. Based on that, we can construct USEFUL descriptions of the universe to help us understand and make productive advances in civilization. Your proposal is effectivly an abandonment of the basic assumption of science in the sense the universe being capable of being described. We can never know if your idea of a non-linear, non-static time line is in any way valid unless in the future we can somehow examine time from outside of time.
Therefore your entire idea is equivalent to a complete abandonment of science as a mechanism and an institution.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by randman, posted 06-14-2006 4:16 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by randman, posted 06-17-2006 5:09 PM Jazzns has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 13 of 246 (322652)
06-17-2006 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Modulous
06-16-2006 6:59 AM


Re: Yes it's possible
Indeed, the assumption 'assuming time is linear' is an assumption.
So that part is settled?
Should we concerned about this? Well I don't think so, but some people like yourself are. If science is to seriously consider that their assumption is questionable, we must search for some evidence of this reality changing entity.
No, what we really need to see is some evidence that time works and "flows" or however you want to describe in a purely linear fashion as a constant.
With the advent of general relativity and aspects of quantum physics, we have good reason to believe time is actually relative to speed, distance and other things. So WE KNOW (in layman's terms) that time does not work as we thought it did in the 19th century. The relative aspect of time gives us a significantly different picture of the universe, which is why I referred to the earth as a streak through space-time rather a ball floating in space at a point in time.
Now, to test this ides further, we would need to see evidence of causality that could theoritically occur from the present back into the past, and we do see that in quantum physics with the principle of entanglement. In fact, there was a paper dealing with this that got a lot of publicity last year. Maybe someone knowledgeable with it can talk about it.
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0402127
My observations prior to that paper are similar, and I can more easily talk about that. Quantum Mechanics predicted a long time ago at it's formation that entangled particles, though seemingly separate, must act as one system even if they are observationally separate from our vantage point and even if light-years apart.
Einstein called this "spooky action at a distance" and began to reject some aspects of the theory he helped develop. Such action at a distance implied either superluminal action, which is againstr General Relativity, or a non-locality or inseparability as we call it today. In other words, even though the particles seem to be physically separate, they are actually not. For many years, this was just a "thought experiment" applying the principles of QM deduced from things like the classic 2-slit experiment, but as technology has advanced, QM was correct in predicting entanglement.
In fact, QM has been perhaps the most successful scientific theory in the past 100 years with quite a lot applied applications even if it is hard to reconcile it with our observations from a classical sense. One of the things about QM and the classic 2-slit experiment is that it "seems" as if the particle knows in advanced what is going to occur. There are a range of interpretations for that, but regardless of them, it appears somehow the particle's pathway in the past is affected by a present action.
John Wheeler when talking about this went as far as to say that when we observe a particle from light-years away, it is a fallacy to ask whether the particle propagated as a wave or a particle, but that it was undefined until it observation and thus it appears as one or the other. Now, we can debate what constitutes "observation" and all that on a different thread, but the point is that when the particle does go through what some have called the collapsing of the wave function (perhaps a bit of a misnomer) or takes on discrete form, it takes on that form potentially from light-years back as well. In other words, this is hard experimentally evidence of causality from the present onto the past through QM principles (possibly via entanglement with the particle with it's past state).
So contrary to your claim, my claim is not philosophical but based on hard, scientific experimental data in the 2-slit experiment and over 80 years of experiments in quantum physics, experiments that can be and are reproduced in the lab, and not merely inferences from data as evos do about the past.
Imo, the data from QM is unassailable on this point at present.
What does this have to do with time? Well, in some experime

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Modulous, posted 06-16-2006 6:59 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by cavediver, posted 06-17-2006 6:33 PM randman has replied
 Message 71 by Modulous, posted 06-18-2006 6:16 AM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 14 of 246 (322657)
06-17-2006 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Larni
06-16-2006 7:16 AM


Re: Event horizon
If death was added to the system and the entire sytem attained a new system state you would need something unaffected by the system state change to recognise the new state/old state difference.
What do you propose that is?
Well, in my thinking, I actually think death was a latent ingredient in the system ans so perhaps that was not most precise description I gave earlier, but if we are talking about the Bible, regardless, God is something unaffected on one level by the system. He is an unchanging Substance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Larni, posted 06-16-2006 7:16 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Larni, posted 06-19-2006 9:27 AM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 15 of 246 (322658)
06-17-2006 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Jazzns
06-16-2006 11:43 AM


QM
You have to have some reason to believe that linear time is scientifically invalid which means you must have some evidence.
80 years of QM experiment is good evidence as is the classic 2-slit experiment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Jazzns, posted 06-16-2006 11:43 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Jazzns, posted 06-17-2006 7:19 PM randman has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024