Taking emergence really seriously

Falsifiability is, unfortunatey, a bias against things that might exist in nature but that are not-consistent. If there were a quantum field lifeform, a ghost if you will, or even something more unusual like a hostile entity or a demon, that entity might get angry and shove somebdy down the stairs or scratch someone or attack somebody. The problem is that such an entity is not going to be as consistent as Maxwell's equations or gravity. Basically, such an entity might exist but would always be falsified by a standard physics test. What say you?
Then it doesn't sound like it's within the realm of scientific inquiry. That doesn't make the hypothesis automatically false, it just means that science doesn't have very much to say about it.
 
Then it doesn't sound like it's within the realm of scientific inquiry. That doesn't make the hypothesis automatically false, it just means that science doesn't have very much to say about it.
Science will have to become to become more flexible, to deal with entities that are self-aware. Especially if they react against experimental constraints (as we would would do!)
 
Then it doesn't sound like it's within the realm of scientific inquiry. That doesn't make the hypothesis automatically false, it just means that science doesn't have very much to say about it.
Perhaps you're right. The problem is that Buddhists are trying to conform to "reality" by abandoning their belief in reincarnation. They believe that they must conform to reality, and there definition of reality is... science. I am probably the only person in the world who is incredibly irritated by that.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

Falsifiability is, unfortunatey, a bias against things that might exist in nature but that are not-consistent. If there were a quantum field lifeform, a ghost if you will, or even something more unusual like a hostile entity or a demon, that entity might get angry and shove somebdy down the stairs or scratch someone or attack somebody. The problem is that such an entity is not going to be as consistent as Maxwell's equations or gravity. Basically, such an entity might exist but would always be falsified by a standard physics test. What say you?
What's hilarious, given the Moody/Alexander debate, is Carroll recently said (Edge Question 2014: What idea should be retired?) that falsifiability isn't always necessary in science....but of course only when talking about fantasies like the Multiverse...
 
The real point is that if science wants to claim to explain everyday reality, it absolutely has to explain consciousness. However, it doesn't matter what explanation you choose, matter with consciousness is going to behave differently and have more potentialities than matter without consciousness. Nothing in proposed explanations of consciousness limits it to brains - just complex systems - so every complex system (at least those under any form of competition) are candidates for consciousness if materialism is true.

This puts proponents of a non-material realm and (thoughtful) materialists in the same boat regarding many questions - such as ID - the fact of consciousness, however explained, changes the game plan. As Michael points out, excluding ID as a conceivable scientific theory was always absurd, but it is surely doubly so if you accept that consciousness can arise from material in particular configurations!

I'm really glad this topic has proved so thought provoking, but please try to remain at least somewhat focused on the original topic!

David
 
Last edited:
Hmm... Does that mean if the consensus opinion supported natural selection, that would make it "true"? :eek:;)
Of course it doesn't! You might find it helpful to stop thinking about scientific consensuses - they are often wrong for all sorts of human reasons - fashion, money, etc. You want to focus of the philosophy and logic of ideas.

David
 
What's hilarious, given the Moody/Alexander debate, is Carroll recently said (Edge Question 2014: What idea should be retired?) that falsifiability isn't always necessary in science....but of course only when talking about fantasies like the Multiverse...
You do realize that if there is not a multiverse, then the odds of a universe popping into existence that will sustain life is extremely improbable. No multiverse is very nearly proof of God.

As for doing away with falsifiability, it really comes down to this. Noncorporeal life forms have freewill to reveal themselves or not.
 
Last edited:
You have no idea what the probability of a single universe sustaining life might be.

~~ Paul
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

"If, for example, the strong nuclear force were 2% stronger than it is (i.e., if the coupling constant representing its strength were 2% larger), while the other constants were left unchanged, diprotons would be stable and hydrogen would fuse into them instead of deuterium and helium.[10] This would drastically alter the physics of stars, and presumably preclude the existence of life similar to what we observe on Earth. The existence of the di-proton would short-circuit the slow fusion of hydrogen into deuterium. Hydrogen would fuse so easily that it is likely that all of the Universe's hydrogen would be consumed in the first few minutes after the Big Bang.[10] However, some of the fundamental constants describe the properties of the unstable strange, charmed, bottom and top quarks and mu and tau leptons that seem to play little part in the Universe or the structure of matter."

We live in a universe that is just right for life. In the absence of other universes that we can confirm, it must mean that there is a God.
 
]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

"If, for example, the strong nuclear force were 2% stronger than it is (i.e., if the coupling constant representing its strength were 2% larger), while the other constants were left unchanged, diprotons would be stable and hydrogen would fuse into them instead of deuterium and helium.[10] This would drastically alter the physics of stars, and presumably preclude the existence of life similar to what we observe on Earth. The existence of the di-proton would short-circuit the slow fusion of hydrogen into deuterium. Hydrogen would fuse so easily that it is likely that all of the Universe's hydrogen would be consumed in the first few minutes after the Big Bang.[10] However, some of the fundamental constants describe the properties of the unstable strange, charmed, bottom and top quarks and mu and tau leptons that seem to play little part in the Universe or the structure of matter."

We live in a universe that is just right for life. In the absence of other universes that we can confirm, it must mean that there is a God.
In a few billion years when the Sun has become a red giant and boiled all the oceans away and kill all life do you still say this universe is made for life? And in the extremely distant future 10^100 years when all that's left is photons, leptons and a thin diffused gas and entropy is extreme will you still say this universe is fit for life as we know it? Would you still be so self assured there is God? And God created a universe all for us?
 
Last edited:
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

Some scientists seem really bothered by fine tuning, so much they've crafted their own narrative via the Multiverse.

But fine tuning doesn't prove anything in and of itself, though it'd be interesting if the Neo-Darwinism is declared a failure and the LHC offers no good hint at all of a Multiverse.

If more results come up that suggest observer-participancy
the whole idea of God, or at least Mind incarnating into minds a la Goswami's Idealist interpretation of the measuremnt problem, could gain increasing popularity...maybe Josephson would win a second Nobel Prize. :)
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
You sound scared. Atheists are for some reason always scared by the concept of a god.
Yeah, that's it, I'm scared. That's the problem with this statement:

"We live in a universe that is just right for life. In the absence of other universes that we can confirm, it must mean that there is a God."


~~ Paul
 
We live in a universe that is just right for life. In the absence of other universes that we can confirm, it must mean that there is a God.
I wouldn't want to go that far. I really do wonder about some of those fine tuning arguments.

For one thing, I am not sure how reliable the simulations of other universes with different constants really are. They certainly have to assume that the relevant physics is fully understood.

Also every simulation will have to be debugged, and that can't be easy when you don't have an actual universe to compare it with.

Furthermore, with a number of constants to vary, there is a vast amount of parameter space to search for viable universes.

David
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

"If, for example, the strong nuclear force were 2% stronger than it is (i.e., if the coupling constant representing its strength were 2% larger), while the other constants were left unchanged, diprotons would be stable and hydrogen would fuse into them instead of deuterium and helium.[10] This would drastically alter the physics of stars, and presumably preclude the existence of life similar to what we observe on Earth. The existence of the di-proton would short-circuit the slow fusion of hydrogen into deuterium. Hydrogen would fuse so easily that it is likely that all of the Universe's hydrogen would be consumed in the first few minutes after the Big Bang.[10] However, some of the fundamental constants describe the properties of the unstable strange, charmed, bottom and top quarks and mu and tau leptons that seem to play little part in the Universe or the structure of matter."

We live in a universe that is just right for life. In the absence of other universes that we can confirm, it must mean that there is a God.
Or to quote Dean Radin.

My take on the fine tuning question is that the universe appears to be fine tuned for us because if it wasn't we wouldn't be here to ask the question. I.e., in an infinite amount of time eventually some universe would arise that would support some form of life. That universe in turn would eventually come to wonder (through creatures like us) about itself. This doesn't require a special design process. Rather, the question arises naturally in a universe that has the capacity to support the asking of such questions. We think this universe is unique. Maybe it isn't. Maybe a gazillion universes could spontaneously arise where the same question would eventually be asked.
 
Top