The "I'm Bored" Conversation Thread

[Rirenil Masdo]

“The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.”
― Socrates

[tman]

The original name for what we now call science was "Natural Philosophy," aka the study of the physical world/universe.  Note the key distinguishing feature between natural philosophy (read: science) and all other branches of philosophy (ethics, metaphysics, etc.) is that it assumes nothing beyond what can be physically observed.  Basically in layman's terms, science always begins with the assumption that nothing supernatural or metaphysical is taking place, and then asks the question "Ok, so how can we explain what we observe based on what is happening in the physical world?"

Therefore, since science by definition assumes a lack of metaphysical forces at play, it is impossible to use science to study anything metaphysical.  Science cannot answer questions about the existence of a deity, free will, the soul, etc. because it specifically excludes them in its underlying assumptions.

Not to mention the fact that everything we observe about the world is biased simply by the fact that we are humans and our brains are designed to perceive things a certain way.  But that's a whole other discussion.

[bloodedIrishman]

Science can answer questions of consciousness, freedom, morality and meaning in actual life.

[tman]

Did you read anything I just wrote?

You're thinking of philosophy.  Science is but a small branch.

[Illysia]

Therefore, since science by definition assumes a lack of metaphysical forces at play, it is impossible to use science to study anything metaphysical.  Science cannot answer questions about the existence of a deity, free will, the soul, etc. because it specifically excludes them in its underlying assumptions.

While that is an interesting thought, I think it misses one point. What if our concept of what is natural simply needs to be expanded? I think one day science will catch up with and find ways to quantify less observable things like thought and consciousness. But, it will take more time to find the way to do so. For instance, the effects of magnetism were considered supernatural at once point. Now, it is well established section of basic physics. It is quantifiable just how a magnet can make things levitate with "nothing" under it.

[bloodedIrishman]

Science can incorporate so much more than what you presume.

[tman]

While that is an interesting thought, I think it misses one point. What if our concept of what is natural simply needs to be expanded? I think one day science will catch up with and find ways to quantify less observable things like thought and consciousness. But, it will take more time to find the way to do so. For instance, the effects of magnetism were considered supernatural at once point. Now, it is well established section of basic physics. It is quantifiable just how a magnet can make things levitate with "nothing" under it.

I see your point, and it's definitely interesting.  What if, somewhere in the future, we discover that humans do have physical "souls" that can be measured and proven?  Wouldn't that be a case of science proving something metaphysical or supernatural?

My point is that, no it wouldn't.  Because once we discover something manifests itself in the physical world, it ceases to be a metaphysical phenomena, and therefore was just misclassified.

Some (over two thirds of the US, according to polls : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States#Belief_in_the_existence_of_a_god) believe that there exists a deity beyond our physical realm.  What if, in the future, we discover that what we thought were acts of god were actually acts of super advanced alien technology?  Does science prove theology? Not really, because they wouldn't be a "real god."  There could always be another deity beyond even their realm of observation.

The best way I can explain it is this: Science relies on observable facts.  If you cannot observe something, it isn't science.  So let's consider the age old stoner's dilemma: "What if the colors I see are different from the colors you see?" I could see something green, know it's green.  You could see the same exact object and perceive it the way I see red.  But for you, that's green.  It always has been green for you.  You're used to it being green, even though it's how I perceive the color red.

The point is, without entering another person's consciousness, there is no way to know, because it is all subjective reality.  Science can't answer it, because there's no way to test it.

[Illysia]

I think of God as a being with a deeper fundamental understanding of the laws which govern our universe and the ability to affect them. It's kinda like flying. Flying is not a defiance of the law of gravity, it is working with other laws of physics that allow you to overcome gravity, but to someone without understanding of any of the laws, you are doing something you ought not be able to do.

But regarding what science can perceive, this is why the development of techniques and methods are important. My point was not science proving the metaphysical but rather the metaphysical possibly being an arbitrary classification that we invented. If we develop better methods and techniques we may find that that what we considered as being completely beyond our classifications was really just more complex examples of the same rules we had already come to know.

Further, Our individual interpretations of reality may be subjective but that does not mean that reality is completely subjective. I believe that reality is really quite aside from our perceptions, which are subjective, and if we can't make heads or tails of it that is just our problem as reality is what it is anyway. So, if there is a concrete reality, there is a possibility that we will find a way of getting at it, but it will depend on refining our methods so that they are less and less subjective. For instance, I may see your green as red, but regardless of what you or I see, the frequency of the reflected light of the object can be measured and will stay constant despite any perceptional issues on your or my part. Measuring the light took the subjectivity out of the equation even if we still see differently.

[tman]

[Just want to point out off the bat that I'm not trying to be argumentative and I'm really enjoying this discussion.]

I agree with almost all of what you're saying, especially the part about subjective reality.  I believe in objective reality.  However, as humans we are incapable of perceiving absolute objective reality.  How we understand the world is simply a mental construct, a model our brain makes in an effort to understand our sensations.  Everything is put through the "filter" of human understanding.

An analogy would be like a computer.  Computers, at their most basic level, understand nothing more than 0s and 1s.  That's it.  That's all they can handle.  However, by building together streams of 0s and 1s and assigning them meaning in some way, we can get our computer to approximately represent complex things like images, videos, etc.  It seems like anything can be represented in a computer, but that's just not true.  Computers are actually finite state machines.  It would be possible, given enough time, to go through every possible state your computer could possibly contain.  So, your computer approximates these things, but there are a fundamentally limited number of concepts your computer can represent.

Sorry for the tangent, let's swing back to the previous discussion a bit.  Does god have free will?

I think of God as a being with a deeper fundamental understanding of the laws which govern our universe and the ability to affect them. It's kinda like flying. Flying is not a defiance of the law of gravity, it is working with other laws of physics that allow you to overcome gravity, but to someone without understanding of any of the laws, you are doing something you ought not be able to do.

The reasoning behind the question of humans having free will is that, if everything is bound by natural laws, then theoretically if you knew the laws that govern the universe and you were given the exact position and velocity of every particle in existence, you could potentially calculate exactly how every particle would act for all of history.  So the question is, are our thoughts and actions our own choice, or simply predetermined by their previous state, going all the way back to the beginning of the universe?

Now if a god exists solely in our physical universe, but as a more advanced being, he/she/it is presumably subject to the same governing laws.  Maybe he has found a way to bend or change laws that we thought were immutable. But, being solely in the observable physical universe, the way in which god does so must be bound by its own physical laws.  So we see, are the actions of this super powerful being simply predetermined by its previous state, which in turn is determined by its previous state, all the way back to the beginning of the universe?  Does god have free will?

You see, it's actually the same question as whether humans do.  Is our consciousness purely a function of the physical laws of the universe and its initial state, or is there some other part of us not governed by physics?  Science, by definition, cannot tell us the answer.  Science can get us closer and closer to understanding the fundamental laws of the universe.  But it can't answer any questions about what is beyond them.

[Volki]

I do not believe in a god, but I do not see why one could not exist. By this I mean, even if you could physically measure a god, taking it out of the metaphysical realm as tman said, one could still worship it as a god. Humans have been worshiped as gods before. If someone believes a super-advanced species of alien was a race of gods, revealing their true identities does not necessarily negate their labels as gods.

[tman]

If someone believes a super-advanced species of alien was a race of gods, revealing their true identities does not necessarily negate their labels as gods.

Correct.  But it DOES negate their labels as metaphysical.  Meaning that the free will question applies equally to them as to us.

[bloodedIrishman]

Science could test consciousness given time. The attempts by philosophers and theologians to claim their own space is increasingly more of a joke.

[Rigwyn]

If you have ever tried to make a computer pick a random number without relying on a pre-made function to generate it for you, you run into an interesting problem. You see that there is no way to get a computer program to pick a *purely* random number.

The best we can do is to come close. When you look at a sample of random numbers generated by a computer, you'll find statistical anomolies in the numbers that it produces. Some numbers may occur more often than others, etc... This problem is not really that significant until you get into cryptography - where a computer's inability to generate good random numbers can lead to exploits that take advantage of this weakness.

When you step away from the computer and look for real life examples of how to generate random numbers, you see again that there are flaws.

When you flip a coin, the forces you put on the coin, the coin itself, the air and surface that it lands on all have properties that affect which way the coin will bounce and flop. We can't deliberatly make the coin bounce and land the same way each time since we don't have that much control over our body, but bias can be measured if you do a large number of flips - like a thousand or so.

The point here is that with physical things at least, there is no randomness. And randomness is an illusion. There is obscurity and complexity, but no randomness.

How then, can free will exist?

[Illysia]

See, here is where an issue lays. I don't think it is inherently true that knowing all the factors  necessarily negates probability and allows you to assume only one possible path. Things may happen with a certain range of possibility no matter how much you know. You might be able refine the probabilities to more exactly reflect what is going to happen. But I think someone would  have to diliberately intervene to influence the outcome to make it one path only. However, there is a possibility that our limited understanding and control of various factors limits our ability to intervene to that extent meaning that even when we act there is still a some range of possibility.

To illustrate, you can flip a coin and it has the probability it has, but you could also catch the coin mid air and put it down on tails the whole time. I think with more understanding you will only refine the numbers for the probability and find something like it actually has a 70% chance of tails under these conditions, but probability will still be in play. I don't think you will ever refine it down to one possible outcome unless you deliberately influence the scenario which is represented by grabbing the coin and setting it down how you like. But that intervention still bypasses the fact that there were more possible outcomes under those circumstances.

Now about physical gods, if you have a god that exists in our universe like we do then they may be constrained similiarly. But, being a part of our universe is not the same as having the same limitations that we as humans have. We have an incomplete understanding of what is going on around us so we don't even know whether or not we can overcome things that currently constrain us as humans.

Further, the "physical" universe is only a part of the whole. If you mean the matter based universe then it is easily the smaller part of the universe. Energy seems to make up more of the universe, and we are still learning about it in the greater whole.  So, there is this issue that you have to consider the concept of gods outside of the "physical" realm as we know, but not in some magical realm, just one we don't have enough information on. It's still a part of physics.

But, either way, I still think choice is not the result of mechanisms but rather is facilitated by the mechanisms. You din't go down the road because you had a car, the car allowed you to get down the road.
 

If someone believes a super-advanced species of alien was a race of gods, revealing their true identities does not necessarily negate their labels as gods.

I agree.

Now about randomness, assuming no randomness also assumes we already know everything there is about probability. If we had that level of understanding, I don't think scientists would still be working on probability experiments. Like I said earlier, we can only speculate now based on limited information. Limits in computing may simply been a limit we built in but will be overcome once the right new idea comes through, and limits in our own ability may be due more to how we think about it rather than a truly not random thing. Their may be a breakthrough one day that goes down a different path but opens new possibilities that give us more insight.

For instance, there was a point when Physicists had believed that there was nothing left to learn about physics, and apparently Newtonian physics hasn't been updated much since Newton's time. But Einstein came along and his work blew open a whole new sets of concepts which lead to new fields of physics. We might just need an Einstein for probability, or it might simply be that we will get new insight out of the newer branches of physics.

[Volki]

Rigwyn, What does free will have to do with randomness? We can't begin to question free will until we understand consciousness. Answering with analogies leads us nowhere.

Illysia, by physical universe I mean the one occupied by all kinds of matter and energy.

Edit: From what I've learned, nothing is random. In the grand scheme of things, some outcomes may appear random. But they really aren't. If you give me a die, I can roll it on a six almost 100% of the time. The times that I don't, I have not correctly accounted for the shape of the table or some other variable. When the die is in my hand, I can position it exactly the same way and roll it in exactly the same way. Everyone assumes I have a streak of good luck, but I'm just a cheater.  And they fall for it every time because a die roll is supposed to be random.