OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife! [Archive]

Ed Kolis

August 17th, 2003, 10:56 PM

Over time, people die and enter Heaven, but no one comes back from Heaven, so the number of souls in Heaven is constantly increasing. Of course, these souls have to be coming from somewhere, otherwise the law of conservation of mass is being violated. Where the souls are coming from is of course Earth. Now the Bible says that the righteous go on to live in the kingdom of God for eternity. Thus, Heaven has an infinite duration. But the Earth has a finite mass and if souls are leaving it at some rate then eventually its mass will be depleted below zero, which is impossible - nothing can have negative mass. Therefore Heaven cannot exist. A similar argument applies to Hell, Gehennom, Elysium, Hades, and any other form of afterlife. (The special case of reincarnation is somewhat more difficult and will not be presented here.)

Note: The preceding paragraph is a work of satire. It contains numerous scientific and mathematical errors. Please do not bother contacting me if you only want to point out these errors. Otherwise, write away!

Mephisto

August 17th, 2003, 11:23 PM

We are doomed! Oh... wait... there is no hell either... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

Jack Simth

August 17th, 2003, 11:26 PM

There's no problem with the heaven/hell model as long as Armaggeddon comes before all the mass runs out.

If you divide the mass of the universe by the mass of a soul, then figure out how fast souls are leaving the universe, you will get an estimate on the latest armaggeddon can be.

That leaves three questions:
1) What is the mass of a soul?
2) What is the mass of the universe?
3) What is the rate of soul loss to both heaven and hell (the death rate of souled beings)?

[ August 17, 2003, 22:47: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

tesco samoa

August 17th, 2003, 11:48 PM

ed. wait 100 years science changes.

always does

Slick

August 17th, 2003, 11:51 PM

Your assumption: a soul has mass.

Dubious at best, and no evidence to support it. Of course, that is fine for satire.

Slick.

[ August 17, 2003, 23:06: Message edited by: Slick ]

General Woundwort

August 18th, 2003, 12:11 AM

Another false assumption - that extradimensional realities (heaven, hell) have the exact same "natural laws" that 4-dimensional space does. If the physical universe was created by God, it would seem logical that He existed prior to it and is transcendent above it - therefore He is not bound by its laws.

EDIT - Ed's spoof reminds me of the "proof" of God's non-existence in the Hitchhiker's series.

[ August 17, 2003, 23:12: Message edited by: General Woundwort ]

Fyron

August 18th, 2003, 12:24 AM

Originally posted by Slick:
Your assumption: a soul has mass.

Dubious at best, and no evidence to support it. Of course, that is fine for satire.

Slick.Your assumption: there is a soul. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Everything that exists is matter or energy (or something like anti-matter, which is equivalent for purposes of this post). But, matter is energy, and energy is matter. All waves of energy have particle-like properties, such as a mass equivalent property, though it is normally infintesimal. All particles of matter have wave-like properties, though those are normally infintesimal (except for very, very fast moving particles, such as electrons, which are particles, but act more like waves than particles). Thoughts are energy on a quantum level, which exist because of the properties of the neural cells in the brain (which are mass). So, if the soul exists, it is either energy or matter (or one of those other things (such as anti-matter), which are equivalent. Either way, it would have a mass. This is not saying that the post by Ed means anything, just saying that the theoretical soul has a mass value. Of course, proving that the soul actually exists is a much more complex issue. And keep in mind that any arguments akin to "the [holy scripture/person of choice] says we have a soul, so we have a soul" are laughable at best. Any reasoning being can do better than that, and all humans are reasoning beings.

General Woundwort

August 18th, 2003, 12:35 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Everything that exists is matter or energy (or something like anti-matter, which is equivalent for purposes of this post).In this dimension. What about others?

So, if the soul exists, it is either energy or matter (or one of those other things (such as anti-matter), which are equivalent. Either way, it would have a mass. This is not saying that the post by Ed means anything, just saying that the theoretical soul has a mass value.Again, based on an unfounded extrapolation of physical reality onto non/extraphysical dimensions.

Of course, proving that the soul actually exists is a much more complex issue. And keep in mind that any arguments akin to "the [holy scripture/person of choice] says we have a soul, so we have a soul" are laughable at best. Any reasoning being can do better than that, and all humans are reasoning beings.All humans are reasoning? Would that that were true... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Seriously, the arguments for supernatural reality are much better than that - they just haven't been articulated well for the Last 200 years or so. Don't tell me that Dawkins is a greater mind than Augustine or Pascal, Fyron... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Fyron

August 18th, 2003, 12:49 AM

In this dimension. What about others?

Again, based on an unfounded extrapolation of physical reality onto non/extraphysical dimensions.What others? Please bring me some pictures from these other dimensions of yours. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif There is no proof of the existence of other dimensions, only a plethora of hypothesis (no theories, as there is no proof or concrete evidence of them).

Seriously, the arguments for supernatural reality are much better than that - they just haven't been articulated well for the Last 200 years or so. Don't tell me that Dawkins is a greater mind than Augustine or Pascal, Fyron... Yes, and the arguments against are just as well articulated. Good articulation does not make an argument correct, just well articulated. Reality just happens to support the arguments against supernatural reality a bit better, as there is no concrete evidence of these supernatural realities. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

All humans are reasoning? Would that that were true... All humans are reasoning beings, meaning they have the capability to utilize rational thought, reason, logic, etc. I never said all humans exercise these abilities, just that they have them. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ August 17, 2003, 23:51: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Slick

August 18th, 2003, 01:45 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Slick:
Your assumption: a soul has mass.

Dubious at best, and no evidence to support it. Of course, that is fine for satire.

Slick.Your assumption: there is a soul. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Everything that exists is matter or energy (or something like anti-matter, which is equivalent for purposes of this post). But, matter is energy, and energy is matter. All waves of energy have particle-like properties, such as a mass equivalent property, though it is normally infintesimal. All particles of matter have wave-like properties, though those are normally infintesimal (except for very, very fast moving particles, such as electrons, which are particles, but act more like waves than particles). Thoughts are energy on a quantum level, which exist because of the properties of the neural cells in the brain (which are mass). So, if the soul exists, it is either energy or matter (or one of those other things (such as anti-matter), which are equivalent. Either way, it would have a mass. This is not saying that the post by Ed means anything, just saying that the theoretical soul has a mass value. Of course, proving that the soul actually exists is a much more complex issue. And keep in mind that any arguments akin to "the [holy scripture/person of choice] says we have a soul, so we have a soul" are laughable at best. Any reasoning being can do better than that, and all humans are reasoning beings.<hr /></blockquote>The following exists and have neither mass nor energy:

time
space

These are real. Your assumption that if a soul exists, it must be made of mass or energy simply is not provable and thus unfounded. If something existed and was not made of mass or energy, it would be very hard or impossible to observe to humans. That does not make it unreal. It is very arrogant to assume that if a human being cannot observe something (i.e. made of mass or energy) it does not exist.

A thousand years ago, radio waves existed, but they were unobservable and there would have been no way to prove they existed without developing the current technologies. The same is true of many things. Are you saying that we know all there is to know? Are you saying that if you can't observe it, it doesn't exist? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

I would like to see you prove that everything that exists is made up of matter or energy.

And, I never assumed there was a soul. Please re-read my post.

edit: There are no "quantum level" effects in the brain. Do you even know what that means? Thoughts and ideas are electro-chemical in nature.

Slick.

[ August 18, 2003, 00:54: Message edited by: Slick ]

Tigbit

August 18th, 2003, 02:13 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
[QUOTE]What others? Please bring me some pictures from these other dimensions of yours. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif There is no proof of the existence of other dimensions, only a plethora of hypothesis (no theories, as there is no proof or concrete evidence of them).Keeping in mind that you did not want theory:

Never heard of the Kaluza-Klein theory or n-dimentional space? Well, very briefly - mathematically n-dimentional space is not only possible but required to make the physical, mathematical constructs science has developed to describe our universe work with every other mathematical construct science has created to help describe our universe. The big bang itself makes complete sense mathematically when using n-dimensional space mathematics. It seems to be the glue that binds it all together.

So there IS some support. It is just unfortunate that the actual "picture" your looking for would require the energies of the entire universe to take. Well, mathematics can pretty much say what you want it to say if you mess with it enough.

So it is still anyone's guess whether there is higher dimensions other than the 3 spacial and 1 temporal that we are used to. While we keep this in mind we still cannot avoid the simple fact that in the grand scope of the universe we don't know a whole lot of anything as it is and anything we know can still be overthrown by a single discovery.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ August 18, 2003, 01:15: Message edited by: Tigbit ]

Fyron

August 18th, 2003, 02:27 AM

Slick:
Unless it is a dimensional concept (such as space and time), everything that exists either has mass or has mass-like properties. Even energy essentially has mass. Photons have mass, EM radiation has mass-like properties, etc. Please tell me of a non-dimensional concept that exists and has nothing to do with mass.

edit: There are no "quantum level" effects in the brain. Do you even know what that means? Thoughts and ideas are electro-chemical in nature. Actually, there are. I forget what the name of the study was, but it has been found that there are changes in quantum energy states when thoughts occur. Just what these changes do is unknown, but they are there.

Tigbit:
Yes, I have heard of n-dimensional space. But, is that not just an extension of the 3 spatial dimensions we know and love, and has nothing to do with other planes of existence?

Grandpa Kim

August 18th, 2003, 02:42 AM

Hey, Fyron! Are you saying my particles are all wavy? Hmm. That would explain the permanent kink in my neck. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Tigbit

August 18th, 2003, 02:45 AM

Yes they can be an extension of the familiar 4 dimensions. But the concept of higher planes of existence in metaphysics can simply be higher dimensions. The two concepts can be interchangeable for all intents and purposes. The commonly refered to deity called God could reside in the higher dimensions as well as the lower... just as we reside in the 2nd and 3rd spacial dimensions at the same time as the first. Just as all three spacials are a part of our experience of the universe, our three and the higher dimensions are a part of the deity construct of myth.

Tigbit

August 18th, 2003, 02:47 AM

Originally posted by Grandpa Kim:
Hey, Fyron! Are you saying my particles are all wavy? Hmm. That would explain the permanent kink in my neck. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif It is theoretically possible to change the frequency of the partical-waves so that two objects can occupy the same space at the same time.

General Woundwort

August 18th, 2003, 03:29 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
What others? Please bring me some pictures from these other dimensions of yours. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif There is no proof of the existence of other dimensions, only a plethora of hypothesis (no theories, as there is no proof or concrete evidence of them).If there were a picture, what would it look like? How could you tell? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Seriously, there is of course no direct evidence for hyperdimensions. But the mathematics of cosmology and quantum physics certainly point in that direction. And as for the standard of "direct evidence" itself, we don't have "direct evidence" for a lot of things (sub-atomic particles, "dark matter", etc) that are generally accepted. Heck, what "direct evidence" do I have for you other than these Posts (which are nothing more than electrons in cyberspace and my monitor)? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Yes, and the arguments against are just as well articulated. Good articulation does not make an argument correct, just well articulated. But articulation betrays some intellectual acumen, does it not? I never accuse Nietzsche of being a dummy - nor Russell or other atheists. So the mere acceptance of theistic beliefs is no indication of stupidity either.

Reality just happens to support the arguments against supernatural reality a bit better, as there is no concrete evidence of these supernatural realities. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Again, "concrete evidence". What qualifies as "concrete evidence"? What is the tip-over point where naturalism can no longer be applied?

All humans are reasoning beings, meaning they have the capability to utilize rational thought, reason, logic, etc. I never said all humans exercise these abilities, just that they have them. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif My point exactly.

Tigbit

August 18th, 2003, 03:47 AM

Just a few words on "proof".

There is a common misconception about science and it's purpose. Science is viewed as a small group of elite setting out to prove one idea or another. This is incorrect.

The purpose of science is to "explain" phenomenon, to describe how it works or to simply provide useful predictions that may one day better the human condition and/or understanding of our universe.

A hypothesis is a guess, a theory is and explanation and a law is a theory that has withstood the test of time.

Science starts with a question. "Why does this do that?" It then forms a hypothesis (a guess). Then it tests this guess and either the guess is correct, in which case they move on to the next step, or they formulate a new hypothesis based on their findings. After a seemingly correct guess then they form a theory based on the data collected. This theory is tested and tested over and over again in an attempt to "disprove" it. Science never trys to "prove", for to do that is to ignore evidence contrary to the theory. The only way to form an "acurate" (not correct) theory is to try to disprove it and to encourage others to disprove it. Only by doing this can science be confident that they are successfully predicting outcomes or explaining prosesses.

[ August 18, 2003, 02:48: Message edited by: Tigbit ]

Fyron

August 18th, 2003, 03:47 AM

If there were a picture, what would it look like? How could you tell? Never said I could tell. Ah, sarcasm. Gotta love it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Seriously, there is of course no direct evidence for hyperdimensions. But the mathematics of cosmology and quantum physics certainly point in that direction. And as for the standard of "direct evidence" itself, we don't have "direct evidence" for a lot of things (sub-atomic particles, "dark matter", etc) that are generally accepted. Heck, what "direct evidence" do I have for you other than these Posts (which are nothing more than electrons in cyberspace and my monitor)? Please note that I NEVER used the term "direct evidence". It means something entirely different than "concrete evidence." There are plenty of examples of "concrete evidence" that rely on "indirect evidence," such as the evidence for nearly everything you mentioned. We have tons of indirect evidence of things like electrons, but no direct evidence.

But articulation betrays some intellectual acumen, does it not? Einstein argued against the wave-like nature of particles of matter, insisting that only energy waves had particle-like properties. He was a smart guy, right? Well... being smart most assuredly does not automatically make you right (or even give you any more "rightness" than not being smart).

I never accuse Nietzsche of being a dummy - nor Russell or other atheists. So the mere acceptance of theistic beliefs is no indication of stupidity either.Good thing I never implied such a thing.

Again, "concrete evidence". What qualifies as "concrete evidence"?It varies depending on what is being discussed. Also, see above.

What is the tip-over point where naturalism can no longer be applied?There is none.

Fyron

August 18th, 2003, 03:49 AM

Originally posted by Tigbit:
Just a few words on "proof".

There is a common misconception about science and it's purpose. Science is viewed as a small group of elite setting out to prove one idea or another. This is incorrect.

The purpose of science is to "explain" phenomenon, to describe how it works or to simply provide useful predictions that may one day better the human condition and/or understanding of our universe.

A hypothesis is a guess, a theory is and explanation and a law is a theory that has withstood the test of time.

Science starts with a question. "Why does this do that?" It then forms a hypothesis (a guess). Then it tests this guess and either the guess is correct, in which case they move on to the next step, or they formulate a new hypothesis based on their findings. After a seemingly correct guess then they form a theory based on the data collected. This theory is tested and tested over and over again in an attempt to "disprove" it. Science never trys to "prove", for to do that is to ignore evidence contrary to the theory. The only way to form an "acurate" (not correct) theory is to try to disprove it and to encourage others to disprove it. Only by doing this can science be confident that they are successfully predicting outcomes or explaining prosesses.I seem to have missed the point of making this post. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

Tigbit

August 18th, 2003, 03:52 AM

concrete evidence is evidence that can be tested. If it cannot be tested it is not concrete. Thus mathematical evidence is concrete evidence because it can be tested.

General Woundwort

August 18th, 2003, 03:54 AM

Originally posted by Tigbit:
concrete evidence is evidence that can be tested. If it cannot be tested it is not concrete. Thus mathematical evidence is concrete evidence because it can be tested.Does historical evidence qualify? Or eyewitness testimony?

Tigbit

August 18th, 2003, 03:55 AM

I seem to have missed the point of making this post. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif Most people who support science look for "proof". But there is no such thing in science. No other point was intended, nor was the intent to imply that someone here thinks this way.

Jack Simth

August 18th, 2003, 03:56 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Your assumption: there is a soul. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Everything that exists is matter or energy (or something like anti-matter, which is equivalent for purposes of this post). But, matter is energy, and energy is matter. All waves of energy have particle-like properties, such as a mass equivalent property, though it is normally infintesimal. All particles of matter have wave-like properties, though those are normally infintesimal (except for very, very fast moving particles, such as electrons, which are particles, but act more like waves than particles). Thoughts are energy on a quantum level, which exist because of the properties of the neural cells in the brain (which are mass). So, if the soul exists, it is either energy or matter (or one of those other things (such as anti-matter), which are equivalent. Either way, it would have a mass. This is not saying that the post by Ed means anything, just saying that the theoretical soul has a mass value. Of course, proving that the soul actually exists is a much more complex issue. And keep in mind that any arguments akin to "the [holy scripture/person of choice] says we have a soul, so we have a soul" are laughable at best. Any reasoning being can do better than that, and all humans are reasoning beings.There have been cases where humans were weighed as they died; it was found that weight was lost at the instant of death. Does this constitute proof that the soul exists? No - but it does qualify as supporting evidence. The existance of the soul is not an unreasonable assumption; it is impossible to disprove at the present time, and there is some supporting evidence for it.

Tigbit

August 18th, 2003, 03:57 AM

Originally posted by General Woundwort:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Tigbit:
concrete evidence is evidence that can be tested. If it cannot be tested it is not concrete. Thus mathematical evidence is concrete evidence because it can be tested.Does historical evidence qualify? Or eyewitness testimony?<hr /></blockquote>Only if it can be tested under controled conditions. Testimony cannot be tested.

General Woundwort

August 18th, 2003, 03:57 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> What is the tip-over point where naturalism can no longer be applied?There is none.<hr /></blockquote>Well, that kinda ends the discussion right there, doesn't it? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Fyron

August 18th, 2003, 03:59 AM

Originally posted by Tigbit:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by General Woundwort:
Does historical evidence qualify? Or eyewitness testimony?Only if it can be tested under controled conditions. Testimony cannot be tested.<hr /></blockquote>What he said.

Originally posted by General Woundwort:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> What is the tip-over point where naturalism can no longer be applied?There is none.<hr /></blockquote>Well, that kinda ends the discussion right there, doesn't it? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif <hr /></blockquote>Maybe. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
There have been cases where humans were weighed as they died; it was found that weight was lost at the instant of death. Does this constitute proof that the soul exists? No - but it does qualify as supporting evidence. The existance of the soul is not an unreasonable assumption; it is impossible to disprove at the present time, and there is some supporting evidence for it.Assuming that is accurate (which it probably isn't), that is more wishful thinking than actual evidence of a soul. There are many possible explanations for it.

[ August 18, 2003, 03:03: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

General Woundwort

August 18th, 2003, 04:02 AM

Fyron

August 18th, 2003, 04:05 AM

Umm... you asked if historical evidence or eyewitness testimony were valid scientific evidence. They are not. They might (depending on the evidence itself) be valid for historical purposes, but not for scientific ones.

Slick

August 18th, 2003, 04:05 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Slick:
Unless it is a dimensional concept (such as space and time), everything that exists either has mass or has mass-like properties. Even energy essentially has mass. Photons have mass, EM radiation has mass-like properties, etc. Please tell me of a non-dimensional concept that exists and has nothing to do with mass.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> edit: There are no "quantum level" effects in the brain. Do you even know what that means? Thoughts and ideas are electro-chemical in nature. Actually, there are. I forget what the name of the study was, but it has been found that there are changes in quantum energy states when thoughts occur. Just what these changes do is unknown, but they are there.

Tigbit:
Yes, I have heard of n-dimensional space. But, is that not just an extension of the 3 spatial dimensions we know and love, and has nothing to do with other planes of existence?<hr /></blockquote>You are avoiding the issue. I pointed out that space and time have no mass or energy but they exist and you conveinently ignored that. Or are you saying that they don't exist? Or are you saying that they are made up of matter or energy? Come now, you brought this up.

Also, referring to your "quantum" gibberish. Please don't refer to a study that you can't remember. This is a precise discussion. Let us all know what this study is or who did it or post a link so all can see it or don't mention it at all. Please be precice in exactly what you mean by "Thoughts are energy on a quantum level" since you avoided answering that one too.

Do tell, I so love to hear what the experts have to say.

Slick.

Tigbit

August 18th, 2003, 04:05 AM

Originally posted by General Woundwort:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Tigbit:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by General Woundwort:
[QUOTE]Does historical evidence qualify? Or eyewitness testimony?Only if it can be tested under controled conditions. Testimony cannot be tested.<hr /></blockquote>Such a standard is pretty much a death knell to history as a serious field of study. The standards of scientific experimentation are fine in their intended place (study of physical/energy processes), but when applied to the rest of life (which is *not* a "controlled environment") you end up with very little. That's why positivism died out as a viable philosophy.<hr /></blockquote>Unfortunately that's exactly the way history is. Even science is not totally immune to the deliberate inacuracies that plague historical study. People will only write what supports their view. It is the checks and ballances that I detailed in the post Fyron found pointless that rescues science from the damnation of nearly every other dicipline.

Fyron

August 18th, 2003, 04:08 AM

Slick:
Umm...
Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Slick:
Unless it is a dimensional concept (such as space and time), everything that exists either has mass or has mass-like properties. Even energy essentially has mass. Photons have mass, EM radiation has mass-like properties, etc. Please tell me of a non-dimensional concept that exists and has nothing to do with mass.I accounted for space and time...

Slick

August 18th, 2003, 04:09 AM

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Your assumption: there is a soul. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Everything that exists is matter or energy (or something like anti-matter, which is equivalent for purposes of this post). But, matter is energy, and energy is matter. All waves of energy have particle-like properties, such as a mass equivalent property, though it is normally infintesimal. All particles of matter have wave-like properties, though those are normally infintesimal (except for very, very fast moving particles, such as electrons, which are particles, but act more like waves than particles). Thoughts are energy on a quantum level, which exist because of the properties of the neural cells in the brain (which are mass). So, if the soul exists, it is either energy or matter (or one of those other things (such as anti-matter), which are equivalent. Either way, it would have a mass. This is not saying that the post by Ed means anything, just saying that the theoretical soul has a mass value. Of course, proving that the soul actually exists is a much more complex issue. And keep in mind that any arguments akin to "the [holy scripture/person of choice] says we have a soul, so we have a soul" are laughable at best. Any reasoning being can do better than that, and all humans are reasoning beings.There have been cases where humans were weighed as they died; it was found that weight was lost at the instant of death. Does this constitute proof that the soul exists? No - but it does qualify as supporting evidence. The existance of the soul is not an unreasonable assumption; it is impossible to disprove at the present time, and there is some supporting evidence for it.<hr /></blockquote>Actually, I know of this study. It was eventually determined that the loss of weight (a very very small amount) was due to the the Last bit of air escaping from the lungs at death as the pressure equalizes with ambient. Interesting study, though.

Slick.

Fyron

August 18th, 2003, 04:09 AM

Originally posted by Tigbit:
It is the checks and ballances that I detailed in the post Fyron found pointless...I did not find it pointless, I was just unsure of why you posted it...

Tigbit

August 18th, 2003, 04:12 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Tigbit:
It is the checks and ballances that I detailed in the post Fyron found pointless...I did not find it pointless, I was just unsure of why you posted it...<hr /></blockquote>Okay. Now you know why. Whenever I get into a conversation involving science, metaphysics etc, I have to make the distinction I posted.

Slick

August 18th, 2003, 04:24 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Slick:
Umm...
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Slick:
Unless it is a dimensional concept (such as space and time), everything that exists either has mass or has mass-like properties. Even energy essentially has mass. Photons have mass, EM radiation has mass-like properties, etc. Please tell me of a non-dimensional concept that exists and has nothing to do with mass.I accounted for space and time...<hr /></blockquote>No you didn't. You are only asking for a "non-dimensional" concept because you can't reconcile your statement with facts so are trying to exclude them from the discussion. Space and time DO exist and they don't have mass or energy. I would like to hear what you think they are. Are they made up of mass or energy, or do they not exist, or what??? Please answer the question and be precice.

By the way, photons have mass? I haven't even begun to tear apart your lack of knowledge of physics. If they have mass, how do they travel at the speed of light? The relativistic mass is given by the formula:

m = m0 / [(1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2)]

As v approaches c, m goes to infinity. It is impossible for an infinitely massive object to move at all much less at the speed of light. So what is the exact value of the mass of a photon (pick any wavelength you want)??? Again, please be precice.

Slick.

[ August 18, 2003, 03:25: Message edited by: Slick ]

Tigbit

August 18th, 2003, 04:27 AM

Originally posted by Slick:

By the way, photons have mass?Ouch... that's gotta hurt.

Fyron

August 18th, 2003, 04:31 AM

Since you refuse to acknowledge it... dimensions are not physical objects, and so do not have mass. Space and time are dimensions, not objects. I have amended my statements; there is nothing to reconcile.

And yes, photons do indeed have mass. They have both particle and wave properties. Ever heard of a solar sail? They work because photons have some mass (although it is extremeley small), and so they can push it along when they bump into the sail. This works with photo-receptive fans and such too. All energy has particle-like properties. All matter has wave-like properties. This is basic quantum physics.

And please stop insulting me Slick. That is quite counter productive. Please remain civil.

[ August 18, 2003, 03:32: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Fyron

August 18th, 2003, 04:39 AM

Trying to find a good site on quantum thought theory that is not steeped in spiritualistic mumbo-jumbo... current search string (http://www.google.com/search?as_q=quantum+thought+brain&num=100&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&newwindow=1&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=teleportation+healing&lr=lang_en&as _ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&safe=images)

Damned UBB...

This looks promising, though it is long...
http://www.qedcorp.com/pcr/pcr/nanopoul.pdf

Ooh.. and an old post by Jack Simth that has to do with this (remotely):
Originally posted by Jack Simth:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
do we actually have freedom of choice (will)? Why sure we do - even if you postulate that everything there is to a person is based solely on the various chemical and physical properties of that person's constituent elements, there is still the problem of Quantum Mechanics. The exact processes of the brain are poorly understood, but it is known that many of the processes run on an infintesimal scale, at which point the local randomness of QM becomes significant, which eliminates determinism as viable, leaving free will as a tenable approach.

Besides, I have to remind myself to eat. I can very easily get caught up in something and forget....

Edit: I kan't spell....<hr /></blockquote>Note: this is not to start up an old debate, merely to point out that I am not the only person with an idea about quantum mechinacs and the brain...

[ August 18, 2003, 03:59: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Jack Simth

August 18th, 2003, 05:04 AM

Originally posted by Slick:
By the way, photons have mass? I haven't even begun to tear apart your lack of knowledge of physics. If they have mass, how do they travel at the speed of light? The relativistic mass is given by the formula:

m = m0 / [(1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2)]

As v approaches c, m goes to infinity. It is impossible for an infinitely massive object to move at all much less at the speed of light. So what is the exact value of the mass of a photon (pick any wavelength you want)??? Again, please be precice.

Slick.First off, m0 is the rest mass; photons have 0 rest mass (they don't exist at rest). The equation then becomes. However, energy has mass, and photons have energy. If you do he energy mass conVersion, the result is a constant * the frequency of the photon. I don't remember exactly, but it was something like m = y * h/(2*pi) where m is the mass, y is the frequency and h is plank's constant. I could have the formula off a bit, but that's what is in my memory from my Last physics class.

Slick

August 18th, 2003, 05:08 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Since you refuse to acknowledge it... dimensions are not physical objects, and so do not have mass. Space and time are dimensions, not objects. I have amended my statements; there is nothing to reconcile.

And yes, photons do indeed have mass. They have both particle and wave properties. Ever heard of a solar sail? They work because photons have some mass (although it is extremeley small), and so they can push it along when they bump into the sail. This works with photo-receptive fans and such too. All energy has particle-like properties. All matter has wave-like properties. This is basic quantum physics.

And please stop insulting me Slick. That is quite counter productive. Please remain civil.My appologies if you feel insulted, that was not my intention.

First of all, I do acknowlege the fact that space and time are not physical (having mass) objects! You refuse to acknowledge that they exist without having mass or energy.

Yes, I have heard of a solar sail (did some R&D at TRW). Photons do indeed carry momentum to impart to a sail. They do not have mass. There is your mistake. For a photon, momentum is given by:

p = (Plank's Const.)/(Wavelength)

See? momentum with no mass. Any basic physics book has this in it.

Photoreceptive fans react to the change in momentum when a photon encounters the fan, not because the photon has mass.

To the viewers out there, this is an example of "junk science". That is, it sounds good, but totally baseless in fact.

So, let's see... Questions Fyron refuses to answer:

Reconcile the fact that space and time exist but are not made up of energy or matter.

What is the exact value of the mass of a given photon?

Are you saying that if humans can't observe something then it doesn't exist?

(Sorry, but there are so many I don't want to have to keep looking back a few pages to keep track.) Please wrap up this discussion and answer these questions. Please be precise. Remember, you brought it up...

edit: will read the link.

Slick.

[ August 18, 2003, 04:09: Message edited by: Slick ]

Tigbit

August 18th, 2003, 05:41 AM

Okay, you guys are arguing the same issue that physics students and professors are arguing today. The current consensus is that photons do not have mass. There is two sides to the energy mas equation, guys. Energy and Mass... the two are interchangeable but not the same thing. energy is not mass no matter how much you like saying it nor is the reverse true. You exchange one for the other. A photon in highschool physics appears to have mass, but the photon that is moving those little white and black plates is the photons energy being absorbed by the object it is impacting upon not because it has mass. BTW, they are still trying to measure whatever mass a photon has in an attempt to show the acuracy of the concept of a massless photon.

Basically my point here is, that the jury is still out on this one.

BadAxe

August 18th, 2003, 06:09 AM

(Warning. Old classic story)

The following is an actual question given on a university of Washington chemistry midterm exam:

"Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat), or endothermic (absorbs heat)?
Support your answer with a proof."

Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (gas cools off when it expands and heats up when it is compressed) or some variant. One student, however, wrote the following:

First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So, we need to know the rate that souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving.

As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Some of these religions state that, if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell.
Since there are more than one of these religions and, since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all people and all souls will go to Hell.

With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand as souls are added.

This gives two possibilities:

(1) If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.

(2) Of course, if Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.

So which is it? If we accept the postulate given to me by Ms. Therese Banyan during my Freshman year, that...... "It will be a cold night in Hell before I sleep with you,"........ and take into account the fact that I still have not succeeded in having sexual relations with her, then (2) cannot be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic.

(The student got the only A.)

Fyron

August 18th, 2003, 06:46 AM

My appologies if you feel insulted, that was not my intention.
Apology accepted. Please refrain from statements akin to "you don't know jack" (no pun intended) in the future.

First of all, I do acknowlege the fact that space and time are not physical (having mass) objects! You refuse to acknowledge that they exist without having mass or energy. No, I don't refuse to acknowledge that. Reread my statement. It specifically says "...unless it is a dimensional concept (such as space and time)...". I do not know how much more specific I can get... And, I also said this:
"Since you refuse to acknowledge it... dimensions are not physical objects, and so do not have mass. Space and time are dimensions, not objects. I have amended my statements; there is nothing to reconcile."

What is the exact value of the mass of a given photon? The exact value is unknown. I can not give you an exact value.

Are you saying that if humans can't observe something then it doesn't exist? I thought I had already addressed that, but it must have been deleted from a draft. So... I am saying that if humans can not observe something (directly, indirectly, through mathematical models, etc., etc.) then it has no more value than mere fantasy until such a time as it can be observed in some form. Unsupported hypothesis are a dime a dozen, and can be safely ignored (except when testing to see if they are true or not, of course). I could easily claim that there are invisible (on all frequencies), undetectable, flying, pink elephants floating around. Such a hypothesis is just as valid as any other, until some form of work is done to try to disprove it or find some form of concrete evidence (see earlier post) is found that supports it (and there is not a better alternative hypothesis that more accurately reflects the data).

Originally posted by Slick:
Yes, I have heard of a solar sail (did some R&D at TRW). Photons do indeed carry momentum to impart to a sail. They do not have mass. There is your mistake. For a photon, momentum is given by:

p = (Plank's Const.)/(Wavelength)

See? momentum with no mass. Any basic physics book has this in it.

Photoreceptive fans react to the change in momentum when a photon encounters the fan, not because the photon has mass."...everything that exists either has mass or has mass-like properties..." (abbreviated). Momentum is a "mass-like property" in that it transfers inertia like mass does. It falls under the rest of my statement. Even if a photon has no mass (which is open for debate in the wide world of physics), having momentum qualifies it just the same.

[ August 18, 2003, 06:00: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Tigbit

August 18th, 2003, 07:10 AM

Yo, Fyron!

There was an invisible, flying pink hippo named Daisy that used to hang out at the bar-b-ques that the old Moderators of the Calgary Theories echo had every week in summer. It was quite a few years ago but does that count? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Fyron

August 18th, 2003, 07:19 AM

Damn, there goes that theory http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif (almost http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ). Stupid hippos... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif j/k

Tigbit

August 18th, 2003, 07:35 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Damn, there goes that theory http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif (almost http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ). Stupid hippos... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif j/kC'mon I'm trying to support your Pink Elephant theory! Some thanks. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Fyron

August 18th, 2003, 07:36 AM

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Will

August 18th, 2003, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by General Woundwort:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
What others? Please bring me some pictures from these other dimensions of yours. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif There is no proof of the existence of other dimensions, only a plethora of hypothesis (no theories, as there is no proof or concrete evidence of them).If there were a picture, what would it look like? How could you tell? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Seriously, there is of course no direct evidence for hyperdimensions. But the mathematics of cosmology and quantum physics certainly point in that direction. And as for the standard of "direct evidence" itself, we don't have "direct evidence" for a lot of things (sub-atomic particles, "dark matter", etc) that are generally accepted. Heck, what "direct evidence" do I have for you other than these Posts (which are nothing more than electrons in cyberspace and my monitor)? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif <hr /></blockquote>I think we all need to face the facts here... Fyron is really a rather sophisticated Eliza program that was unleashed on an unsuspecting internet. Which is why threads he gets involved in never end unless they are shut down or everyone else stops posting http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

General Woundwort

August 18th, 2003, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by Tigbit:
Unfortunately that's exactly the way history is. Even science is not totally immune to the deliberate inacuracies that plague historical study. People will only write what supports their view.This doesn't explain why people change their minds... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ August 18, 2003, 09:53: Message edited by: General Woundwort ]

Ruatha

August 18th, 2003, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by Slick:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Jack Simth:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Your assumption: there is a soul. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Everything that exists is matter or energy (or something like anti-matter, which is equivalent for purposes of this post). But, matter is energy, and energy is matter. All waves of energy have particle-like properties, such as a mass equivalent property, though it is normally infintesimal. All particles of matter have wave-like properties, though those are normally infintesimal (except for very, very fast moving particles, such as electrons, which are particles, but act more like waves than particles). Thoughts are energy on a quantum level, which exist because of the properties of the neural cells in the brain (which are mass). So, if the soul exists, it is either energy or matter (or one of those other things (such as anti-matter), which are equivalent. Either way, it would have a mass. This is not saying that the post by Ed means anything, just saying that the theoretical soul has a mass value. Of course, proving that the soul actually exists is a much more complex issue. And keep in mind that any arguments akin to "the [holy scripture/person of choice] says we have a soul, so we have a soul" are laughable at best. Any reasoning being can do better than that, and all humans are reasoning beings.There have been cases where humans were weighed as they died; it was found that weight was lost at the instant of death. Does this constitute proof that the soul exists? No - but it does qualify as supporting evidence. The existance of the soul is not an unreasonable assumption; it is impossible to disprove at the present time, and there is some supporting evidence for it.<hr /></blockquote>Actually, I know of this study. It was eventually determined that the loss of weight (a very very small amount) was due to the the Last bit of air escaping from the lungs at death as the pressure equalizes with ambient. Interesting study, though.

Slick.<hr /></blockquote>It was a study performed in 1909 (IIRC??) and even the author stated that it was a questionable result.
The result varied, between 9-47 grams I belive and on some cases none, and in most cases they didn't measure at the instant of death, I think they managed that in 1 or 2 cases, otherwise it was pre- and post-death measurements.
It is commonly said that it was a loss of 21 grams (again I'm not quite certain) but that was only in one case.
No validating study has been performed.

Will look for the author/study later, this is written from long memory....

geoschmo

August 18th, 2003, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by Will:
I think we all need to face the facts here... Fyron is really a rather sophisticated Eliza program that was unleashed on an unsuspecting internet. Which is why threads he gets involved in never end unless they are shut down or everyone else stops posting http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif This is a fascinating hypothesis, and one that would explain a lot actually.

But it raises an interesting question. If Fyron exsists only as a computer program, does Fyron have mass?

dogscoff

August 18th, 2003, 03:05 PM

If Fyron exsists only as a computer program, does Fyron have mass
Only if he's catholic.

Loser

August 18th, 2003, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by dogscoff:
Only if he's catholic.My guess would be no. If we're going to do a pool, I call dibs on the intersection of the Non-Practicing column with the Unitarian row. Oh yeah and Perl, definitely Perl.

[edit: post 666... for whatever that's worth.]

[ August 18, 2003, 15:16: Message edited by: Loser ]

geoschmo

August 18th, 2003, 03:59 PM

Actually, kidding of Fyron aside, the idea of a computer program is an interesting perspective on the whole "Does a soul have mass" question. I don't think a computer program could be defined as having mass while it's stored in memory. The silicon chip or magnetic tape has the same mass and number of electrons regardless. It's just that the little bits are in different positions depending on if they are ones or zeros.

I suppose the real question though is whether the soul has mass outside of the body though. Heaven and hell could be massive storage banks, the same as a human body but larger, that don't actually change their mass when souls enter or leave. Just rearange some bits to represent the loading and unloading of the soul/program.

But that brings up other questions.

How does the soul get from the body to the eternal storage archive? Is it like radio waves? Do radio waves have mass?

Can the number of souls exceeds the storage capacity of either heavan or hell? And if so, what happens to the overflow?

Can souls be zip compressed?

Can you repartition heavan?

Should I take the red pill, or the blue one. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ August 18, 2003, 15:04: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Loser

August 18th, 2003, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Do radio waves have mass?I know this one.

Yes. Originally posted by geoschmo:
Should I take the red pill, or the blue one.I know this one too.

Both. The Red Pill is meant to be ground up and dissolved in Absinthe, drink chilled, with sugar added to taste. The Blue Pill is to be gound up as well, but cut with twice it's mass in baby formula and ingested as a 'rail'.

Now, don't ask about the Green Pill. While you may not like the answer, it would fit with the humor found in the Cantina

[ August 18, 2003, 15:15: Message edited by: Loser ]

geoschmo

August 18th, 2003, 04:24 PM

Suicide Junkie

August 18th, 2003, 04:36 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the exact value of the mass of a given photon?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The exact value is unknown. I can not give you an exact value.I can!
The energy of a photon is E= hf (planck constant times frequency)

E= MC^2, so M = E/C^2 so M = hf/C^2

For a 650nm photon from your red laser pointer there, it weighs: = 6.6e-34 x (C/6.5e-7) / C^2
= 3.4 x 10^-33 grams
Which equals zero to an accuracy of 1 part in a quadrillion quadrillions. Or a European "Million Trillion"

The silicon chip or magnetic tape has the same mass and number of electrons regardless. It's just that the little bits are in different positions depending on if they are ones or zeros.Position is important, though. Take Uranium 235, for example. Now take roughly half the nucleons aside http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif .
You have the same particles sitting around, but less mass and more energy than you know what to do with. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ August 18, 2003, 16:03: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

Tigbit

August 18th, 2003, 04:43 PM

Originally posted by General Woundwort:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Tigbit:
Unfortunately that's exactly the way history is. Even science is not totally immune to the deliberate inacuracies that plague historical study. People will only write what supports their view.This doesn't explain why people change their minds... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif <hr /></blockquote>You'll have to elaborate.

General Woundwort

August 18th, 2003, 04:48 PM

Originally posted by Tigbit:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by General Woundwort:
[QUOTE]This doesn't explain why people change their minds... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif You'll have to elaborate.<hr /></blockquote>If people only write what supports their views, how do you account for people critiquing their views - or even changing them? The implication seemed to be that people have their minds made up and are not interested in actual discussion and debate - where you run the risk of having your ideas proved wrong.

Tigbit

August 18th, 2003, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
[QB] <blockquote>quote:<hr />quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the exact value of the mass of a given photon?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The exact value is unknown. I can not give you an exact value.I can![QB]<hr /></blockquote>While the rest of the scientific community argues the point get that paper typed up and submitted.

dogscoff

August 18th, 2003, 04:56 PM

Who owns the intellectual property rights to my soul?
Microsoft, probably. Did you ever actually read any of those license agreements before clicking "I agree"?

geoschmo

August 18th, 2003, 05:19 PM

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The silicon chip or magnetic tape has the same mass and number of electrons regardless. It's just that the little bits are in different positions depending on if they are ones or zeros.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Position is important, though. Take Uranium 235, for example. Now take roughly half the nucleons aside .
You have the same particles sitting around, but less mass and more energy than you know what to do with.

Doing so in close proximity to my body would certainly make it unsuitable for continued use as a storage device for my soul. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Geoschmo

[ August 18, 2003, 16:20: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Slick

August 18th, 2003, 05:26 PM

Why is it that people are insisting that photons have mass when all available evidence and theory are contrary to that? I just don't understand it.

SJ, nice try http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif , but that calculation shows how much mass would be generated if the photon was completely anihilated. It does not show how much mass a photon has. This has been observed, by the way, in a process called "pair production". A photon (gamma) of at least 1.02 MeV can be transformed (E=mc^2) into an electron and a positron. There must be 2 particles due to conservation laws (momentum, spin, charge, etc.) beyond the scope of this discussion.

Slick.

Tigbit

August 18th, 2003, 05:28 PM

If people only write what supports their views, how do you account for people critiquing their views - or even changing them? The implication seemed to be that people have their minds made up and are not interested in actual discussion and debate - where you run the risk of having your ideas proved wrong.They may not be all that certain of their idea but have nothing else to go on. So they sieze upon someone else's that they like better. Let's face it, George Washington never did chop down a cherry tree (or was that an apple tree?). Someone liked the idea and the rest is in your American history books. At that time the people needed heroes, those that were honorable, those they could look up to and lead them. How would it have sounded... "Well, George Washington is this guy, see... who... well as a kid he... hmmm... did nothing special." So someone comes up with a story. OH! You know "Casablanca"? There's another one... in the movie Bogart was supposed to say "Play it again, Sam." But he never did. Not in the original script or in the movie. Yet people siezed upon it because it likely sounded good at the time and be damned the truth, anyway. There were tonnes of commercials years back where they used Casablanca as a theme and used that very same line! I think I rmember one of them being a small bulldog saying that line.

Anyway, I've rambled enough

Suicide Junkie

August 18th, 2003, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by Slick:
Why is it that people are insisting that photons have mass when all available evidence and theory are contrary to that? I just don't understand it.

SJ, nice try http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif , but that calculation shows how much mass would be generated if the photon was completely anihilated. It does not show how much mass a photon has. This has been observed, by the way, in a process called "pair production". A photon (gamma) of at least 1.02 MeV can be transformed (E=mc^2) into an electron and a positron. There must be 2 particles due to conservation laws (momentum, spin, charge, etc.) beyond the scope of this discussion.

Slick.Photons have no rest mass. At rest, they have no energy either and don't exist anymore.

The relativistic mass is a different question.
See:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html (University of California site)
Edit: better link

[ August 18, 2003, 16:44: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

geoschmo

August 18th, 2003, 05:59 PM

The question of whether or not photons have mass is not really that important to this discussion is it? The question was whether souls have mass, and more generally whether anything can exist that does not have either mass or energy. If photons do not meet the qualification of something that has no mass that doesn't mean souls have mass, unless we are sure souls are made out of photons. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

If a soul is just information though it can exsist without mass or energy. It might take some energy to transfer it from one form of storage to another, and it's presence might cause the mass of the storage or transmission medium to alter position. But that doesn't mean the information itself has mass or energy. And it wouldn't require any fancy transdimensional particle waves or anything. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ August 18, 2003, 17:10: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Baron Munchausen

August 18th, 2003, 06:17 PM

Originally posted by Loser:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by geoschmo:
Do radio waves have mass?I know this one.

Yes. <hr /></blockquote>Energy has mass, yes, so it does distort space like matter. Oddly, Einstein didn't allow for gravity to have mass in his original calculations. He set it aside as 'special' even though there was no reason to. I guess he didn't like recursive equations. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Recent experiments have shown that gravity does in fact propogate at the speed of light and otherwise behaves like energy. We just haven't isolated any 'gravitons' yet.

Originally posted by geoschmo:

I will accept this one without need for explanation. However, it still leaves open the question of whether the soul itself has mass. If the soul is merely information, in the same way that computer code is information, then a case could be made that the soul has no mass. If it can be stored without changing the mass of the storage device.

Even existing for a short time in the form of radio waves the information itself does not have mass. The mass of radio waves is not created at the begining of the transmission, and is not destroyed at the end. It's simply the transmission medium used to transfer the data.

Well, I think it's pretty obvious that the claim for the soul is for a 'substance' of some sort. Information cannot be 'immortal' after all. When the media it resides in is destroyed it goes poof.

Proof or disproof of the existence of this 'substance' is not going to be solved anytime soon, methinks.

Originally posted by geoschmo:

Who owns the intellectual property rights to my soul? Can an in individual be copyrighted?Probably SCO by now. You'll be receiving court papers soon.

When you invent the Star Trek transporter let us know. The issue of 'copyright' of humans will then mean something. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ August 18, 2003, 17:18: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Slick

August 18th, 2003, 06:22 PM

On that subject, I would have to quote the familiar:

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

And would point out that it would be very presumptious to assume that all things are required to be made up of mass or energy. Just because we don't know how to observe something is not sufficient to prove it does not exist or to conveniently dismiss them.

A soul may or may not exist. We don't even agree on what it is, much less what it is made of or how to detect it. Therefore, there is not enough evidence to disprove it. As for proof, not enough evidence there either.

Arthur C. Clark (inventor of the communications satellite, author of 2001: a space oddesy, investigator of the mysterious) once had a rating system for mysterious things. It went from a +5 (being unquestionably true and provable to anyone) to a -4 (being almost certainly not true). His system had no corresponding -5 rating for the very reason that you can't prove that something doesn't exist just because you can't find it.

Now he did not apply this to mathematical "mysteries" where it is possible to prove that some things don't exist. He used this system for common mysteries like Bigfoot, Voodoo, etc.

Slick.

geoschmo

August 18th, 2003, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
Well, I think it's pretty obvious that the claim for the soul is for a 'substance' of some sort. Information cannot be 'immortal' after all. When the media it resides in is destroyed it goes poof.
But that is my point exactly. The soul does not have to be a substance. And information can be immortal. Well, as immortal as anything can be. Because the "value" of any particular bit of information is not dependant on the media that contains it at any particular moment in time. The value of the information is contained in the particular "arrangment" of the little bits of matter and energy that make up the physical nature of the storage media, not in the little bits of matter and energy themselves. If the storage media is lost the information still exsists as long as it can be transferred to another storage media.

dogscoff

August 19th, 2003, 01:15 AM

Jumping back to before this thread got Fyronised...

There's no problem with the heaven/hell model as long as Armaggeddon comes before all the mass runs out.

If you divide the mass of the universe by the mass of a soul, then figure out how fast souls are leaving the universe, you will get an estimate on the latest armaggeddon can be.
Soul-Drain.

There's scope for a brilliant story here, although it would have to be written by someone capable of drawing on religious, mythological, philosophical and scientific sources far more authoritatively than I ever could:

Anyway, here's the idea:
The above model turns out to be true, with all the stuff of the universe being gradually converted into souls and then drained away into the afterlife. Now, the universe is utterly vast (and according to scientists, still expanding), so it's hard to imagine it ever being completely consumed by current levels of soul-drain. However, as populations colonise and grow, the universe, the rate of soul-drain would increase exponentially with it. Eventually, the universe reaches a saturation point where expansion turns into contraction, and the universe starts to shrink. Eventually, with the death of the Last soul, the universe will shrink to a point where it can no longer support life and then- because there's no point to a universe without any souls- disappear, kicking off armageddon. Think of it as a theological big bang/ big crunch http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

A hundred million years from now we see the Last, dwindling few intelligent beings in the universe, which is absolutely tiny by now and shrinks further with each death. The story is about them as they await their demise and the resultant ragnarok.

Kind of like an anti-One over Zero=-) The Big Brother TV concept also springs to mind: The living are the contestants, the souls of the dead are spectators: You have been evicted from the universe, please leave immediately.

Some interesting points that come to mind:

-Maybe at some point in history some advanced and enlightened civilisation would try to balance their population rates in order to stabilise the universe (or even allow it to grow again). How could they do that though, short of massive genocide campaigns? Maybe this campaign is still in effect in the very Last days.

-Eventually it will come down to the very Last person, all on their own. With no other people and no society to provide tests and temptations, how can he/she live righteously and earn salvation?

-With all the souls in history already on their battlelines in the afterlife, would the fate of the Last few make any difference to the outcome of armageddon? Maybe the numbers are equal and it all hangs on the Last soul..?

-Being utterly alone in a tiny universe would probably drive this Last person completely mad. Assuming suicide isn't a valid option, is it really fair to be put in that position, especially if the outcome of armageddon depends on it? Maybe (s)he wouldn't want to reach heaven just out of spite.

-With all the souls in history already there, would the afterlife be all that different to this one?

-After armageddon and the end of the universe, what comes next? Maybe you get some kind of soul-singularity that reaches critical mass and triggers the next big bang...

There you go, fantastic story or what? if anyone thinks they can write this, I look forward to reading it. When it becomes an international best-seller though, just remember to throw me some change from the window of your speeding limo...

dogscoff

August 19th, 2003, 01:41 AM

Reconcile the fact that space and time exist but are not made up of energy or matter.
Well, I would argue that space and time are simply abstract terms used as "containers" for matter and energy. They are abstracts defined by the matter and energy that occupy them, and could not exist without them.

Put it this way: There is no such thing as a "forest"- it's an abstract- an entirely human invention. Accepting for argument's sake that there is such a thing as a tree, just giving a bunch of trees the name �forest� does not necessarily mean that there is such a thing as a forest. It's just a container for a bunch of trees.

Of course you can (quite rightly) argue the same thing for the whole of language being a metaphor , (and therefore that there is no "tree" either) but I think when you are talking about physical fundamentals like matter and energy you can get around this and say with confidence that matter and energy are about the only things that definitely do exist whether you have a name for them or not. Space and time are just terms we use to contain them.

BTW, spoons and sporks are an entirely different question.

Gozra

August 19th, 2003, 08:02 PM

Science can explain a lot of things.
I figure by the time Science can explain souls it will be too late. I may not be able to prove I have a Soul but I have Faith that I do and that there is a continuation of my being after my worldly death. We all live by faith. I have faith that the Sun will come up every morning that a seed planted will follow it's design parameters and grow. And I have Faith that politicians will get us into a deeper mess today than we were in yesterday. I have Faith that there is an Afterlife. And Once Science "proves" it Why then I guess I won't need faith then.

Alpha Kodiak

August 19th, 2003, 08:02 PM

Originally posted by Ed Kolis:
Over time, people die and enter Heaven, but no one comes back from Heaven, so the number of souls in Heaven is constantly increasing. Of course, these souls have to be coming from somewhere, otherwise the law of conservation of mass is being violated. Where the souls are coming from is of course Earth. Now the Bible says that the righteous go on to live in the kingdom of God for eternity. Thus, Heaven has an infinite duration. But the Earth has a finite mass and if souls are leaving it at some rate then eventually its mass will be depleted below zero, which is impossible - nothing can have negative mass. Therefore Heaven cannot exist. A similar argument applies to Hell, Gehennom, Elysium, Hades, and any other form of afterlife. (The special case of reincarnation is somewhat more difficult and will not be presented here.)

Note: The preceding paragraph is a work of satire. It contains numerous scientific and mathematical errors. Please do not bother contacting me if you only want to point out these errors. Otherwise, write away!I just came across this thread and will avoid getting caught up in its many twists and turns.

To answer the original post: the Bible speaks of eternal life and eternal punishment, but does not claim that the physical universe will Last forever (perhaps your proof proves this http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ). In fact, not even heaven itself is said to be eternal. Matthew 24:35 says "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Revelation 21:1 says, "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there was no longer any sea." Perhaps the recreation will rebalance the mass/energy equation. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Note that I am not trying to make a scientific proof from the Bible, just showing that the original supposition of the "proof" is inaccurate in that heaven is not said to have infinite duration.

Fyron

August 19th, 2003, 09:58 PM

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Slick:
Why is it that people are insisting that photons have mass when all available evidence and theory are contrary to that? I just don't understand it.

SJ, nice try http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif , but that calculation shows how much mass would be generated if the photon was completely anihilated. It does not show how much mass a photon has. This has been observed, by the way, in a process called "pair production". A photon (gamma) of at least 1.02 MeV can be transformed (E=mc^2) into an electron and a positron. There must be 2 particles due to conservation laws (momentum, spin, charge, etc.) beyond the scope of this discussion.

Slick.Photons have no rest mass. At rest, they have no energy either and don't exist anymore.

The relativistic mass is a different question.
See:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html (University of California site)
Edit: better link<hr /></blockquote>Exactly my point. Thanks SJ. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Slick

August 20th, 2003, 02:48 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Slick:
Why is it that people are insisting that photons have mass when all available evidence and theory are contrary to that? I just don't understand it.

SJ, nice try http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif , but that calculation shows how much mass would be generated if the photon was completely anihilated. It does not show how much mass a photon has. This has been observed, by the way, in a process called "pair production". A photon (gamma) of at least 1.02 MeV can be transformed (E=mc^2) into an electron and a positron. There must be 2 particles due to conservation laws (momentum, spin, charge, etc.) beyond the scope of this discussion.

Slick.Photons have no rest mass. At rest, they have no energy either and don't exist anymore.

The relativistic mass is a different question.
See:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html (University of California site)
Edit: better link<hr /></blockquote>Exactly my point. Thanks SJ. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif <hr /></blockquote>*sigh* From that very article:

The overwhelming consensus among physicists today is to say that photons are massless. It also says:

If the rest mass of the photon was non-zero, the theory of quantum electrodynamics would be "in trouble" primarily through loss of gauge invariance, which would make it non-renormalizable; also, charge-conservation would no longer be absolutely guaranteed, as it is if photons have vanishing rest-mass. Which means that if a photon has mass, we basically are totally wrong about quantum electodynamics, which has been verified by numerous experiments.

Believe what you want. I give up. It no longer "matters" to me if you want to believe it or not. You don't need to attempt to convince me that you are right and I am wrong. I will continue to do my day job testing submarine reactors for the US navy at Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard. I have been doing nuclear engineering for over 13 years and I am very comfortable with my knowledge of physics. I do not have the need to have the Last word on this. I'm out of this discussion.

Slick.

[ August 20, 2003, 01:49: Message edited by: Slick ]

deccan

August 20th, 2003, 02:54 AM

Originally posted by Slick:
A soul may or may not exist. We don't even agree on what it is, much less what it is made of or how to detect it. Therefore, there is not enough evidence to disprove it. As for proof, not enough evidence there either.This is extremely spurious logic Slick.

First of all, I believe that most reasonable people will agree that if someone A claims that an entity x exists, it is up to A to provide a positive argument that x exists, and not up to a skeptical person B to provide an argument that x does not exist. Most reasonable people will also agree that it is difficult / almost impossible to prove a negative.

Second, the term "soul" is only a nominative label. When people debate the existence of "souls", people are of course really debating the existence of some definable entity which the term "soul" denotes, not the term "soul" itself. So, if person A claims that entity "soul" exists, it is incumbent upon A to provide an unambiguous definition of "soul" and all debate subsequent to that will relate to that particular definition of "soul" and no other.

Of course, I admit that there are other, more subtle considerations (e.g. there is a logical difference between actively asserting the non-existence of an entity and passively denying the existence of an entity due to faulty arguments asserting its existence.)

However, the main point is that I believe that we can safely and quite reasonably say that souls, in the popularly understood sense of the term in Western culture, do not exist because all known arguments for its existence have been conclusively refuted or else are fatally flawed.

Slick

August 20th, 2003, 03:09 AM

Originally posted by deccan:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Slick:
A soul may or may not exist. We don't even agree on what it is, much less what it is made of or how to detect it. Therefore, there is not enough evidence to disprove it. As for proof, not enough evidence there either.This is extremely spurious logic Slick.

First of all, I believe that most reasonable people will agree that if someone A claims that an entity x exists, it is up to A to provide a positive argument that x exists, and not up to a skeptical person B to provide an argument that x does not exist. Most reasonable people will also agree that it is difficult / almost impossible to prove a negative.

Second, the term "soul" is only a nominative label. When people debate the existence of "souls", people are of course really debating the existence of some definable entity which the term "soul" denotes, not the term "soul" itself. So, if person A claims that entity "soul" exists, it is incumbent upon A to provide an unambiguous definition of "soul" and all debate subsequent to that will relate to that particular definition of "soul" and no other.

Of course, I admit that there are other, more subtle considerations (e.g. there is a logical difference between actively asserting the non-existence of an entity and passively denying the existence of an entity due to faulty arguments asserting its existence.)

However, the main point is that I believe that we can safely and quite reasonably say that souls, in the popularly understood sense of the term in Western culture, do not exist because all known arguments for its existence have been conclusively refuted or else are fatally flawed.<hr /></blockquote>Ok, (and this is my very Last word hehee) That argument only works for a logical discussion. Belief (or disbelief) in souls is not a logic question, but a question of faith. By definition, faith is believing without proof. It's a religious thing, not a math thing or a logic thing. So those who believe in souls do so acknowledging that there is no concrete proof. If you are looking for proof of religious beliefs, you can easily reason yourself into not believing in anything; and that may be what is right for you. But not everyone thinks that way.

edit: spelling/grammar

Slick.

[ August 20, 2003, 16:19: Message edited by: Slick ]

Fyron

August 20th, 2003, 03:12 AM

Photons have no rest mass, but they have relativistic mass. Hence, mass-like property.

I will continue to do my day job testing submarine reactors for the US navy at Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard. I have been doing nuclear engineering for over 13 years and I am very comfortable with my knowledge of physics. That means absolutely nothing in any sort of discussion.

tesco samoa

August 20th, 2003, 03:38 AM

ot--- my great uncle discovered their opposite

[ August 20, 2003, 02:45: Message edited by: tesco samoa ]

deccan

August 20th, 2003, 04:37 AM

Originally posted by Slick:
So those who believe in souls do so acknowledging that there is no concrete proof. Ok, but I'm putting you on notice that I intend to hold you to this statement. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

I mean no offense to you in particular. After all, I know you mainly from your great work in keeping the FAQ here updated. But from my personal experience, theists tend to use the faith line when things get tough, but forget about it when it comes to disseminating their beliefs. This is what Carl Sagan called wanting to enjoy the Cachet of scientific respectability without being willing to pay its costs.

Again, to make things perfectly clear: I have no objections whatsoever if anyone says something to the effect that he believes souls exist because it's a personal, religious thing. I do object if anyone says that he believes souls exist and tries to convince others that souls exist due to some logical / scientific argument without properly spelling out that argument or properly defining "soul" in an unambiguous way.

QuarianRex

August 20th, 2003, 06:04 AM

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
Well, I think it's pretty obvious that the claim for the soul is for a 'substance' of some sort. Information cannot be 'immortal' after all. When the media it resides in is destroyed it goes poof.Not as obvious as you might think. The idea of the soul being immortal is a relatively late conception. Among most ancient cultures, most notably the Greeks/Romans with Hades, and the Hebrews (grandaddy of christianity, a.k.a. the basis of modern western culture) with their Sheol, the afterlife was a place where souls gradually faded away until they forgot themselves and discorporated. The only thing that would maintain the identity of a dead soul was the devotion of the still living family. This is also the basis of most forms of ancestor worship.

This would imply that souls are stored within (or at least sustained by) the medium of human social memory.

dogscoff

August 20th, 2003, 09:43 AM

This would imply that souls are stored within (or at least sustained by) the medium of human social memory.
If that's what a soul is- a meme- then I don't think any of us (even Fyron) would want to argue against its existence.

Of course it sounds to me (like most of religion does) like a nice, cozy little metaphor that people have taken too literally.

General Woundwort

August 20th, 2003, 10:41 AM

Originally posted by deccan:
I mean no offense to you in particular. After all, I know you mainly from your great work in keeping the FAQ here updated. But from my personal experience, theists tend to use the faith line when things get tough, but forget about it when it comes to disseminating their beliefs. This is what Carl Sagan called wanting to enjoy the Cachet of scientific respectability without being willing to pay its costs.What do you mean by that statement? It is one thing to say that God exists, philosophically and logically. It is quite another to say "Why is [fill in the blank] happening in my life? And what does God have to do with it, if anything?" The actions of persons, at times, (and if theists are correct, God is a person) is not quantifiable by scientific means.

Again, to make things perfectly clear: I have no objections whatsoever if anyone says something to the effect that he believes souls exist because it's a personal, religious thing. I do object if anyone says that he believes souls exist and tries to convince others that souls exist due to some logical / scientific argument without properly spelling out that argument or properly defining "soul" in an unambiguous way.May I ask a question - nothing personal intended, just trying to make a point. Have you ever taken a philosophy class? Like colllege level Phil 101 or the equivalent? I ask this because the way you keep coming back to "unambiguous" categories. Lots of things, even in scientific discourse, are "ambiguous". What, for example, *is* 'time'?

dogscoff

August 20th, 2003, 11:16 AM

It is one thing to say that God exists, philosophically and logically.
I think the point he's making is that it's actually two things to say that God exists, philosophically and logically:
Number one is to say it exists philosophically (ie faith-based belief) and number two is to say that it exists logically (ie scientific proof-based belief).

General Woundwort

August 20th, 2003, 11:23 AM

deccan

August 20th, 2003, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by General Woundwort:
What do you mean by that statement? It is one thing to say that God exists, philosophically and logically. It is quite another to say "Why is [fill in the blank] happening in my life? And what does God have to do with it, if anything?" The actions of persons, at times, (and if theists are correct, God is a person) is not quantifiable by scientific means.Um, sorry I don't quite catch your point here. My point about the Carl Sagan statement is that often some theists (especially creationists) like to claim that their beliefs are supported with either empirical evidence or logical arguments that are comparable in quality to that of conventional scientific theories.

However the cost of bearing the scientific Cachet is that you have to be prepared to defend your arguments on a variety of fronts, i.e. the quality of your data, whether or not arguments are logically sound etc.

From personal experience, I've simply found that many theists who do make the claim that their arguments are logically and perhaps scientifically sound, when pressed, often fall back to the line that their beliefs simply don't have to be held to the same standard as the rest of science because they're based on faith.

May I ask a question - nothing personal intended, just trying to make a point. Have you ever taken a philosophy class? Like colllege level Phil 101 or the equivalent?No, I've never taken a Philosophy 101. I've always meant to, but it isn't easy for me. I'm Malaysian and currently live in the Solomon Islands.

Last year, while on holiday, I'd met a fellow Malaysian who had done her Bachelor's degree in China and majored in philosophy. I tend to seek out people (especially females http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ) who are interested in philosophy to make friends with them. However, I was none too impressed with her aptitude.

Currently, I'm corresponding with a friend (female too http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ) who is doing a masters degree in Chinese Studies, with a heavy tilt towards philosophy at the National University of Singapore (which incidentally is considered a VERY good school). I'm not too impressed with what they teach her too.

I do read philosophy books. My standard reference on Western philosophy is Frederik Copleston's "A History of Western Philosophy", which I believe is still the most authoritative reference even today. I'm also a great fan of Daniel C. Dennett and I regularly read new entries in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://plato.stanford.edu/). I also greatly admire the articles on The Proceedings of the Friesian School (http://www.friesian.com/). If you're interested, my own website is Calltoreason.org (http://calltoreason.org) but I haven't bothered to update it in like forever. Too lazy I guess.

I ask this because the way you keep coming back to "unambiguous" categories. Lots of things, even in scientific discourse, are "ambiguous". What, for example, *is* 'time'?Actually, what I meant was that when people use terms, especially terms that are so common and have so many varied meanings that they are prone to abuse, such as "love", "good", "soul" etc., they ought to define precisely and unambiguously what they mean when they are using that term. The fact that certain concepts may be innately ambiguous or fuzzy doesn't, in my opinion, exonerate one from that responsibility.

[ August 20, 2003, 11:52: Message edited by: deccan ]

dogscoff

August 20th, 2003, 03:33 PM

I don't agree with the use of the word "philosophy" here. Sorry dogscoff. To put it another way, let's say that I greatly enjoy music by Britney Spears.
I only used that word becasue GW did. I think I'll relurk and let you two slug it out.

Before I go though- I've not met many atheists myself who use the "Why doesn't God solve X problem/ why does God let Y happen" argument.

Personally I look at the history of religion, the way it has evolved, the way it has been manipulated and adjusted and applied throughout the ages, and I came to the conclusion that it's either an entirely human invention (or more likely, misinterpretation- see my post earlier about souls as memes), or at the very least it has very little to do with what any real God wants/ wanted.

EDIT: Just had to comment on this-

questions of what God should be doing (in ones' opinion) are separate from whether or not He actually exists.
That's true, except where you dispute whether or not God is actually doing anything. After all, a universe where God never does anything at all is to all intents and purposes exactly the same as a universe where there is no God.

[ August 20, 2003, 14:36: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

Suicide Junkie

August 20th, 2003, 04:07 PM

Slick: I think we are in agreement, we just don't realize it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

geoschmo

August 20th, 2003, 05:41 PM

Deccan, the attitude expressed by Mr. Sagan and held by you is that unless the creationist can prove the exsistance of God, a proof that few creationists will attempt and most acknowledge is impossible to do, that any alternative theories regarding the specific mechanics of life are invalid. The reason they fail your litmus test is not due to lack of support to their arguments. It's becuase you attempt to apply a specific argument to cover a general set of circumstances.

It is not neccesary for a creationists to be able to scientifically prove the exsistance of God to study creation any more then it is neccesary for an evolutionist to pinpoint the exact mechanism of evolution to study and believe the theory as a whole.

There are things that you and I are not able to understand about the universe despite our theories and hypotheses. Mr. Sagan on the other hand has found the answers, for better or for worse.

General Woundwort

August 20th, 2003, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by dogscoff:
That's true, except where you dispute whether or not God is actually doing anything. After all, a universe where God never does anything at all is to all intents and purposes exactly the same as a universe where there is no God.Well, that's the whole question, isn't it? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

And that is what the cosmological and teleological arguments for God's existence covered. Until Kantianism and naturalism ruled the whole discussion out of bounds from square one... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

geoschmo

August 20th, 2003, 06:00 PM

Originally posted by dogscoff:
That's true, except where you dispute whether or not God is actually doing anything. After all, a universe where God never does anything at all is to all intents and purposes exactly the same as a universe where there is no God.If this is the nature of God then truely the question of her exsistance is not merely unprovable, but irrelevant. If God exsists, but doesn't care about her creation, why should her creation care whether she exsists or not? The search for God has always been more about a search for our place in the universe then it is an actual search for God herself. If there is no God, or if there is a God but she cares not for her creation, then our place in the universe is the same. It begins and ends with our own lives and nothing we do matters in the long run.

[ August 20, 2003, 17:06: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Alpha Kodiak

August 20th, 2003, 06:11 PM

The thing I find interesting about this debate is that it started with a flawed (and admittedly satirical) "proof" that there is no afterlife, yet those who disputed that proof are being asked to prove the existence of souls, something they did not set out to do. Logically, to show the flaws in the initial proof, it was only necessary to show that there could be ways for there to be an afterlife, not whether there is one or not. I have not seen anyone claim to prove that the soul exists, nor have I seen a legitimate proof that the soul does not exist. We simply do not have the means to prove by physical observation one way or another whether things exist outside of the physical universe.

Baron Munchausen

August 20th, 2003, 06:40 PM

Originally posted by deccan:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />May I ask a question - nothing personal intended, just trying to make a point. Have you ever taken a philosophy class? Like colllege level Phil 101 or the equivalent?No, I've never taken a Philosophy 101. I've always meant to, but it isn't easy for me. I'm Malaysian and currently live in the Solomon Islands.

Last year, while on holiday, I'd met a fellow Malaysian who had done her Bachelor's degree in China and majored in philosophy. I tend to seek out people (especially females http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ) who are interested in philosophy to make friends with them. However, I was none too impressed with her aptitude.

Currently, I'm corresponding with a friend (female too http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ) who is doing a masters degree in Chinese Studies, with a heavy tilt towards philosophy at the National University of Singapore (which incidentally is considered a VERY good school). I'm not too impressed with what they teach her too.

I do read philosophy books. My standard reference on Western philosophy is Frederik Copleston's "A History of Western Philosophy", which I believe is still the most authoritative reference even today. I'm also a great fan of Daniel C. Dennett and I regularly read new entries in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://plato.stanford.edu/). I also greatly admire the articles on The Proceedings of the Friesian School (http://www.friesian.com/). If you're interested, my own website is Calltoreason.org (http://calltoreason.org) but I haven't bothered to update it in like forever. Too lazy I guess.
[/QB]<hr /></blockquote>Aptitude? Or conclusions? A great many thinkers of quite high intellectual abilities have come to different conclusions than the atheist/materialist philosophers you seem to favor. I wonder if this poor 'aptitude' you noted wasn't a difference of opinion. (Maybe you are seeking an agreeable female companion and not a philosophical challenge? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ) All you have to do is recognize that logic cannot encompass all problems and there's just as much fault to find with atheism/materialism as theism.

That's an odd mix of thinkers, too. Ayn Rand? She's a stunted miniature of Nietzsche with a bit of Adam Smith mixed in. Read the originals and don't waste your time on the knock-offs. And Darwin is hardly a philosopher. He's a hero of the 'materialist' movement because he supplied a major weapon in the war on religion, but that doesn't make him a philosopher in his own right. What did he write other than 'Origin of Species'? Bertrand Russell is a study in contradiction all to himself. I don't think he'd like being in the same list with some of those others... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ August 20, 2003, 17:42: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Loser

August 20th, 2003, 06:57 PM

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
What did he write other than 'Origin of Species'?OT, but a clarification nonetheless. In a quick search, I've pulled up nineteen (http://www.ibiblio.org/gutenberg/authors/darwin__charles__1809-188.html) books by Mr. Darwin, though with a single duplication. That's just on the Gutenberg site. As a naturalist he is certain to have written many other books and papers that have not been as well remembered. Still I don't see this relating to the conflict of philosophy here, it's rather OT.

[ August 20, 2003, 17:57: Message edited by: Loser ]

geoschmo

August 20th, 2003, 07:59 PM

Darwin was a student in theological seminary before the voyage that resulted in his seminal work. Although there is some question whether his educational choice was a matter of spiritual belief or one of practicality.

At the time of his voyage to the Galapagos he was more what you would call an amateur naturalist, as it was more or less something he did as a hobby. Although "amatuer" in this connotation is not meant to degrade the quality of his work as the field was in it's infancy at the time anyway he was pretty generally regarded as having a talent for it at the time by his professors. Obviously his work has pretty much redefined the field as it has exsisted after him.

The point of all this is just that a case could be made that even Darwin approached the subject from a philisophical perspective. At least initially. The phisophical and the scientific are heavily interconnected when discussing the subject of the origin of life.

Geoschmo

Fyron

August 20th, 2003, 09:07 PM

Originally posted by dogscoff:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />
It is one thing to say that God exists, philosophically and logically.
I think the point he's making is that it's actually two things to say that God exists, philosophically and logically:
Number one is to say it exists philosophically (ie faith-based belief) and number two is to say that it exists logically (ie scientific proof-based belief).<hr /></blockquote>Philosophy is ENTIRELY based on logic... there is no faith involved. When you bring faith into the picture, you veer from philosophy and get into religious arguments/beliefs/etc. (using faith as you have applied it, of course; there are other types of faith). Note: there is indeed religious philosophy, but it tries to stay as far away from faith as possible and, like other branches of philosophy, sticks to logical arguments rather than faith based arguments.

Tigbit

August 20th, 2003, 09:15 PM

Well. Y'see... no one will ever be able to "prove" (yes I said prove, seeing as how everyone is so fond of using it) anything of religious nature (religious as in organized religion, not spirituality). This is simply because the ideas that come out of religion is unprovable by necessity. Religion and science are two sides of the same issue. The two do not fit together and never will. If you are a scientist you have no business sticking your head into the affairs of religion (and vise-verse). Go ahead and try to theorize the origin of the moon, or how galaxies form, or try to find the exact mass of a photon with quantum theory. Try to explain the evolutionary path for the common housefly. But, please keep your nose out of the search for God, for crying out loud. If you are religious, keep your knowledge of your chosen god out of the realm of scientific research, it doesn't belong there. If the two sides can just keep to their own business all will go just fine.

Personally, I disbelieve anything the originates out of organized religion. I have read enough views on historical events to know (for myself) that it's all full of crap. I may have a few personal ideas on spirituality but those are kept at a comfortable distence from my scientific side.

That's all I have to say on the matter.

Jack Simth

August 20th, 2003, 10:21 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Philosophy is ENTIRELY based on logic... there is no faith involved. When you bring faith into the picture, you veer from philosophy and get into religious arguments/beliefs/etc. (using faith as you have applied it, of course; there are other types of faith). Note: there is indeed religious philosophy, but it tries to stay as far away from faith as possible and, like other branches of philosophy, sticks to logical arguments rather than faith based arguments.Philosophy is not entirely based on logic. At least, not as thouroughly as the emphasis you used would indicate. When it comes down to it, philosophers are reasoning based on one or more fundamental assumptions that they cannot prove. This precludes philosophy from being TOTALLY based on logic; there is much logic used, but it is based on unproveable assumptions.

deccan

August 21st, 2003, 12:54 AM

Originally posted by General Woundwort:
I have found that many agnostics/atheists base their doubts about God more on "Well, if God does exist, why doesn't He do this or that?" But questions of what God should be doing (in ones' opinion) are separate from whether or not He actually exists.I don't quite agree. "God" is one of those ambiguous terms that I was talking about earlier. If theist A wishes to advance arguments for the existence of 'God" for the consideration of a skeptic B, then it is incumbent upon A to provide an unambiguous definition of what he means when he employs the term "God".

Any particular definition of "God" involves attributing particular properties to the entity "God" and unambiguous explanations of those properties, and perhaps ruling out certain other properties. Depending on the specific definition of "God" used, refuting the validity of the argument by questioning whether or not "God" actually performs actions that the properties ascribed to "God" logically implies that "God" ought to do and ought to be able to do, could in some, though not all, circumstances, be a sound approach.

In any case, GW, I'm glad to see that we can come to some sort of general agreement. Reasonable people *can* politely discuss controversial issues even if they are on opposite sides of the fence. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

jimbob

August 21st, 2003, 12:57 AM

I don't agree with you on this Fyron. Philosophy is also hostage to the limitations of the human state - namely that every philosophy will suffer from the inevitable biases found in the original "starting position". The very fact that we must have some sort of starting position will and must bias our logical progression. However we cannot double-guess every single position before proceeding with our development of a proof. We have to make and accept a set of assumptions about the world we live in before we can progress, or we will do nothing but attempt to prove our starting position.

If that doesn't make sense, let me say just this: everyone does, and by necessity must, make some basic assumptions before they can make an arguement. As a result, even the most "unbiased" position is in truth, based on a world view or "leap of faith" of some sort. As a result philosophy cannot be entirely based upon logic, as if it has more a corner on truth than any other system of thought.

jimbob

August 21st, 2003, 01:06 AM

Depending on the specific definition of "God" used, refuting the validity of the argument by questioning whether or not "God" actually performs actions that the properties ascribed to "God" logically implies that "God" ought to do and ought to be able to do, could in some, though not all, circumstances, be a sound approach.I'm reminded of a theology professor from the UBC who talked about philosophy students coming to him to debate the existance of God. He would ask them to tell him what the thought of/imagined when they referred to the term "God". He said that inevitably he would agree with the students that he also did not believe in the "God" that they had described (because it was an unlikely or atrocious or un-involved God), but that he most definitely did believe in a "God". Again, the starting point is very important... it can be as key to "solving the problem" as knowing you must "start" by doing all of the multiplication and division before "going on" and doing the addition and subtraction when solving a math problem (unless there are brackets of course http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )

[ August 21, 2003, 00:10: Message edited by: jimbob ]

deccan

August 21st, 2003, 01:08 AM

Originally posted by dogscoff:
I think the point he's making is that it's actually two things to say that God exists, philosophically and logically:
Number one is to say it exists philosophically (ie faith-based belief) and number two is to say that it exists logically (ie scientific proof-based belief).I don't agree with the use of the word "philosophy" here. Sorry dogscoff. To put it another way, let's say that I greatly enjoy music by Britney Spears.

In the first instance, I could say that I greatly enjoy music by Spears as a matter of purely personal taste. I simply like to hear her music, it makes me feel good to hear her music, and I don't care to justify why I feel this way to anyone.

In the second instance, I could say that I've come to enjoy music by Spears as a result of a long, tortuous and comprehensive study into many different musical styles by many different artistes that lead through a series of impeccably logical steps to the inescapable conclusion that Spears' music is superior to any other type of music. And I'm convinced that if anyone else bothers to go through the same process, they must inevitably and logically end up just like me and enjoy music by Spears.

Again, I don't have a single objection to the situation described in the first instance but I do have grave reservations and objections to the second situation. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

deccan

August 21st, 2003, 01:09 AM

Originally posted by dogscoff:
Personally I look at the history of religion, the way it has evolved, the way it has been manipulated and adjusted and applied throughout the ages, and I came to the conclusion that it's either an entirely human invention (or more likely, misinterpretation- see my post earlier about souls as memes), or at the very least it has very little to do with what any real God wants/ wanted.I note the use of the word "personally" here. Personally, I agree with what you've said but at the same time I also state that this does not constitute a logical argument of any kind, though it does constitute a kind of emotional argument.

If you haven't already, you could try reading Andrew Dickson White's "A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom" (http://human-nature.com/reason/white/contents.html). It's at the same time very amusing and very tragic.

Originally posted by dogscoff:
That's true, except where you dispute whether or not God is actually doing anything. After all, a universe where God never does anything at all is to all intents and purposes exactly the same as a universe where there is no God.Hahah, Greg Egan has a novel in which one of the characters is a devotee of the church of The God Who Makes No Difference. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ August 21, 2003, 00:18: Message edited by: deccan ]

General Woundwort

August 21st, 2003, 01:34 AM

Originally posted by deccan:
Um, sorry I don't quite catch your point here. My point about the Carl Sagan statement is that often some theists (especially creationists) like to claim that their beliefs are supported with either empirical evidence or logical arguments that are comparable in quality to that of conventional scientific theories.That is their goal, yes. Whether they attain it or not is entirely up to the quality of those arguments and evidences. But the question here is, as I understand it, about the very existence of God and/or supernatural dimensions to the universe, and these questions are dealt with more on a philosophical basis than determining how old rocks and starlight are. Note I say "more", not "entirely".

However the cost of bearing the scientific Cachet is that you have to be prepared to defend your arguments on a variety of fronts, i.e. the quality of your data, whether or not arguments are logically sound etc.I would agree.

From personal experience, I've simply found that many theists who do make the claim that their arguments are logically and perhaps scientifically sound, when pressed, often fall back to the line that their beliefs simply don't have to be held to the same standard as the rest of science because they're based on faith.I'd have to see the particular arguments being made to judge whether or not they would really be a "cop-out". That's what I was trying to get at in my prior reply to you - I have found that many agnostics/atheists base their doubts about God more on "Well, if God does exist, why doesn't He do this or that?" But questions of what God should be doing (in ones' opinion) are separate from whether or not He actually exists.

I do read philosophy books. My standard reference on Western philosophy is Frederik Copleston's "A History of Western Philosophy", which I believe is still the most authoritative reference even today. I'm also a great fan of Daniel C. Dennett and I regularly read new entries in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://plato.stanford.edu/). I also greatly admire the articles on The Proceedings of the Friesian School (http://www.friesian.com/). If you're interested, my own website is Calltoreason.org (http://calltoreason.org) but I haven't bothered to update it in like forever. Too lazy I guess.Copelston and Dennett certainly cover the bases (Copelston the Catholic, Dennett the agnostic [if I'm thinking of the same Dennett you are).

Actually, what I meant was that when people use terms, especially terms that are so common and have so many varied meanings that they are prone to abuse, such as "love", "good", "soul" etc., they ought to define precisely and unambiguously what they mean when they are using that term. The fact that certain concepts may be innately ambiguous or fuzzy doesn't, in my opinion, exonerate one from that responsibility.OK. Put this way, I would agree (cf my post to Dogscoff earlier).

deccan

August 21st, 2003, 01:55 AM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Deccan, the attitude expressed by Mr. Sagan and held by you is that unless the creationist can prove the exsistance of God, a proof that few creationists will attempt and most acknowledge is impossible to do, that any alternative theories regarding the specific mechanics of life are invalid.Sorry, Geo for the strong language, but I must state that I think you have no idea what you are talking about.

To get up to speed on the arguments for evolution, please visit this site Talk Origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/)

And I might as well direct you to its opposite number as well, for the sake of "fairness" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif at:
True Origin (http://www.trueorigin.org/)

There are A LOT of papers on both sites so it might take you a while. When you're done, come back and let me know whether or not you still think that evolutionists are asking creationists to prove the existence of God as the critical test of creationism's validity.

deccan

August 21st, 2003, 02:32 AM

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:

Aptitude? Or conclusions? A great many thinkers of quite high intellectual abilities have come to different conclusions than the atheist/materialist philosophers you seem to favor. I wonder if this poor 'aptitude' you noted wasn't a difference of opinion.
A fair enough criticism. Here's an account of my conversation (the original was in Mandarin) with that first girl. I've discovered that the girl believes in creationism, so, intrigued, I ask her:

Me: Really? What brand of creationism? I keep myself abreast of creationist literature you know.

Girl: What do you mean?

Me: Well, which writers do you read? Do you tend more towards the young earth school of thought or the old earth school of thought?

Girl: I've just read some of the literature by young earth creationists and I think their ideas make a lot of sense.

Me: Really? Why so?

Girl: Well, I'm not sure. I just read their tracts and they seemed very persuasive to me. But then when I read the old earth literature, I find them persuasive too.

Me: Er, that doesn't sound very rigorous to me. Maybe if you've read some pro-evolution literature, you might find them persuasive as well.

Girl: I guess I might. I haven't read any.

[Later...]

Girl: Hey, where did you go to school anyway?

Me: I went to France.

Girl: Really, so you speak French? How long did you live in France?

Me: Seeing as my entire course was in French, yeah, I'd say that I speak France. I spent nearly 3 years in France.

Girl: Wow, that's so cool and romantic. [Goes all bubbly...]

Me: [Thinking: next please.] http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

And I'm still looking for my dream girl.

Gozra

August 21st, 2003, 03:32 AM

Is there any proof showing a "dream girl" exist? Or are they found in the afterlife?

Gozra

August 21st, 2003, 04:37 AM

By the way 'Afterlife' is something you do when you are not playing SEIV. I'm sure that is what Afterlife is. Therefor this statement is elegant proof that there is an afterlife.

deccan

August 21st, 2003, 04:37 AM

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
That's an odd mix of thinkers, too. Ayn Rand? She's a stunted miniature of Nietzsche with a bit of Adam Smith mixed in. Read the originals and don't waste your time on the knock-offs. And Darwin is hardly a philosopher.Let me explain myself a bit.

One, when I profess admiration for certain people, it need not necessarily be admiration for that person in general. It might be admiration merely for some specific qualities of that person or some specific piece of work done by that person. This applies to ideas as well. If I profess agreement with an idea expressed by a person, it does not imply blanket agreement with all other ideas expressed by that person.

Two, I never stated that the content of my website should be restricted to "philosophical" topics or philosophers, whatever that means.

Fyron

August 21st, 2003, 04:39 AM

The very root of philosophy is logical arguments... it can be used to try to prove assumptions, yes. That is how science works, incidentally. But, the philosophy itself is still all logic. Of course, this is not to say that noone ever misuses it or gets it wrong...

deccan

August 21st, 2003, 04:44 AM

Originally posted by Loser:
In a quick search, I've pulled up nineteen (http://www.ibiblio.org/gutenberg/authors/darwin__charles__1809-188.html) books by Mr. Darwin, though with a single duplication. That's just on the Gutenberg site. As a naturalist he is certain to have written many other books and papers that have not been as well remembered.The most significant of these (aside from Origin of course), is probably THE EXPRESSION OF THE EMOTIONS IN MAN AND ANIMALS (http://human-nature.com/darwin/emotion/contents.htm) .

Tigbit

August 21st, 2003, 04:53 AM

Fyron

August 21st, 2003, 05:09 AM

Tigbit, I am actually not way off at all. What I described is what philosophy is, and has been for centuries. I suggest you pick up some philosophy text books.

Jack Simth

August 21st, 2003, 05:21 AM

Actually Fyron, you are off. If philospophy were logic alone, then the final answer of ethics would have come long ago. As it hasn't, philosophy is not logic alone.

Fyron

August 21st, 2003, 05:34 AM

Why do you claim that? Different people can use different paths of logic to arrive at different conclusions. Philosophical arguments are never the end-all, beat-all that solve all of life's problems.

Tigbit

August 21st, 2003, 05:50 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Tigbit, I am actually not way off at all. What I described is what philosophy is, and has been for centuries. I suggest you pick up some philosophy text books.Do you realize how extensive a library one can build in the space of 10 years? Now this is a library that has no fiction in it at all. I have a mix of science, spirituality, and philosophy, some history, loads of reference books and various others that don't really seem to fit in any one catagory. I assure you, Fyron that I am very well read. It seems that you have much to learn yet, and that's okay because we always have something we need to learn.

Philosophy is far from the pure logic that Aristotle professed so long ago. Back then he felt that pure thought alone could understand the world. Anyone who has reached their first year of highschool knows that Aristotle was very incorrect about a great many of his ideas. Philosophy was that sad attempt to make sense of the world without the checks and ballances to root out the most-certainly-incorrect from the more-than-likely. (Personal opinion coming up) Now all philosphy has become is a course that one can take so that they can spew off a few quotes from dead people to make themselves feel like they know something. Few people who actually go through a phil course will continue on and actually have something to offer in the way of unique thought. Those that do go far and actually believe that they have found their calling as a philosopher write a book or few of some-to-great value and become professors for the next generation of wannabe know-it-alls.

If you really want pure logic, then science is the dicipline you are looking for, not philosophy.

Fyron

August 21st, 2003, 05:57 AM

I was never talking about lame college students that never had an original thought, I was talking about philosophy itself, which is indeed still all logic based.

Tigbit

August 21st, 2003, 06:05 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
I was never talking about lame college students that never had an original thought, I was talking about philosophy itself, which is indeed still all logic based.I will not get into a is/isn't argument, Fyron and I need not repeat myself. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

rextorres

August 21st, 2003, 06:13 AM

Weight of a soul!!!? I'm still trying to figure out how many angels fit on the head of a pin!

rextorres

August 21st, 2003, 06:37 AM

Trying to find a solution to MY question I came across this anecdote. It seems somewhat relevant.

http://www.rbs0.com/baromete.htm

deccan

August 21st, 2003, 07:51 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
The very root of philosophy is logical arguments... it can be used to try to prove assumptions, yes. That is how science works, incidentally. But, the philosophy itself is still all logic. Of course, this is not to say that noone ever misuses it or gets it wrong...Sorry, Fyron but I disagree. jimbob on the other hand has it exactly right.

Originally posted by jimbob:

If that doesn't make sense, let me say just this: everyone does, and by necessity must, make some basic assumptions before they can make an arguement. As a result, even the most "unbiased" position is in truth, based on a world view or "leap of faith" of some sort. As a result philosophy cannot be entirely based upon logic, as if it has more a corner on truth than any other system of thought.
You might be interested in reading a technical description of the problem in the article Foundationalist Theories of Epistemic Justification (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justep-foundational)

In particular note this excerpt:

Suppose I claim to be justified in believing that Fred will die shortly and offer as my evidence that Fred has an untreatable and serious form of cancer. Concerned, you ask me how I discovered that Fred has the cancer and I respond that it is just a hunch on my part. As soon as you discover that I have no reason at all to suppose that Fred has the cancer, you will immediately conclude that my whimsical belief about Fred's condition gives me no justification for believing that Fred will soon die. Generalizing, one might suggest the following principle:

To be justified in believing P on the basis of E one must be justified in believing E.

Now consider another example. Suppose I claim to be justified in believing that Fred will die shortly and offer as my justification that a certain line across his palm (his infamous "lifeline") is short. Rightly skeptical, you wonder this time what reason I have for believing that palm lines have anything whatsoever to do with length of life. As soon as you become satisfied that I have no justification for supposing that there is any kind of probabilistic connection between the character of this line and Fred's life you will again reject my claim to have a justified belief about Fred's impending demise. That suggests that we might expand our Principle of Inferential Justification (PIJ) to include a second clause:

Principle of Inferential Justification:
To be justified in believing P on the basis of E one must not only be (1) justified in believing E, but also (2) justified in believing that E makes probable P.

With PIJ one can present a relatively straightforward epistemic regress argument for foundationalism. If all justification were inferential then for someone S to be justified in believing some proposition P, S must be in a position to legitimately infer it from some other proposition E1. But E1 could justify S in believing P only if S were justified in believing E1, and if all justification were inferential the only way for S to do that would be to infer it from some other proposition justifiably believed, E2, a proposition which in turn would have to be inferred from some other proposition E3 which is justifiably believed, and so on, ad infinitum. But finite beings cannot complete an infinitely long chain of reasoning and so if all justification were inferential no-one would be justified in believing anything at all to any extent whatsoever. This most radical of all skepticisms is absurd (it entails that one couldn't even be justified in believing it) and so there must be a kind of justification which is not inferential, i.e. there must be noninferentially justified beliefs which terminate regresses of justification.
And yes, this applies to my beliefs and worldviews as well.

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

Why do you claim that? Different people can use different paths of logic to arrive at different conclusions. Philosophical arguments are never the end-all, beat-all that solve all of life's problems.Actually no, if we all start at the same beginning, then if our logical reasoning, if they're correct, should always lead to the same conclusions.

Jack Simth

August 21st, 2003, 07:55 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Why do you claim that? Different people can use different paths of logic to arrive at different conclusions.Let's try a mathmatics analagy for a moment: There are many different algorythims that can successfully multiply two numbers together. However, if two algorythms designed for the same number system derive different results, one of them (at least) is incorrect. Further, it is possible to prove which one is false by going back to the base definitions involved. This is possible because math is truly based on logic; there are assumptions involved, but more often than not they are either definitions to cut down on the problem being worked on or criteria under which the derived fact holds true. That does not work with philosophy, as many of their base assumptions are by nature unproveable, arbitrary, and all-encompasing (such as Kant deciding that reason should be the basis for all decisions). As they are unproveable and arbitrary, we arrive with differing schools of thought in philosophy centering around those base assumptions. Were such assumptions not present, you would end up with only a single school of thought, as you could truly prove that a competing school of thought was objectively wrong. There would still be differing opinions on some of the newly brought up/newly discovered fine points until such time as an objective (dis)proof comes around (as it is with mathmatics), but on things of any importance at all, everyone would be in agreement (again, like math: Using the standard definitions of +, =, 2, and 4 in the standard base 10 number system, 2 + 2 = 4; no exceptions). That isn't the case with philosophy. Any philisophical school of thought is ultimately based on one or more basic assumptions that cannot, by their very nature, be proven. Such assumptions are either arbitrary, "feel-good" statements, or those that (while they cannot be proven) few would disagree with (often defended by a question). Something requiring an unproveable assumption is outside the realm of logic alone. Note that I am including the "alone" in that statement. Don't get me wrong - assumptions aren't necessarily a bad thing. You can go far with a good assumption set. However, unless it can be objectively tested, an assumption lies outside the realm of pure logic.

That, and there are schools of philosophy that don't recognize logic as the keystone of ethics, choosing instead to go with emotions. Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Philosophical arguments are never the end-all, beat-all that solve all of life's problems.Arguments? No. However, some of the schools sometimes claim to be.

Edit: I hate it when my signiture is correct.

[ August 21, 2003, 06:58: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

Makinus

August 21st, 2003, 04:22 PM

Just to try to clarify about the nature of philosphy:

My philosophy Teacher says that philosophy, originally, was the term used to nominate all the sciences (from logic, to biology to astrology, etc.), but when a science became too complex it "separated" from the philosophy and because of this, today philosophy only works with some "sciences", and other have their own methods and fields.

About logic, according to my teacher, it is one of the "chapters" or "sciences" that are part of philosophy, but, in itself, logic is not the only basis of philosopy, only one of ist fields of study and, freq�ently, one of its "tools".

So, when on says that philosophy is entirely based in logic he is exagerating, while is truth that logic is one of the most popular "tools" of philosophy, and that philosophy have an entire "chapter" of studies about pure logic, it is not the "essence" of philosophy, that, in itself, is a "colective" of sciences.

I hope this helps to clarify the question, and if i'm wrong, it will not be the first time http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Makinus

Fyron

August 21st, 2003, 10:13 PM

If you want to lump things in with philosophy that are not really philosophy, go right ahead.

Jack Simth

August 21st, 2003, 10:38 PM

Let me see if I have this straight:

Fyron is contradicting at least four others who have posted in this thread on what philosophy is. At least one of whom is leaning on rational argument, at least one of whom is checking with a professional on the subject, and at least one of whom is quoting literature on it from Stanford University. Meanwhile, Fyron leans on his own authority on the matter, and maintains that he is correct.

Does anyone - anyone at all - see anything false in the above statements?

If not, the logical thing to do would be to ask Fyron what his authority is that he can lean on it so surely. Fyron?

[ August 21, 2003, 22:22: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

Fyron

August 21st, 2003, 11:39 PM

You didn't know? I am the world authority on philosophy. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Jack Simth

August 21st, 2003, 11:58 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
You didn't know? I am the world authority on philosophy. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif The graemlin would indicate you are joking, and the entry for your occupation in your profile ("Student") would support that interpertation.

If you aren't joking, please, give us links to the many places where you are listed for your philosophy awards, and the many papers you have written on the subject in order to obtain that vaunted position, so that we might have evidence of your claim.

If you are joking, please try actually debating the subject, as the other four(?) people involved are; I don't recognize your statements as authoritative on the subject when they stand by themselves. Were there debate and rational arguments with them, I might. As your statements on the issue currently stand, however, you don't really have anything in them to go on, and they can be discounted.

geoschmo

August 22nd, 2003, 12:03 AM

Jack and Fyron. Go to your corners please.

Jack Simth

August 22nd, 2003, 12:12 AM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Jack and Fyron. Go to your corners please.Sorry Geo - I ought to have phrased things differently.

[ August 22, 2003, 01:53: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

Fyron

August 22nd, 2003, 12:55 AM

I have no interest in continuing this discussion (and will not respond to such Posts), but will provide some closure... this is from my philosophy text book Thinking Philosophically, by Richard Creel:

"Within philosophy every claim that anyone makes is considered to be an appropriate target for critical investigation by means of reason. What is reason? What does it mean to investigate something by means of reason? That is difficult to say, but it means something like this: taking nothing for granted and asking of every claim, 'What evidence is there for believing it? What arguments are there to support it? Are those arguments strong enough to justify believing it?' Philosophy examines every position and asks what reasons there are for accepting or rejecting it; philosophy allows nothing to be sacrosanct and beyond the pale of rigorous investigation - not even reason itself! In brief, philosophy is the attempt to see what we can know just by depending on ordinary human experience and the powers of the human mind."

[ August 21, 2003, 23:59: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Jack Simth

August 22nd, 2003, 01:11 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
I have no interest in continuing this discussion (and will not respond to such Posts), but will provide some closure... this is from my philosophy text book Thinking Philosophically, by Richard Creel:

"Within philosophy every claim that anyone makes is considered to be an appropriate target for critical investigation by means of reason. What is reason? What does it mean to investigate something by means of reason? That is difficult to say, but it means something like this: taking nothing for granted and asking of every claim, 'What evidence is there for believing it? What arguments are there to support it? Are those arguments strong enough to justify believing it?' Philosophy examines every position and asks what reasons there are for accepting or rejecting it; philosophy allows nothing to be sacrosanct and beyond the pale of rigorous investigation - not even reason itself! In brief, philosophy is the attempt to see what we can know just by depending on ordinary human experience and the powers of the human mind."(emphasis added)

When ordinary human experience is included in the list of things something depends on, it is not "all logic" nor "ENTIRELY based on logic"; The excerpt you use denies your own thesis.

[ August 22, 2003, 01:53: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

Suicide Junkie

August 22nd, 2003, 01:34 AM

Human experience sounds to me like observing the universe for empirical facts, so you have something to philosophise logically about.

Jack Simth

August 22nd, 2003, 01:57 AM

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
Human experience sounds to me like observing the universe for empirical facts, so you have something to philosophise logically about.Perhaps, but when empirical data gets added to the mix, it is no longer "all logic" nor "ENTIRELY based on logic", which is what I was arguing against. With observations thrown into the mix, it becomes "logic and observations", not "all logic".

Suicide Junkie

August 22nd, 2003, 02:19 AM

So, are you saying that you consider the observations part of the philosophy, or did you have something else in mind?
Observations can be used to support a position, but ISTM they hardly provide a reason for believing something else. It is the logic (or whatever alternative you propose) that links the ideas to observations. The observations simply anchor the argument to our reality, rather than say the starwars "universe" or the matrix "universe".

The logic or alternative would be the gist of the philosophizing that philosophers do, as far as I see.

Jack Simth

August 22nd, 2003, 02:43 AM

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
So, are you saying that you consider the observations part of the philosophy, or did you have something else in mind?Yes, but a large part of that is the nature of the observations used. For example, Aristotle routinely cited what people in general seemed to think was right for particular instances to support/refute/move along his own arguments. However, most would agree that such judgements are culturally based, and valid only inside that culture. As those are culturally based, they can't be considered pure logic anymore. Logic is greatly, thouroghly, and widely used, but the position I am arguing against is that logic is all that is used in philosophy. Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:

Observations can be used to support a position, but ISTM they hardly provide a reason for believing something else. It is the logic (or whatever alternative you propose) that links the ideas to observations. The observations simply anchor the argument to our reality, rather than say the starwars "universe" or the matrix "universe".

The logic or alternative would be the gist of the philosophizing that philosophers do, as far as I see.Yes, logic is most of what philosophers do, but it isn't the entirety of philosophy.

Suicide Junkie

August 22nd, 2003, 02:49 AM

I'm not clear on the observations as argument you implied there... Could you give an example?

Jack Simth

August 22nd, 2003, 03:24 AM

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
I'm not clear on the observations as argument you implied there... Could you give an example?The one I was specifically thinking of (half-remembered from Philosophy 116 - I've since sold the book back, and can't readily double-check) was a case where Aristotle was discussing the private vs. the public good: justice. He started with a statement along the lines of 'those for whom a ruling is unfavorable will not agree with it'. However, he then says something along the lines of 'well, no, there have been observed instances where the judgement was against someone, but that person agreed the judgement was fair.' Basically, he was pointing out that courts made judgements which, while not in the favor of one or more parties, were still considered fair by all involved; he appeared to be doing this to support an external Version of justice as possible.

However, when it comes down to it, every ethical system philosophy has ever put out makes unproveable assumptions somewhere down the line. For example, Kant, one of the strongest advocates of reason you'll ever find, made such an assumption when determining what has inherent value: reasoning beings. His support for this was basically 'what else could it be?' and a note that essentially every expression of value is of the form 'valuable to' some person. Standing alone, the question defense is decent, but doesn't constitute a proof. The note on expressions of value relating to people is cultural evidence, and only valid inside that culture: an Austrailian aboriginy (spelling?) from a millenia ago might have very different ways of expressing value. Such an argument might not be valid in that culture.