Do you believe in evolution?

[Dan123]

Science might lead to robots replacing human beings. Many scientists are excited about this possibility.

So, why should I support science?

What on Earth are you talking about?

 

[Freddy]

BlueKumul:

Science might lead to robots replacing human beings. Many scientists are excited about this possibility.

So, why should I support science?

What on Earth are you talking about?

Where did I put that pitchfork…?

 

[rossum]

Science might lead to robots replacing human beings.

Again, in a different key:

Religion might lead to ISIS killing all non-Muslims (and all Muslims ISIS disagree with as well).

If we go on “might…” then a lot of things would be bad. Christianity might bring back witch-hunting after all. They did it before and killed a lot of people. It is still there in the Bible: “You shall not allow a witch to live.”

 

[rossum]

Where did I put that pitchfork…?

It’s right next to the torches and those local peasants you have stored in the basement for emergencies.

 

[Hume]

Science might lead to robots replacing human beings. Many scientists are excited about this possibility.

So, why should I support science?

Well that’s not very sensible.

You take a long-shot probability and on the basis that there might possibly be a small contingent that could prefer this long-shot you over-generalize them and blast an entire knowledge source that provided most of modern life as you know it.

“Science” gave you your car, your electricity, the computer you’re using… the list trails on into nigh infinity.

 

[Hume]

An eternal multiverse means there’s ‘no age’ at all.

Well, more like no discreet beginning.

You can measure the span of the individual links in a bicycle chain.

You just can’t say where the bicycle chain begins.

 

[Noose001]

Well, more like no discreet beginning.

You can measure the span of the individual links in a bicycle chain.

You just can’t say where the bicycle chain begins.

Correct but then 13.8B years has to go otherwise we need that discreet beginning.

 

[Hume]

1. Multiverse theory is not convincing

Which you agree is mere opinion.

For example, I don’t find Catholicism particularly convincing anymore. There was a time I did.

and even if it were, you can’t say ‘the age of this universe’ because changes are a comparison and comparisons have reference points.

We come up with the age or displacement in time of our universe by measuring it from the theorized beginning of this one. So we have our two objects for juxtaposition.

Right?

But you can say, ‘this universe is 13B years younger than the other universe’

We can say 13.8 B years if 0 is our reference point and 0 being our reference point means no other universe.

That’s not right as the other universes, if extant, are beyond the observable horizon. We don’t know how old which, if any, are or if they exist.

 

[Hume]

Correct but then 13.8B years has to go otherwise we need that discreet beginning.

Life might help illustrate the concept.

I’m one of the latest products of a 3 billion year old continuous history of life. 3 billion years of uninterrupted life produced me. But I, individually, am not 3 billion years old. I’m almost 40.

So like that, our 13 billion year old universe might be a product of a zillion year old universe, both serving as links in a chain with no discreet beginning.

There’s my shot.

 

[Noose001]

We come up with the age or displacement in time of our universe by measuring it from the theorized beginning of this one. So we have our two objects for juxtaposition.

Right?

Then that is really not a beginning but a change, an extension perhaps.

That’s not right as the other universes, if extant, are beyond the observable horizon. We don’t know how old which, if any, are or if they exist.

Even this universe has no observable horizon, just a projected one.

The real problem lies with time. Do you think time has a beginning? does time really start?

 

[Hume]

Then that is really not a beginning but a change, an extension perhaps.

That’s semantics.

Then by that rationale I’m not near-40. I’m 3 billion.

The real problem lies with time. Do you think time has a beginning? does time really start?

My personal view is that time is not an object unto itself. It’s a derived measure, like a kilometer. Kilometers don’t discreetly exist. Kilometers of roads and other things do, though.

I’m open to being wrong though. Gravity being a pull (from mass) when I was a kid and a push (from spacetime) when I was an adult taught me that anything can change.

 

[Noose001]

Life might help illustrate the concept.

I’m one of the latest products of a 3 billion year old continuous history of life. 3 billion years of uninterrupted life produced me. But I, individually, am not 3 billion years old. I’m almost 40.

So like that, our 13 billion year old universe might be a product of a zillion year old universe, both serving as links in a chain with no discreet beginning.

There’s my shot.

13 b years is 13 b years because you have to start from 0 and proceed to 1 and then 2. The duration from 0-1 is what we call a year and then similar duration 13billion times to today, unfortunately, when t=0, nothing happens. Nothing can change at all, so no beginning.

By mentioning 13 b years, you are already talking of a discreet beginning which in itself has problems.

 

[Hume]

By mentioning 13 b years, you are already talking of a discreet beginning which in itself has problems.

When I mention 13b years, I’m no more certain of the discreetness of that beginning than I am certain I’ve found the beginning of a bicycle chain when I’ve measured to the end of one link.

“But you don’t know there is a chain beyond our one link” you might reasonably reply.

And that’s quite right. I know literally nothing about what’s beyond that link. I don’t know there are other links, I don’t know there aren’t. I know literally nothing at all about it. Ergo claims on my part describing what’s beyond the end of the link like “this is impossible” or “that is necessary” are pretty much baseless.

 

[Noose001]

When I mention 13b years, I’m no more certain of the discreetness of that beginning than I am certain I’ve found the beginning of a bicycle chain when I’ve measured to the end of one link.

“But you don’t know there is a chain beyond our one link” you might reasonably reply.

And that’s quite right. I know literally nothing about what’s beyond that link. I don’t know there are other links, I don’t know there aren’t. I know literally nothing at all about it. Ergo claims on my part like “this is impossible” or “that is necessary” are pretty much baseless.

The point is, you can not get to 13, if you don’t start at 0.

The bicycle chain has a beginning and an end, you just need to view it during its fabrication.

 

[Hume]

The point is, you can not get to 13, if you don’t start at 0.

So given the age of life on earth, am I 40 or 3 billion? Where’s my “0”?

The bicycle chain has a beginning and an end

No it doesn’t.

 

[Noose001]

So given the age of life on earth, am I 40 or 3 billion?

Time as we know it, can only go as far back as human memory because it is non existent outside our collective consciousness. A billion years is a stretch of this memory.

Q. Does time itself have a beginning?

No it doesn’t.

Oh yes it does. As long as we have the first link, being connected to several others and finally the last link being connected to the first one, we have a beginning and an end.

So given the age of life on earth, am I 40 or 3 billion? Where’s my “0”?

40 is wrong just like 13 b is wrong. You say 40 because you have celebrated 40 birthdays, but when were you self aware? I’d propose slightly over 40 years ago, probably 6 months after conception but the truth is, there’s really no zero and 40 is not a thing, it just helps you plan.

 

[Hume]

Does time itself have a beginning?

Again, time is not a discrete object as best I can tell. It’s a measurement.

The universe it measures does seem to have a beginning. The state of affairs before or beyond (like gods and multiverses) is unknowable.

Oh yes it does.

Oh no it doesn’t.

You’re over-focusing on the obviously man-made nature of a chain.

Pick any circular thing. The full moon a week and a half ago. Where does the circular edge of the apparent moon start? Where does this begin?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

They don’t have starting places, as you seemed to understand a few posts ago.

As long as we have the first link

There is no first link. One link is no more particular or unique than another. I think you’re just trying to deliberately miss the point at this juncture.

40 is wrong just like 13 b is wrong. You say 40 because you have celebrated 40 birthdays, but when were you self aware? I’d propose slightly over 40 years ago, probably 6 months after conception but the truth is, there’s really no zero and 40 is not a thing, it just helps you plan.

Well, this leads credence to my view that time as a discrete thing doesn’t exist, so I can kinda dance to this with mild reservations.

 

[Noose001]

Again, time is not a discrete object as best I can tell. It’s a measurement.

But 13.8 is discreet. This is a contradiction.

The universe it measures does seem to have a beginning. The state of affairs before or beyond (like gods and multiverses) is unknowable.

The universe itself is contained in time. If time stops now (t=0), everything disappears. That shows you that it is not a measure independent from the object being measured.

Just like your own beginning, you can not p(name removed by moderator)oint but only refer to when you were self aware.

They don’t have starting places, as you seemed to understand a few posts ago.

Objects and shapes and everything exist in time and with respect to time, they all have a beginning and end, but they are not comparable with time because time has no shape and is not an object.
So, while you are talking of beginning and end with respect to symmetry, i was talking of beginning and end with respect to time.

The state of affairs before or beyond (like gods and multiverses) is unknowable.

But we can tell the conditions before the universe; it was probably dark and silent.

 

[Servant31]

I’ve done some science and tbh, I’m not sure. On the one hand I believe it’s likely that evolution has an effect on development of species. However I think God also designed this universe and he could have used evolution, but I’ve seen evidence that He actively intervenes on occasion. I have no idea how frequently this occurs.

However the unfortunate (imo) trend in the natural sciences has been to extrapolate beyond the scientific scope (Ie recognizing the limits of the methods). The tendency seems to be to go from understanding that something is outside of the scope of measure and test-ability, into “there is no evidence of this” with the innuendo that because there isn’t something testable that it automatically doesn’t exist (nullify in a certain way). There seems to be an increasing distaste for uncertainty and observational openness. The latter argument doesn’t respect the limitations that science has imho.

So I short I broadly believe in evolution with a real potential fir divine intervention when it suits His purposes.

 

[Hume]

But 13.8 is discreet. This is a contradiction.

…sigh…

13.8 is not a discrete thing. It’s not. You can’t give me a handful of 13.8, nor a jug of 13.8.

It’s a measurement.

You can give me 13.8 jellybeans. 13.8 cc’s of phenobarbital. 13.8 miles. 13.8 billion years.

The universe itself is contained in time.

It seems that time is simply a derivative measure of the universe. Big Universe, little time. Something the universe “produces” rather than is “contained by”.

You’ve swapped horse-and-cart here.

Objects and shapes and everything exist in time and with respect to time,

No they don’t. This can actually be somewhat demonstrated in a thought experiment.

You’re fixed in space in a radically simplified universe. Two giant celestial objects exist in the distance, but do not appear to move relative to each other nor relative to you.

It’s like 3 corners of a triangle are fixed, static, and are visible to each other.

Without displacement (movement) of some sort, you have no ability to observe and mark the passage of time. As time is a derivative measure, it then no longer exists.

But we can tell the conditions before the universe; it was probably dark and silent.

Wrong.

We have literally zero information about what’s beyond and before the universe.

Really bear down on that. You and I have zero information.