Controversial Opinions on Life

[Dak]

Why does this apply to supernatural/divine realms or entities, but not to human-made constructs or institutions? I, personally, feel that what many (including myself) might call our pitfalls of illusion and ideology are rooted in our very consciousness, making them essential components of our cognitive existence. To attempt to break through these ideological barriers and arrive at some pristine, primeval, objective Truth would result in the death of consciousness (as we understand it, being trapped within it).

I don't follow this line of thinking it all. Shattering an illusion may cause the mental destruction of some, but it would not be the "death of consciousness". Consciousness would merely be unable to cope with the new information and would lock up in the "denial" phase".

Thus, in my opinion, social constructs and divine constructs spawn from the same source (and I would categorize divine constructs as social constructs).

Religion is a societal construct of course, but a literal divine stands apart.

Both characterizations stand, in my opinion (providing the entity is real):

If it is a supranatural entity whose actions and decisions (or what we perceive as such) lie beyond our comprehension, then you have no way of knowing what it wants, and you should be skeptical of it.

If it is an entity that actually possesses anthropomorphic qualities (and we haven't simply projected these onto it) then you have to take into account the fact that it might choose to deceive you because you did something to annoy it, or displease it; or, finally, it has no achievements in mind. Its intentions are simply for its own satisfaction. If this is the case, you should be skeptical of it.

Furthermore, provided it is actually a social construct that is a figment of some complex processes taking place within your mind, you should be skeptical of it.

The final argument being, as you've already said, that if we haven't had our own experience, you can't possibly explain it to us; to which I have no retort.

Belief, I have so specify though, is more persuasive if the subject possessing the belief expresses that she does not "know" the object of her belief. To know and to believe are very different. Belief requires ignorance, but not a negative ignorance. In belief, ignorance assumes a positive form. That which you do not know becomes the support for your belief.

What is gained by being skeptical if there is no benchmark for testing? I may as well go ahead and outright accept or deny the experience. Now, to claim you have a complete understanding of your experience(s) would be rather ignorant, in a negative way, since to claim you could fully understand the divine would be boastful at the least.

@Sap: How does it "Destroy science"? It would obviously destroy much in the way of various religious dogma.

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

Science becomes completely irrelevant in an infinite multiverse. Sure, science could be used to explain the mechanics of 1 universe, but would not apply in any other.

 

[Vimana]

I think that's a little too absolute. We don't know for sure if science could be used in another universe or not.

 

[Vossyrus]

Science, quite simply, is just learning about things and figuring out how stuff works. This approach would work in any environment or universe.

 

[Dak]

Science, quite simply, is just learning about things and figuring out how stuff works. This approach would work in any environment or universe.

This.

 

[Vimana]

Multiverse is ultimately speculation, and I don't think it really is that relevant to the reality science is currently investigating.

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't follow this line of thinking it all. Shattering an illusion may cause the mental destruction of some, but it would not be the "death of consciousness". Consciousness would merely be unable to cope with the new information and would lock up in the "denial" phase".

The concept of absolute Truth, the immense totality of knowledge, would witness the dissipation of consciousness as a whole because consciousness is in part, the configuration of knowlege. Knowledge, by definition, requires lack; people mistakenly believe that omniscience is simply the highest degree of knowledge, but this isn't true. The truth is, omniscience is opposed to knowledge in that it is the complete filling out of the symbolic realm.

What is gained by being skeptical if there is no benchmark for testing? I may as well go ahead and outright accept or deny the experience. Now, to claim you have a complete understanding of your experience(s) would be rather ignorant, in a negative way, since to claim you could fully understand the divine would be boastful at the least.

This is dangerous, in my opinion. Even if we can't know the nature of the other (or whatever you wish to call it) doesn't mean we can't hypothesize as to its existence. And acknowledging the fact that we don't know it should lead us to be skeptical toward it.

Science, quite simply, is just learning about things and figuring out how stuff works. This approach would work in any environment or universe.

I disagree. This is the definition of empiricism and inductive reasoning.

I believe Sap is referring to the set of physical laws that comprise our "scientific" understanding of the universe, the establishment of those laws, and that, despite the fact that we observe them in this universe, there is no reason they exist or hold true in others.

Furthermore, knowledge, in this sense, is nothing more than an invention. Knowledge has no origin and no epitome or culmination; rather, it simply is the way our conscious grasping at the physical universe orders itself in a way that is comprehensive to us. Knowledge is not inherent in human nature, but results (somewhat whimsically) from the interplay of deep, instinctual and physiological forces and drives.

In a sense, knowledge is a kind of accident.

 

[Vossyrus]

So what if our understanding of this universe doesn't apply to other universes? At various points in time people didn't fully understand how certain things worked here, but over the years began to make sense of it. I really don't see how it would be any different. There's always going to be new challenges.

 

[Einherjar86]

True, but I think Sap was referring to applying laws which we perceive in our universe to entities or beings in other universes.

 

[Vossyrus]

True, but I think Sap was referring to applying laws which we perceive in our universe to entities or beings in other universes.

Ok, but if you're a scientist I don't think you would necessarily expect other universes to work in accordance with the understanding of our universe. I think you would first observe, study and so on, and then draw conclusions after, not the other way around. However, I would assume that there probably are similarities between different universes just as there usually are between smaller components that work to serve something greater. So it would help to know what we already know, even if it's just a base understanding. But regardless of whether or not our universe is similar or entirely different, science is about progress and furthering our understanding of things. It's a rather versatile way of thinking actually, and really, nothing is set in stone.

 

[Dak]

The concept of absolute Truth, the immense totality of knowledge, would witness the dissipation of consciousness as a whole because consciousness is in part, the configuration of knowlege. Knowledge, by definition, requires lack; people mistakenly believe that omniscience is simply the highest degree of knowledge, but this isn't true. The truth is, omniscience is opposed to knowledge in that it is the complete filling out of the symbolic realm.

So essentially what your saying, is that to know everything is to know nothing?

This is dangerous, in my opinion. Even if we can't know the nature of the other (or whatever you wish to call it) doesn't mean we can't hypothesize as to its existence. And acknowledging the fact that we don't know it should lead us to be skeptical toward it.

Again, what is the benchmark for comparison, questioning, reasoning?

I disagree. This is the definition of empiricism and inductive reasoning.

I believe Sap is referring to the set of physical laws that comprise our "scientific" understanding of the universe, the establishment of those laws, and that, despite the fact that we observe them in this universe, there is no reason they exist or hold true in others.

Furthermore, knowledge, in this sense, is nothing more than an invention. Knowledge has no origin and no epitome or culmination; rather, it simply is the way our conscious grasping at the physical universe orders itself in a way that is comprehensive to us. Knowledge is not inherent in human nature, but results (somewhat whimsically) from the interplay of deep, instinctual and physiological forces and drives.

In a sense, knowledge is a kind of accident.

I understand "science" to be the application of the Scientific Method, and the results thereof. I doubt that this process is only restricted to this universe, if there is a "multiverse".

 

[Einherjar86]

Ok, but if you're a scientist I don't think you would necessarily expect other universes to work in accordance with the understanding of our universe. I think you would first observe, study and so on, and then draw conclusions after, not the other way around. However, I would assume that there probably are similarities between different universes just as there usually are between smaller components that work to serve something greater. So it would help to know what we already know, even if it's just a base understanding. But regardless of whether or not our universe is similar or entirely different, science is about progress and furthering our understanding of things. It's a rather versatile way of thinking actually, and really, nothing is set in stone.

But induction actually doesn't prove anything. Induction hasn't necessarily proven that gravity is real; we just observe some phenomenon taking place and we've come to label it "gravity." We might observe a similar phenomenon taking place in a different universe, but to label it gravity might be entirely misleading, since we don't yet really understand much of the metaphysics of gravity.

So essentially what your saying, is that to know everything is to know nothing?

I'm saying it's logically impossible to know everything; the very notion of a kind of omniscience or pure, absolute Truth is opposed to our concept of knowledge.

Again, what is the benchmark for comparison, questioning, reasoning?

All I'm saying is any comparison or observation should be called into doubt rathern than accepted as a kind of axiom on which we deduce further conclusions.

I understand "science" to be the application of the Scientific Method, and the results thereof. I doubt that this process is only restricted to this universe, if there is a "multiverse".

I'm saying it's completely unfounded to apply this method to another universe, or reality, whatever, when we know for a fact that the scientific method doesn't guarantee accurate results in this universe.

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

How do you use the scientific method to observe a universe with non-linear time, or one that is constructed of dark matter?

EDIT:

I'm saying it's completely unfounded to apply this method to another universe, or reality, whatever, when we know for a fact that the scientific method doesn't guarantee accurate results in this universe.

That's pretty much what I'm trying to say.

 

[Dak]

But induction actually doesn't prove anything. Induction hasn't necessarily proven that gravity is real; we just observe some phenomenon taking place and we've come to label it "gravity." We might observe a similar phenomenon taking place in a different universe, but to label it gravity might be entirely misleading, since we don't yet really understand much of the metaphysics of gravity.

We wouldn't have to assume it's gravity, since labels are arbitrary anyway. But we can observe, form hypothesis, etc.

I'm saying it's logically impossible to know everything; the very notion of a kind of omniscience or pure, absolute Truth is opposed to our concept of knowledge.

Impossible for a human of course, I don't know where you are going with this line.

All I'm saying is any comparison or observation should be called into doubt rathern than accepted as a kind of axiom on which we deduce further conclusions.

So what do you purpose as the basis for questioning? Or we could forever question everything, and never set one foot in front of the other, uncertain as to whether gravity is not a relative constant on this planet.

when we know for a fact that the scientific method doesn't guarantee accurate results in this universe.

Yet some forget this.....

 

[Vossyrus]

But induction actually doesn't prove anything. Induction hasn't necessarily proven that gravity is real; we just observe some phenomenon taking place and we've come to label it "gravity." We might observe a similar phenomenon taking place in a different universe, but to label it gravity might be entirely misleading, since we don't yet really understand much of the metaphysics of gravity.

I think you're trying to complicate things. Science isn't by any means perfect, and mistakes/missteps are a natural part of the learning process, but with it people are working towards a better understanding of how things work. I think it's necessary to label as such so we're able to learn and educate each other in a far more efficient manner. Can you really think of a better way to learn about our surroundings?

Even if scientists did observe something like gravity in another universe, they probably wouldn't call it gravity, and if they did only to later realize that it is very different, they would then call it something else and explain why it's different to the best of their ability. However, it would definitely help to know about gravity
(what we believe it to be), otherwise we might as well just call everything magic or "an act of god".

 

[Tonka Time]

Define prove.

To know everything and nothing is not possible for humans.
To accomplish this would have to take place after death.

To know Everything would also include knowing non-existence. In other words not even knowing nothing.
Try to even slightly comprehend this

 

[Einherjar86]

Impossible for a human of course, I don't know where you are going with this line.

All I was trying to do was argue that for a human mind to theoretically understand/know everything would result in the death of consciousness (i.e. the death of the human subject). You originally said you didn't follow that line of thinking, but almost everything you've said has been in accordance with what I was saying.

So what do you purpose as the basis for questioning? Or we could forever question everything, and never set one foot in front of the other, uncertain as to whether gravity is not a relative constant on this planet.

I think one can sustain a positive existence despite skepticism. Being doubtful of the conditions of our existence doesn't mean we should curl into a ball and cry in a corner all our lives. It means being cautious and doubtful as to the truth of our actions and intentions.

 

[skeptik]

Anybody who suggests that the existence of a multiverse renders "science" obsolete is a god damn moron. Or doesn't understand the way "science" works.

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

Well, I was just asking if it would. The general consensus seems to be no, so that answers my question.

 

[skeptik]

If you were merely asking a question, then I apologize for being rude. I mistakenly thought you were being declarative.

While it is true that the "science" that we understand in this universe may not necessarily apply to other universes, that does not mean that, if we actually had access to other universes, we would be incapable of studying them and accurately (to our observations) defining their unique properties. To do so may actually help to better understand the way that our own universe looks.