Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neruz]

Bauglir: Agreed, up to a certain point. Also see the piece about creation: even if science says the world is older than 6000yrs, doesn't mean that it really is. It's just undetectable. It's not for science to decide, either, science has no monopoly on knowledge (even though it's doing a good job).

Yes, it has a monopoly on knowledge. Religion doesn't provide knowledge, it provides beliefs, of which one may be as certain about as the existence of gravity, but are nevertheless not knowledge. There's nothing inherently worse about beliefs, when you're dealing with things that can't be known, and I don't think it's necessary to redefine words when useful ones already exist. But it is important to keep from trying to apply beliefs to things that can and are known.

Actually it provides Faith, important difference.

Faith is what you have in beliefs, the beliefs are the specific ideas and are more analogous to knowledge. Faith is something more akin to an assessment of a study's methods as reliable and appropriate.

Faith is belief in something without proof that your belief is justified.

@Neruz If you create a clay ashtray in kindergarten, do you become a part of it? Nature may be a part of God, but not necessarily the other way around.
Also, you place an enormous amount of belief and relevance to your perceptions. There are people who don't, and doing it too little will probably kill a man, but there are healthy balances where impreceptible things can still be part of one's worldview.

By definition, "The Universe" is everything, the lot, no exceptions. That includes God; if it doesn't include God, then it's not The Universe. The Universe is whatever set of values that includes everything within it.

I'm not talking the usual incorrect "Time and Space" Sci-Fi definition of 'Universe', i'm talking the proper definition; everything.

[Bauglir]

Bauglir: Agreed, up to a certain point. Also see the piece about creation: even if science says the world is older than 6000yrs, doesn't mean that it really is. It's just undetectable. It's not for science to decide, either, science has no monopoly on knowledge (even though it's doing a good job).

Yes, it has a monopoly on knowledge. Religion doesn't provide knowledge, it provides beliefs, of which one may be as certain about as the existence of gravity, but are nevertheless not knowledge. There's nothing inherently worse about beliefs, when you're dealing with things that can't be known, and I don't think it's necessary to redefine words when useful ones already exist. But it is important to keep from trying to apply beliefs to things that can and are known.

Actually it provides Faith, important difference.

Faith is what you have in beliefs, the beliefs are the specific ideas and are more analogous to knowledge. Faith is something more akin to an assessment of a study's methods as reliable and appropriate.

Faith is belief in something without proof that your belief is justified.

Precisely, and religion provides those things in which to have faith. The FOLLOWER supplies the faith itself.

[Siquo]

By definition, "The Universe" is everything, the lot, no exceptions. That includes God; if it doesn't include God, then it's not The Universe. The Universe is whatever set of values that includes everything within it.

I'm not talking the usual incorrect "Time and Space" Sci-Fi definition of 'Universe', i'm talking the proper definition; everything.

According to science it isn't. But I'm glad you're finally sharing some personal beliefs here, that deviate from the Scientific method and dogmas.

@IronyOwl: The function of science is to create objects that might be useful? So you adhere to the utilitarian view of science? But that view excludes the objective truth of science, because it does not matter for a computer to be "true" or "exist" or not, as long as it works. Your view of an objective reality is simply that, your view. An animalistic person might look at your dissolving liquid and say: "that's not a dissolving liquid, it's a demon trapped in water that eats metal". You will not be able to convince him with every textbook and chemistry set in the world that it's really a dissolving liquid. Another might say: there is no spoon. Before and after you dissolved it.


The spoon did give me an idea though. If you replaced "God" with "The Matrix" throughout the discussion, the difference is zero. There is something external, the current universe is an illusion, but you cannot study the outside with science because the only interactions our world has with the outside are incidental  glitches, and unpredictable.

[Neruz]

By definition, "The Universe" is everything, the lot, no exceptions. That includes God; if it doesn't include God, then it's not The Universe. The Universe is whatever set of values that includes everything within it.

I'm not talking the usual incorrect "Time and Space" Sci-Fi definition of 'Universe', i'm talking the proper definition; everything.

According to science it isn't.

Yes it is. The scientific definition of "The Universe" is "Everything".


You're probably getting 'Universe' confused with 'Cosmos'. Most people do; thanks to science fiction shows.

[Siquo]

No, I am not. The Universe according to science is everything that science can cover. Things such as the invisible matrix that are not independently testable fall outside of the range of science and are therefore not part of its universe.

[Neruz]

No, I am not. The Universe according to science is everything that science can cover. Things such as the invisible matrix that are not independently testable fall outside of the range of science and are therefore not part of its universe.

Ah, back to this bullshit.

Did it ever occur to you that being unable to measure something is, in itself, a measurement?

If it interacts with the Universe, it is a part of the Universe. And it can be measured, even if the only measurement that can be made is that it cannot be measured.

--EDIT--

To clarify; in order for something to not be a part of the Universe, it must not interact with the Universe in any way. This means it has no effect on anything, ever, it can never be percieved, and it can never even be thought of. For all intents and purposes, and all practicalities, such a thing does not, never has and never will exist. In fact as inhabitants of the Universe, to us that is pretty much the very definition of 'does not exist'.

[Bauglir]

No, I am not. The Universe according to science is everything that science can cover. Things such as the invisible matrix that are not independently testable fall outside of the range of science and are therefore not part of its universe.

Yeah, no, the Universe is the  largest possible closed system, such that all things are contained within it. Nothing meaningful can be outside the Universe, because anything that affects the Universe must necessarily be part of that system (or else there would be a larger possible closed system, the Universe and the thing affecting it).

[Siquo]

Yeah, no, the Universe is the  largest possible closed system, such that all things are contained within it. Nothing meaningful can be outside the Universe, because anything that affects the Universe must necessarily be part of that system (or else there would be a larger possible closed system, the Universe and the thing affecting it).

Closed systems 
As far as we know, closed systems have never been sighted. It's a model, a scientific construct.

The universe is not a scientific construct. It is something else.

What your display here is 'scientism'; the view that the methods of the natural sciences may be applied to all areas of investigation, be it philosophical, social scientific, or otherwise.

[Bauglir]

Yeah, no, the Universe is the  largest possible closed system, such that all things are contained within it. Nothing meaningful can be outside the Universe, because anything that affects the Universe must necessarily be part of that system (or else there would be a larger possible closed system, the Universe and the thing affecting it).

Closed systems 
As far as we know, closed systems have never been sighted. It's a model, a scientific construct.

The universe is not a scientific construct. It is something else.

Yes, closed systems have never been sighted because everything we are capable of observing is within the universe. What's a practical limitation have to do with defining concepts? Any completely closed system WOULD be the universe, that's my entire point, which I suspect you've missed. Anything less than that would not be the universe.

What your display here is 'scientism'; the view that the methods of the natural sciences may be applied to all areas of investigation, be it philosophical, social scientific, or otherwise.

No, I haven't. I didn't say anything about non-scientific areas when defining the universe.

[Siquo]

To put it in another way: The universe has never been observed as a whole. How can you be so sure that it's closed?

[Bauglir]

To put it in another way: The universe has never been observed as a whole. How can you be so sure that it's closed?

Because how else would I define the Universe than as Everything?

[Siquo]

You could define it as cosmos. Or as natural reality (all matter and energy). Or as the multiverse. Or as the Creation. Or as your own mind. Or as your own life.

[Bauglir]

You could define it as cosmos. Or as natural reality (all matter and energy). Or as the multiverse. Or as the Creation. Or as your own mind. Or as your own life.

Why should I? Remember, we're arguing about the scientific definition of the universe. Which you claimed to be something it isn't.

[Grek]

How can you be so sure that it's closed?

If we define the universe as a system containing absolutely everything which interacts with the system, directly or indirectly, than there is, by definition, nothing which interacts with some part of the universe which is not a part of the universe. If there is nothing outside the system influencing it, than it must be a closed system.

[Siquo]

If we define the universe as a system containing absolutely everything which interacts with the system, directly or indirectly, than there is, by definition, nothing which interacts with some part of the universe which is not a part of the universe. If there is nothing outside the system influencing it, than it must be a closed system.

If I define a closed box, then it's closed.
It's still not real.  I know this is hard, but I'm pretty sure that there is always someone outside of your box. "Then my box increases in size to contain that!", well, there's still someone outside of your box. Ad Infinitum.

Neruz: You are (AGAIN!) confusing your own ideas with science. Read about reality, and how you use two of the zillions of definitions at the same time.

Bauglir I'm saying that the scientific definition of the Universe excludes God, even though God can influence the Universe.
From the linked article:

Eternal beings, if they exist, would need to be described by some method other than scientific.