Jul 10, 2011 -- 3:35AM, Blü wrote:

Jim

If you believe in an objective materialistic universe, then the real substance of this  universe is independent of the tools we use to examine it.

That indeed is how I picture it.  But we're still working it out.

Science reaches its conclusions from the consistency of the examples with the hypothesis - which is to say, inductively.  Thus one counterexample can require anything from a little trimming to a totally new hypothesis.  This is an unavoidable aspect of inductive procedures.

So we used to know that fire was due to the presence of phlogiston, that light waves moved in the lumeniferous aether, that the earth's crust was a uniform solid &c, and now we know better, and tomorrow we hope to know better again.  Truth in physics means the best opinion for the time being. Unlike best opinions in many other fields, the opinions of science are testable / falsifiable, so progress is possible.

I don't disagree with your logic.  What I disagree with, however, is your refusal to accept that there are probably many things in the universe of which we are currently ignorant.  If you were to acknowledge this statement, the conclusion would be that we cannot arbitrarily disallow the possible existence of some factor/property/characteristic which we have not discovered yet, on the basis that it is currently unknown.

Jul 10, 2011 -- 9:27PM, Blü wrote:

Jim

I disagree with [...]  your refusal to accept that there are probably many things in the  universe of which we are currently ignorant.

Of that I have no doubt.  Whatever dark matter and dark energy turn out to be, the hunt they've provoked will demonstrate your point admirably.

The question here is of categories.  No examinable evidence suggests that supernatural beings have objective existence at all, and on all our present knowledge the only thing they can otherwise be is imaginary. I acknowledge that it's possible we may look at tomorrow's news and see  some discovery suggesting a third way of existing in addition to  these.  But I'd be very very surprised.

Hypotheses examined in modern physics include the extra dimensions of M-theory and the multiple universes of quantum theory.  But if gods existed in either of those, they'd still be within physics, within nature ie they wouldn't be supernatural, just superscientists.

So Blu you believe science has something to say about the divine? When you say no evidence you mean science evidence right?

So why is it on Origins of Life I am always being told that science can have nothing to say about Gods, if it has nothing at all to say, how can you say it has something to say, such as this

"No examinable evidence suggests that supernatural beings have objective  existence at all, and on all our present knowledge the only thing they  can otherwise be is imaginary."

???

Jim

I don't know of any way to prove or disprove such a possibility.

Nor do I.  It's in the same basket as other self-aware simulations - cripes, what if we only exist as the failed experiment of a being who only exists in a computer simulation that only exists in someone's dream?

I think it's one of those problems that can safely be ignored until we have some good reason to think such things might be the case.

Lets summarize:

Science:

TransJ: Idealism sees it as starting as an instinctive belief in the intelligibility of reality which moves us to inquiry.

 Blu: So a human in his subjective internal realm looks out, sees the objective external realm, and says, With sensory data and reason I'll see how much of this I can figure out.  I agree with that.

Next we sense a need for coherent systematic thought

We've evolved to be capable of coherent systematic thought and after much trial and error many of us conclude it's the best way to proceed with such a project.

followed by an  interest in phenomena for their own sake.

It's called curiosity; thanks to evolution each of us has it.

Ending in detailed and precise observations and experiments.

Okay, we agree science is a neutral method of observations and experiments.

Then the assertion that materialism is the idea that reality is coextensive with the realm of the physical sciences or the assertion that Idealism is the idea that reality is coextensive with the realm of the physical sciences. Are both invalid because they violate the neutrality of the scientific method.

Universe and its parts:

I don't think your left shoe exhibits the same phenomena as Alpha Centauri, so they should be distinguishable in principle.  But neither your left shoe nor Alpha Centauri is the universe.  The universe has parts.

The whole of reality is the sum of its parts and the relationships and interactions of those parts.

Yes, the universe has parts and Yes, no part in and of itself can be the sum of the universe. The universe is more than the sum of its parts. Just like thought is more than the sum of brain parts and life is more than the sum of body parts.  The whole is the source of the parts and the whole is more than any of its parts or the sum of the parts.

Materialism:

Democritean theory: An atom (particle) is a bit of extension (being) in the void (non-being).

When I say 'material' I mean 'having objective existence'...

As I told you, my concept of materialism is that the only entities and processes that exist in the universe are those recognized...

As for your sentence above, I don't know what 'extension' means -  dimensionality?  If so, I certainly don't think that...

I can only assume, by your rejection of extension and the primary position that you give to objective existence. That you are talking about the entities and processes of empty space. Yes, I would agree that empty space can exist objectively but I disagree with it being empty. 

TransJ

We don't seem to be moving forward.

Scientific method is designed to be an impartial method of enquiry into reality.  If by 'neutral' you mean impartial then no problem.

The idea that only those entities and processes exist that are recognized by physics / are within the realm of the physical sciences has no conflict with scientific method - on the contrary it says scientific method is the ONLY reliable way to go that we presently know.

I don't know what consequences that has for your idealism because (as ( said) I still don't understand what you mean by idealism.

The universe is more than the sum of its parts.

But it's not more than the sum of its parts and their relationship to and interaction with each other.

I can only assume, by your rejection of extension and the primary position that you give to objective existence. That you are talking about the entities and processes of empty space.

Ya blindsided me there, pardner - I have no idea how you got to that thought.

We agreed, did we not, that by 'extension' you meant 'dimensionality'?  And I explained at some length what I meant by 'subjective' and 'objective', did I not?  And I don't remember mentioning empty space but if I did you might kindly refresh my memory.

But if we suddenly want to talk about empty space, it doesn't seem to be empty - our maths imply that it has the 'energy of the vacuum' and the Casimir effect seems to give substantial backing to that idea, I just don't see its relevance.

It had seemed to me to this point that objectivity / subjectivity were the central things we were discussing.  Since that doesn't seem to be the case, I'm not sure what we're talking about.