MatthewLee
New Member
AronRa said:“When David Hume, (and atheist himself) described what he called the problem of induction, he explained that we have no choice but to make the same assumption as a child or a beast would, because we must. Therefore Hume's answer is to favor consistency. That everything we do in life is based on the assumption that we can learn from experience and that the future will conform to the past. We can't even go about our day otherwise.
In the words of Dr Peter Millican, professor of Philosophy at Oxford, "the rational thing to do is accept that we are part of nature and that this assumption is one that we simply cannot live without. So we should systematize what we learn about the world in conformity with our model of an assumption of consistently uniform laws of nature. Hume himself advocates that we must assume this," and "it gives a reliable basis for preferring science to superstition".
In Hume's own words,
"Custom, then, is the great guide of human life. It is that principle alone, which renders our experience useful to us, and makes us expect, for the future, a similar train of events with those which have appeared in the past.
Without the influence of custom, we should be entirely ignorant of every matter of fact, beyond what is immediately present to the memory and senses. We should never know how to adjust means to ends, or to employ our natural powers in the production of any effect. There would be an end at once of all action, as well as of the chief part of speculation."
He also explains how, by this assumption, we can actually do and know things reliably and without resorting to any logical fallacy.
"But here it may be proper to remark, that though our conclusions from experience carry us beyond our memory and senses, and assure us of matters of fact, which happened in the most distant places and most remote ages; yet some fact must always be present to the senses or memory, from which we may first proceed in drawing these conclusions. A man, who should find in a desert country the remains of pompous buildings, would conclude, that the country had, in ancient times, been cultivated by civilized inhabitants; but did nothing of this nature occur to him, he could never form such an inference. We learn the events of former ages from history; but then we must peruse the volumes, in which this instruction is contained, and thence carry up our inferences from one testimony to another, till we arrive at the eye-witnesses and spectators of these distant events. In a word, if we proceed not upon some fact, present to the memory or senses, our reasonings would be merely hypothetical; and however the particular links might be connected with each other, the whole chain of inferences would have nothing to support it, nor could we ever, by its means, arrive at the knowledge of any real existence."
http://davidhume.org/texts/ehu.html
Another thing Sye ten Bruggencate liked to say was, "how do you know the laws of physics won't change five seconds from now." But of course if we assume that the laws of physics WILL change, that would be irrational, as it is not based on or in accordance with reason, and it violates all experience on which our knowledge is based. Further someone determined not to assume any degree of uniformitarianism would likewise be perceived as insane and incapable, since it would be impossible to get anything done.
So of course I have to side with the pragmatist. Since Hume said we must inevitably and irresistibly assume uniformitarianism, and since it is impossible not to make this assumption and still function, then induction could be considered the only rational position by definition, especially since assuming anything else would be considered irrational.”
Uniformitarianism is an unprovable postulate which cannot be verified using scientific method. I got that from the Wiki but it’s actually really in tune with this discussion. Beyond that flaw, however, a fundamental flaw of uniformitarianism is that we are basing our assumption that the universe has always operated under this set of laws from a quite small amount of time. If the Earth has been here for four billion years we have been here really studying it to any great effect for only about 2000. That means we are basing our assumptions on the universe on a sample of only .0000005% of just the lifespan of the Earth. At even just a round 13 billion years we are basing out impressions of the universe on just .00000015% of all the time that we believe has happened. Would you base any other scientific model on .00000015% of observable data and call it comprehensive?
Sye makes a valid point. We cannot establish a consistent proof that physics has always, or will always work the same even five minutes from now on such a small data set. It is at least true that we must have the assumption that the universe will act consistently to get through the day but we have to realize that for what it is, an entirely unprovable assumption that makes us sleep better at night. With respect, and I mean no offense, but this is the definition of a belief. It is a belief that requires faith because you can’t ever prove it. It is a presupposition and I hear Sye knows something about that.
I am confused as to why a Christian named himself Sye Ten. Generally, I suppose much of what he says confuses me. I recently saw a video of him accosting Penn about his health. I was mortified for Penn, I always liked him.
Beyond him, the existence debate is an interesting problem when seen from a mathematical standpoint.
To go beyond the understood laws of physics doesn’t require much. We have only understood physics as we currently do since about the 1920's. To go beyond the understood laws of physics in 1780 all you had to do was create a basic radio frequency oscillator and receiver. You’d have burned at the stake as a witch. We still don’t fully understand why the electromagnetic force functions but we know that it’s there and that they are a real and interactive part of the universe which can be demonstrably relied upon to function predictably. We can predict them with great accuracy, but that doesn't mean we understand their origin or true cause.
We say the words “space/time” like it’s a real thing made of matter. Space/time is a manifold. It’s a mathematical structure with no reality to it. It’s just a model. Gravity happens because space/time warps. What is actually warping? We have no idea and effects like gravity and electromagnetism, concepts like the quantum foam hint that there must be something we can’t interact with. These effects may not originate in our dimensional reality. They may have their effect grounded in a higher or lower dimensional reality. This may also be the case with magic.
I studied higher math from vector calculus to topology. I enjoyed calculus, but topology was a stretch too far. It’s about the study of closeness and that is the best I can do to describe it. We also got into manifold calculus, the stuff they use for relativity. It’s not something any sane person should attempt. It’s scary. In this study we described dimensionality in some detail and I learned that an ‘alternate dimension’ wasn’t just a concept from a comic book that needed a place for Bizarro Superman to come from.
In learning about what infinity really is and what it really means mathematically, the concept of a multidimensional universe almost seems necessary. The universe is a tiny little pond. I once heard a great metaphor about this from a Chinese friend. I can’t recall who said the story but it was something like this.
Imagine a sparrow flies into the desert and picks up one grain of sand and flies to the sea and drops it in. When the sparrow finally finishes and the desert is empty an infinite amount of time will not yet have begun.
So an infinite amount of time and and infinite amount of space are inconceivable to us. We, therefore, measure time and space on the metric of what is near our size. We think things like: atoms are small and Jupiter is pretty big, the galaxy is immense, thirteen billion years is a long time… ect. Compared to infinity we are a tiny, muddy little pond and there must be many, many more ponds like this or perhaps completely different. This is true even if there is only one more dimension than ours and forces like electromagnetism and gravity strongly suggest to me that there are.
This is how I look at it (and I may be outright stealing inspiration for these ideas from Michio Kaku without citing him so credit to him but in my own less intelligent paraphrasing):
This is a conceptual exercise so you don't need to debate the reality of it. It's imperfect in the way all metaphors are... but it's still just a metaphor.
In a purely math universe any drawn cube is symbolically made up of an infinite number of tiny slices of two dimensional squares. Imagine we choose a two parsec cube of this universe and in one of the myriad tiny square slices life emerges. This happens because the conditions of the three dimensional universe passing through it have created a situation which has randomly fine-tuned it to allow life to evolve. Perhaps two nebulae have impacted one another at the dimensional boundary and the combining organic molecules and resultant thermal energy reacted in a primordial film which spawned the first self-replicating two dimensional macromolecules. How it started isn't relevant, it started.
So… imagine we have a two dimensional reality now in which there are organisms which have developed to intelligence through some two dimensional Darwinian process. The universe in which these beings exist has length and width but no depth, sort of like a piece of paper.
Imagine that it’s Saturday night in paper land. A man is sitting in his chair drinking two dimensional wine. His bottle of wine sits on a table. I, a three dimensional being, reach into his house and pull the bottle from his dimension into ours. Effectively it would have disappeared magically to him. Then imagine if I decided to take the same bottle of wine and place it back into his world directly behind him. It would look as if the wine magically poofed from one place to the next.
I could do things that would be inexplicable and impossible to prove in his world because they would have no instrument which could perceive or measure them. They could only measure anything meaningful at the places I crossed their plane anyway for the same reason that they also could not interact with me directly. To interact with me outside their plane would require them to gain a third dimension. Their minds, by virtue of the dimensional limitation, would be unable to comprehend or even contain the full truth of my reality and I am only one dimension up the food chain.
Now imagine that they can’t understand what I am.. but they can find a way to interact with me. For example, say I find a way to write in their language or to communicate through whatever they use for speech. I could inject ideas into their universe, and they could communicate back. Now imagine I gave them specific symbols they could use to communicate with me so that I could know what they want done. That would mean that it would seem some people could summon supernatural forces. There is no magic involved, just higher dimensional configurations of intelligent beings interacting with lower dimensional consciousness. Any higher being would know that showing themselves to the general public, however, would be dangerous so they would restrict their displays to those who were ready to accept them without freaking out and breaking mentally. People of faith.
Faith and superstition are different. Superstition makes a fearful and cowering claim that anthropomorphized forces of nature are able to be petitioned and are as capricious as humans. This claim comes from ignorance and powerlessness and it is usually not a method to create long lived theology. It usually results in failed crops and starvation and death from small-pox. Those who study metaphysics, on the other hand, believe that it may be true that higher planes cross this one and the beings there attempt to communicate or otherwise interact with us.
True adherents to spirituality have recognized that the universe we see around us may not be the ultimate level and we diligently seek for accounts and evidence of encounters which would seem to represent higher beings making contact. We are like the multidimensional version of SETI. SEDI, hey, I like that! Shamanism is built on the belief that nature is full of spirits and that you can communicate with them and petition them for favors. The wealth of Shamanic traditions around the world share some other interesting parallels along this line as well. For example, they use mind expanding substances to increase their perceptive abilities so they can catch even a small bit of what the higher dimensional beings are trying to communicate.
Even Wiccan’s petition some gods. Crowley used drugs and rituals to contact these forces but he started out as part of a society called the Golden Dawn. The Golden Dawn was an even older Hermetic society which sought to practice things like Theurgy which sought to contact higher beings through ritual magic. The Golden Dawn wasn’t filled with dilettante social outcasts looking for a place to gather either. It was a well-established spiritual society with adherents like Yeats. I have to think these folks wouldn’t have wasted their time on this stuff if they didn’t see some results. They must have seen something that kept them, the intelligentsia of their day, coming back for more.
Some societies have had reasonably consistent experiences with higher beings over long periods of time and written it down. If we look at the holy books passed down to us we see that most Scripture is essentially an attempt to communicate deeper wisdom that was passed down from higher powers through metaphors over long periods of time. That's why they always seem to transcend their medium. Truly lasting scripture is rigorously preserved documentation of hard to write off experiences with higher beings. The experiences of these Scriptures over time seem to lead in a chain of growing understanding that you can't always trust the voices that come through the veil.
I feel that at the end of this chain of accounts of human interaction with higher dimensionality is the Bible which says, “The universe you live in is a construct. It was intelligently designed. There is one Creator or designer of this sea monkey tank and He and His servants are who you can trust. All the other higher beings you are trying to interact with mean you harm.
They are like disgruntled employees who want to kill the sea monkeys to see the ex-boss fail.” You can contact any intelligence you want but only a fool assumes they don’t mean us harm for some reason.
If the universe was populated with many more levels of intelligence and we didn’t know the landscape or politics of their reality we could find ourselves in trouble right quick. For a crass example:
If we try to interact with higher dimensional beings we are like a visually, partially hearing impaired person walking through New York City at night with a shirt on that says “I am visually and partially hearing impaired, can you lead me?” Would you trust the first voice to talk to you? That could get you killed. You’d need to vet them a bit.
If we believe the sum total of observed phenomena are enough to give us sufficient understanding of the universe I feel that it is denying a fundamental commonality of experience in the thread of spirituality which runs, and has run, through every society to ever exist. Our reality is not the ultimate one, it seems to me. I think that if we believe it is we are neglecting an infinite universe beyond the little pond that we know and that infinite universe may have someone in it who wants to show us something more if we just make ourselves willing to listen.