I liked the assumptions of Thunderfoot (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPs73RBAFGM)

He states that

  • Universe exist
  • You can learn something from the universe
  • You can make models of predictive capabilities

Of course, Thunderfoot is extremely intelligent and I have watched several of his videos. It is very inspiring. However, I am not so happy with the assumptions, because it is from the human point of view, like learning and making predictive models.

 

I am just thinking about my assumptions about the universe: Does it make sense.

1. The universe Exist

2. The universe has physical (and chemical) laws. It does not matter whether we know or we do not know teh laws yet.

3. Evolution of life (biology) is adaptation within the constraints of the universal laws (physics and chemistry).

 

UPDATED:

After several discussions, I am updating the assumptions: Does it make sense, now.

1. The universe Exist

 

2. The universe has physical (and chemical) interactions. [ PEOPLE can study the interactions and  build laws of the interactions. People can develop tools and methods to predict the interactions]

 

3. Evolution of life (biology) is adaptation within the constraints of the universal laws (physics and chemistry).

 

Views: 178

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I think your assumptions are not far from the assumptions made by Thunderfoot.  

1. The universe Exist

This statement assumes this universe is known by everyone which I think could be true.

2. The universe has physical (and chemical) laws. It does not matter whether we know or we do not know the laws yet.

I this is similar to thunderfoot except you have narrowed down the laws.

3. Evolution of life (biology) is adaptation within the constraints of the universal laws (physics and chemistry).

You have chosen one of the models

I have decided to put these laws, because then the way we gather information is different.

In Thunderfoot assumptions, it is relative to the human being trying to build predictive models.

We do not necessary need to make models that fit mathematically and agree with our way of understanding. I am trying to look at these laws where non-human, example animals are trying to adapt within the laws. They adapt to some laws of physics and chemistry. For example, Birds do not build model similar to us. They somehow managed to understand and adapt to gravity in order to fly, but we have to invent machines in later stages. They also adapt to magnetic field to guide them. A spider has understood the laws of mechanics better than us and can make silk. we are just learning what they have developed. I was just reading that a mole can have stereoscopic smell. In some sense not all animals master all the laws, but they master some of the laws better than others. Plants have adapted to harvest photons. Think of a tiny beetle guided by the Milky way to move in a straight line, that's something. Now when we think about dark matter and dark energy, we do not know it. It does not mean that some animals or plants do not know it. They may have adapted to use these energy, may be even higgs boson etc, without even making a predictive model

 

So I do not believe my assumptions are same, because all living things are trying to adapt in a different way within the laws of nature without even building any mathematical or predictive model similar to us.  we cannot be ‘superior’ in the evolution ladder just because we have a bigger brain or we make machines. Bacteria seem to live everywhere; they might even live more than us. We are at its mercy sometime. Some tree and animals live for much longer than us. Humanity may not survive, but trees and animals who have adapted to the laws of nature might. So I guess we have to study them but also learn from them. Learn what they know and how they know it.

I think first I agree with the assumptions Thunderfoot is making.

 I am trying to look at these laws where non-human, example animals are trying to adapt within the laws.

You can't do this unless you were able to be this animals. In essence you can all look at these in human terms and project them to other animals. 

I don't hold a view that we are superior to other animals, in fact I think ants, as Mark Twain wrote in What is Man could be more superior. From the point of view of bacteria, I agree with you. I also agree that we need to learn what they know and how they know it.

Since we can't get into the brains of other animals, I mean even knowing ours is still a difficult affair, we can't tell whether they make models of their realities but we do as human beings. And the models we make have to be predictive and have a truth value or they wouldn't be useful to us in our attempts to understand the world around us. I could be wrong but this is what I think.

The problem we are trying to solve/understand is beyond human. we are taking about the universe.

Let say, as Neil degrasse Tyson has pointed out, if the difference between human and chimp is 1% and we do not care what they think. Evolution may have produced 'animals' capable of being better than people. May be only 1% better, will they care what we think.

I am not trying to understand human brain, just making general assumptions for a bigger problem. If I just want to think about people, I do not even need to go to the universe, I will be happy about the solar system, or even the galaxy. The milky way galaxy is so large thet we might not even know it. Does it mean forget about it, it is too complex.

 

Predictive models are models that work on earth. When we consider the universe, our form of predictive model may not be very accurate. We will never be able to make a predictive model of a black hole. yes theoretical model, but not really very accurate predictive model. Also when we start to go at smaller sizes, the predictive methods are based on statistics, i.e probaility. not certainty.

Thunderfoot assumptions is ok, if we say our world. then I may as well simplify it further.

1. The milky way (or solar system) exist

2. We (people) can learn something from it

3. We can build predictive model of it

 

Is it right to think this way ? can this predictive model tell us what will happen in 200 years? In my assumptions (#3), we (inluding animal and trees) will adapt. The predictive model can be added in my second assumption. we can make predictive model of the physical laws (interactions).

 

I think prediction is an important bit...

 

In a bigger sense and for people, yes. But I am trying to look/understand in a larger sense. If everything was predictable then there would be no religion.

I would say that the 2nd assumptions about the laws (or interactions) about the physical and chemical would have decent predictability. but at quantum sizes, it may not be. We can use statistics to describe predictability, but there are no absolute predictions. When we consider multi-verse, or big bang, the prediction is as good as we build the mathematics. Also the predictability is at a given time frame. We can look at the world and say that this is happening. We expect the laws of nature to be true (2nd assumption). That what we are trying to do is to learn the laws of nature or interactions. When we cannot predict, we use statistics to give a percentage of chance.

 

The third assumption is for the living. And in this case predictability is less important, in some sense for unpredictability is ‘better’ because it can create variation. When we shine high energy particle to create mutation, we might know there will be mutation, but we cannot know for sure what mutation we will get.

Why is the font color for my previous comment, in black? I cannot change it now to white! sorry.

2. The universe has physical (and chemical) laws. It does not matter whether we know or we do not know teh laws yet.

I would argue the universe does not have laws. It has interactions. Laws are things people use to describe the interactions which behave in a predictable way(predicted by the law in question).

Well yes.  I would agree on it that the second one we can call it interactions or laws. I would also agree that for the second law we can somehow build a model, which may have predictive value in most cases we are faced in this world. It is relatively easier to build models what is happening here.

 

On the otherhand, I think that our predictive model of the universe will not be very accurate, given that we are extrapolating in larger space and time domain. we have existed for short time and we can only draw a staight or curve line to extend it. It is bound to have errors. Also we cannot obverse beyind some time (or space) domain so we may not be able to build accurate predictive model.

 

Let assume, we are happy with the string theory version. It has predictive value. But does it make the real universe. It predict multiverse, etc. Even though it is true (or false) we will never know it. Also at extremes, our understanding of predictive models, falls apart. We cannot make a predictive model inside of black holes. We can make theoretical model, but that does not make it true. Theoretical models have many assumptions, I prefer experimental models. Theoretical models are equally important.

I've decided that I have two options - one is to trust that my experiences are 'authentic' and the universe is 'real' - the other is that I am in some way being deceived by this 'reality'.

I really have no way of knowing if I am being deceived.  Every way that I can think of to cross check and verify my experiences indicates that it all adds up.  If I am being deceived then all I can do is play along which means behaving as though I can trust these experiences as authentic.

If this really is all authentic, then it's amazing and I love it.  :D

 

The first assumption: Universe exists or is ‘'real'.

About authenticity, this is included in the 3rd assumption. The living things are adapting in a sense in their own version of ‘reality’ or ‘authenticity’. What is real to me, is not same for you or a blind person. What is real for me based on my senses, is not real or a bacteria or a dog or a bat. Recently I just read that a mole smells in stereo. They are nearly blind. Their reality is different. They are also living and enjoying their version of reality. Let assume, in the future, we can just add a chip and we can see in infrared or ultraviolet. Our ‘reality’ will be different, because our brain will adapt to process this data, without even changing the first 2 assumptions.

Love and pain is just a part of our adaption. It is relative.

 

Why is the font color for my previous comment, in black? I cannot change it now to white! Sorry.

RSS

  

Events

Blog Posts

Labels

Posted by Quincy Maxwell on July 20, 2014 at 9:37pm 13 Comments

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service