The Unknown

[molendijk]

Whatever the human brain cannot seize (ever!; like the origin of everything) should be qualified as 'unknown', not as pertaining to realities like the ones proposed by religions (there is a heaven), magical beliefs (I feel the energy!), atheist views (God does not exist) etc. What we don't know, we don't know.
===
Arie (I'll be off for a couple of days).

[Schmoopy]

My view is "Live and let live", and although being an atheist I don't mind what other people believe, it's their choice and I think it's a great motto to live by. I could be wrong, they could be wrong, too much time is spent arguing over who is right, when no one could ever possibly know although they say "I HAVE ULTIMATE PROOF!".

[Twey]

'I feel the energy' stands out from the other examples you gave because it states nothing more than the experience of the individual. You can hardly state that what somebody else feels is untrue; it's nonsensical. Nobody can know better than they themselves. 'I feel unhappy.' 'No you don't!'

What we don't know, we don't know, but there's no point just saying 'we can't know this, so let's just forget about it' — on that same principle, science also goes out the window. When I dropped the apple that time, it fell towards the Earth — but I can't know that it will do that next time. The best, and most useful, thing we can do is make a reasonable assumption and then go with it until it's proved wrong. That's the basis of science.

[molendijk]

'I feel the energy' stands out from the other examples you gave because it states nothing more than the experience of the individual. You can hardly state that what somebody else feels is untrue; it's nonsensical. Nobody can know better than they themselves. 'I feel unhappy.' 'No you don't!'
What I wanted to say is that something like 'I feel the energy of the Aliens, so the Aliens are among us', or 'I feel God's energy in my heart, so God exists', etc. is nonsense, from an objective point of view.


What we don't know, we don't know, but there's no point just saying 'we can't know this, so let's just forget about it'
There are things of which we can positively state that they are fundamentally unsolvable. I think it's useless to try to 'solve' these things. Put them on music, make poetry about it, whatever, but don't try to solve it. The so-called 'solutions' are always non-scientific by there very nature. Of course, I don't want to forget about those things. If I am stunned by the very idea of the ultimate origin of everything, I'm not simply leaving it aside.
===
Arie.

[Twey]

What I wanted to say is that something like 'I feel the energy of the Aliens, so the Aliens are among us', or 'I feel God's energy in my heart, so God exists', etc. is nonsense, from an objective point of view.Why is it nonsense, and what is an 'objective' point of view? You mean that you don't feel it, so you believe that it's nonsense? If you, otherwise perfectly rational and normal, could see aliens, and all evidence pointed to their existence for you but nobody else could see them, they would consider it nonsense. But what if that's true? At the end of the day, we have nothing more solid to rely on in our interpretation of 'the real world' than our own senses. If your senses consistently and coherently tell you one thing, it's usually a good idea to believe them — and if somebody else tells you that what you believe is illogical, then it's still through your senses that they tell you. Reality is therefore ultimately subjective — it may be 'nonsense' for you, but for someone else it could be perfectly obvious truth. We can try to fit somebody else's beliefs into our own umwelt, and even attempt to alter their thought processes to be more compatible with our own, but ultimately, with a feeling there is no thought process behind it and therefore nothing to disagree with.


The so-called 'solutions' are always non-scientific by there very nature.I don't see how. Science involves making a theory that seems to fit the evidence and then assuming it to be true until disproven. We can never really prove anything to be 100% true, so it works on a negative basis. We know so little about things like the start of the universe that gods, aliens from another dimension, time-travelling humans, &c., are all equally good theories. Maybe some day we'll find a way of disproving some or all of those theories, but until then, why don't we work under whichever happens to be most useful? That's the scientific method.

[molendijk]

Why is it nonsense, and what is an 'objective' point of view? You mean that you don't feel it, so you believe that it's nonsense? If you, otherwise perfectly rational and normal, could see aliens, and all evidence pointed to their existence for you but nobody else could see them, they would consider it nonsense. But what if that's true?
By 'objective point of view' I mean a non-subjective point of view, which should be a view that leaves room for falsification.



At the end of the day, we have nothing more solid to rely on in our interpretation of 'the real world' than our own senses. If your senses consistently and coherently tell you one thing, it's usually a good idea to believe them — and if somebody else tells you that what you believe is illogical, then it's still through your senses that they tell you. Reality is therefore ultimately subjective — it may be 'nonsense' for you, but for someone else it could be perfectly obvious truth.
That's a philosophical truth. On the other hand, you say that (and I agree) science involves making a theory that seems to fit the evidence and then assuming it to be true until disproven. Now, if you take to the extreme what you say about the ultimate subjectivity of reality, then making statements about what fits the evidence and about what it is is for a truth to be disproven are not possible, since making the statements is something subjective (because our senses will continue to play a crucial role in making the statements).
===
Arie.

[Twey]

By 'objective point of view' I mean a non-subjective point of view, which should be a view that leaves room for falsification.How do you plan to arrive at an objective point of view when humans have only subjective knowledge of the universe?


Now, if you take to the extreme what you say about the ultimate subjectivity of reality, then making statements about what fits the evidence and about what it is is for a truth to be disproven are not possible, since making the statements is something subjective (because our senses will continue to play a crucial role in making the statements).Making objective statements is impossible, but we can still decide on general rules as they apply to our individual umwelt — and people within my umwelt at least tend to agree on them, although of course they might not exist in other umwelt, if such exist :)

[magicyte]

The best, and most useful, thing we can do is make a reasonable assumption and then go with it until it's proved wrong. That's the basis of science.

That's technically considered faith, though in that scenario, such faith would be weaker. Faith is just belief in something that may or may not be true. I don't believe that anything would cause faith, except for possibly faith itself. :rolleyes: What do you think?

[Schmoopy]

He did say "reasonable assumption", if you mean going along with believing in God just because no one can disprove he exists then I might as well make up a man who has special powers and can solve world peace but won't because he just doesn't want to, can't be disproven... so let's just go along with it :p

I wouldn't say believing in God is a reasonable assumption, but then someone's view of "reasonable" is going to be different from everyone elses.

Science is meant to rule out the need for faith as it is meant to seek out the facts and not things that might or might not be true.

[jscheuer1]

What we can't know, we cannot know. But things change. We can learn. As far as feelings go, if you have (or anyone has) a feeling - that experience is real unless the person reporting it is lying.

I have incontrovertible proof of the origin of the multi-verse, er - um, where did I save that file? ;)

[molendijk]

What we can't know, we cannot know. But things change. We can learn
Within the limits of the 'learnable'.

As far as feelings go, if you have (or anyone has) a feeling - that experience is real unless the person reporting it is lying.
Yes, the experience is real, but not necessarily the conclusions we link to it.


I have incontrovertible proof of the origin of the multi-verse, er - um, where did I save that file? ;)
Is the multi-verse a member of itself? By the way, look for your file in a map that isn't a member of itself first.
===
Arie.

[jscheuer1]

Found it!