Similarly, in the ancient view characteristic of most wisdom tradition, reality is structure vertically as well as horizontally. The gross world is a horizontal plane available to the five senses and intellect. But this is the outer layer of as nested system in which the subtle world of refined energy and the causal world of intelligence are available only to those with refined consciousness. This comprises the manifest "three worlds" of the relative. The relative is the manifestation in time of the eternal, unchanging absolute.
The correspondence between modern knowledge and ancient knowledge is now a subject of research. "Inner space" is potentially the next frontier along with outer space.
Sputnik International
Earlier Universe Existed and Is Still Observable, Nobel Prize Winner Sir Roger Penrose Says
Lilia Dergacheva
Sputnik International
Earlier Universe Existed and Is Still Observable, Nobel Prize Winner Sir Roger Penrose Says
Lilia Dergacheva
link not workin for me -- you can delete this post
ReplyDeletedelete this comment I mean
ReplyDeleteThe idea of those “points” has been deemed as controversial, although many scientists do believe that the universe unfolds in a perennial cycle in which it expands, before contracting and then seeing a new cosmic super-explosion. from https://sputniknews.com/science/202010071080697658-earlier-universe-existed-and-is-still-observable-nobel-prize-winner-sir-roger-penrose-says/
ReplyDeleteThe current evidence is that the Universe is accelerating its expansion and shall NEVER contract.
And that's per the Bible, e.g. "...Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in." Isaiah 40:22.
“ Big Bang” = figurative language
ReplyDeleteThe fear of death is the source of much folly.
ReplyDeleteAny talk about science that goes beyond mathematical models is "figurative language." The term "science" is a high-level abstraction (superset) denoting sets of models, physics, chemistry, etc., along with testing of models using experimental protocols that enable replication. Applied science is use of the models in practical application. This implies that no popular writing about "science" is itself science. It's "figurative language" for those who don't have the math, or infotainment. And if any math is included in popular accounts, no one will bother reading it.
ReplyDeleteDepending on how many magic mushrooms you ingest, the figurative becomes real.
ReplyDeleteSorry for the bad link. Fixed now.
ReplyDeleteThe BBT superseded the SST... it did not preclude the possibility of a cycle.
ReplyDeleteIf there is a cycle, that in itself would be another, grander 'steady state'.
Science uses abstractions Tom... not figurative language... that’s what you Art degree people use..,
ReplyDelete“reality is structure vertically as well as horizontally. “
ReplyDeleteReification...,
Is cosmology a science?
ReplyDeleteIf they had better instruments, would they jump at the chance to become a science?
Is String Theory, science?
Matt is definitely no scientist. He’s just a person with a diagnosis.
ReplyDeleteTom: This implies that no popular writing about "science" is itself science. It's "figurative language" for those who don't have the math, or infotainment.
ReplyDeleteThink you're just explaining Matt here.
But, personally, I stopped being ashamed to read popularizations when I read what Einstein wrote. That he liked to read popularizations of physics - to help him understand physics.
The stuff about "figurative language" or different degrees is nonsense. It is the opposite of the real problem, which is obsessive narrowness and division. It's all figurative, it's all abstract. The only question is whether it helps one understand.
“ the real problem, which is obsessive narrowness and division.”
ReplyDeleteLOL That’s they way everything is properly understood....
How do you guys even find your ways back home at end of day.... do you ever even leave the house?
“It's all figurative, it's all abstract.“. Yo those words are not synonymous....
You guys are SEVERELY underdeveloped in abstraction....
But otoh You have the figurative coming out the ass though that is for sure...,
You never trained adequately or at all in abstraction... if you did you would understand the difference... between abstract and figurative...
“reality is structure vertically as well as horizontally. “
ReplyDeleteVertical and horizontal are abstractions in Euclidean geometry.... they are not real or part of anything real....
@ Calgacus
ReplyDeleteRight. I am just pushing Matt's POV to its logical conclusion.
Actually, I have discussed this at some length with friends and colleagues who are profs of theoretical physics and that is their position. As soon as one leaves the math model and begins to interpret it, fellow physicists disagree over the conceptualization and expression, although they all agree about the model's math, its testing protocols and its application.
Some have said that truth be told, we don't really know what the theory "means" beyond the model, since we are not observing reality directly but only through effects. That is, they reject or question reification of theoretical terms. They says we just know that it works in terms of outcomes and how it works in terms of the equations, and that's what doing science is about for scientists.
Putting a math model into words makes it either mythology (figurative modeling) or philosophy (conceptual modeling) Science uses math models that can be tested against data to avoid "philosophy."
Ancient Greek thought was chiefly a reaction to mythological explanation, which was dominant previously. This began in the attempt to replace mythological explanation with causal explanation. This culminated in Aristotle's proto-scientific works that focused on categories and causes, for instance, as well as observation. This was the transition from mythological to conceptual explanation. Plato was still heavily mythological, as were the Presocratics.
Science was a reaction not so much to Platonism, since Platonism was never really in competition with science, but rather Aristotelianism, since Aristotelianism was adopted by the medieval Scholastics, Aquinas in particular, and this was integrated into dogma by the institutional Church, creating an obstacle to scientific inquiry — think Bruno and Galileo.
Dogmatism resulted in a dialectical reaction in the form of "naturalism," which became the basis for scientific explanation, which is causal on one sense and not another. The chief meaning of causality for the ancients was answering the question, why? Modern science rejects the why question as teleological and focuses instead on the how question in terms of a general description expressed precisely in a math model. This is ideally expressed axiomatically in a way that can also be tested against data using hypotheses generated by the theory, together with experimental protocols.
continued
continuation
ReplyDeleteThe why (cause) is often taken to be independent variables that determine dependent variables according to an invariant rule (function). That dependent variable so behave is taken as proof of causality. Here, causes are determined by effects, and then taken to determine effects — which is circular.
The concept of causality is undecided and there is still considerable controversy over it. Instrumentalism rejects the importance of causality, for instance, which Milton Friedman made famous in economics.
Once a formal model is exported into concepts and their verbal expression the precision and accuracy of the model are largely lost, and the how and why tend to get conflated. Conceptual models of science are largely imaginative, e.g., the "billiard ball" model of atoms. They may be useful for thinking about such issues and problems, but they are not science.
Einstein's thought experiments were not science and did not become science until he wrote down the equations and published them into the scientific community. Agree that his popular works are a great contribution, but they are about science and not science, technically speaking.
In my view, Matt sometimes (or often) pushes this way beyond what is reasonable, since most of the matters under discussion are not about scientific publications but rather popular writing about science or involving science in some way.
While I agree with some of his points, others seem to me be unreasonable requirements on popular communication, which, after all, is not only descriptive but also performative, and that involves persuasion. This type of expression is not meant to be "correct" scientifically. That's for articles in professional journals, conferences, etc., where the scientific debates actually takes place technically. Most of this debate is beyond the ability of non-professionals to understand in depth.
The challenge in popular writing lies in being able to dumb it down without misleading, which is always a temptation in persuasion to one's POV. It takes critical thinking skills to pick up on this and Matt makes some useful contributions. However, it often seems to me that he goes over the top and in effect loses the plot. Which is being uncritical.
"Vertical and horizontal are abstractions in Euclidean geometry.... they are not real or part of anything real...."
ReplyDeleteFor those with inner "vision," they are very real — more real than the data of the five senses.
Your position, Matt, is like the blind denying the existence of light or color, of the deaf denying sound.
fig·ur·a·tive
ReplyDelete/ˈfiɡyərədiv/
adjective
adjective: figurative
1.departing from a literal use of words;
abstraction (mathematics)
Abstraction in mathematics is the process of extracting the underlying structures, patterns or properties of a mathematical concept or object,[19] removing any dependence on real world objects ...
You guys are primarily or exclusively trained in the former.... having Art Degrees...
"Science uses abstractions Tom... not figurative language... that’s what you Art degree people use..,"
ReplyDeleteFun article
Helge Kragh
Big Bang: the etymology of a name
Astronomy & Geophysics, Volume 54, Issue 2, April 2013, Pages 2.28–2.30,
"abstraction (mathematics)
ReplyDeleteAbstraction in mathematics is the process of extracting the underlying structures, patterns or properties of a mathematical concept or object,[19] removing any dependence on real world objects ..."
The terms "abstract" and "abstraction" have different uses in different contexts. I won't go into the many different uses other than to point out that the mathematical and scientific uses are somewhat different.
The math use is purely formal, in keeping with math as a formal discipline. Mathematical objects are not real objects and must be connected to real objects using definitions. Seeobject at Wikipedia.
The scientific use of abstraction since Francis Bacon (Novum Organum) is categorization based on induction, which starts with observation of real objects and their properties rather than starting with categories as first principles and then assigning objects to them.
This is now formalized as set theory and it application. Math is derived from set theory.
Any mathematical statement can be formalized into the language of set theory, and any mathematical theorem can be derived, using the calculus of first-order logic, from the axioms of ZFC, or from some extension of ZFC. It is in this sense that set theory provides a foundation for mathematics. —Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy/Set Theory
On one hand, math objects are a type of object that can be ordered in sets. On the other hand, the data of science are observable objects categorized in terms sets on the basis of their observed properties and relations.
Figurative language is just a way of naming categories (sets). It is not a method of categorization. Figurative language can be used wrt to any system of categorization, and scientist often use figurative language in talking about science (although not doing science). See the link above on "the big bang."
Popular descriptions of the BBT feature:
ReplyDelete- events occurring within minuscule periods of time
- rapid expansion of the universe, as it goes from being minuscule, to enormous
- rapid cooling from very high temperatures
- transition to a state where very little occurs over the course of billions of years
Amazing that the term didn't catch on sooner.
When you describe an explosion, over and over, to a general audience, don't be offended when that is what it's called.
Is there another fun story about the "heat death" of the universe?
ReplyDelete“The Big Flameout” ?
Steady state/cyclic big bang theories are meant to discredit the idea of a Creator.
ReplyDeleteBut the evidence is this Universe will suffer a heat death and there's no evidence that there's more than one Universe.
But, of course, one can have FAITH to the contrary - not that that particular faith has any reward but one's (hopeful) extinction at death.
About mathiness: from the Lars Syll blog: "Without strong evidence, all kinds of absurd claims and nonsense may pretend to be science. Let us not forget what Romer said in his masterful attack on ‘post-real’ economics a couple of years ago:
ReplyDeleteMath cannot establish the truth value of a fact. Never has. Never will."
https://larspsyll.wordpress.com/2020/02/18/paul-romer-explains-what-went-wrong-with-economics/
@Andrew,
ReplyDeleteAs an agnostic, I could never accept the BBT as a substitute for God or a creation myth. It purports to explain the origin of the universe, but doesn't start at the beginning. It's conceptually incomplete, unless you believe the creation of the universe is a one-off event.
To be rid of God, a form of 'steady state' is required.
Math can precisely describe many things. Those things don't have to be true, or even exist.
ReplyDeleteTo be rid of God, a form of 'steady state' is required. Peter Pan
ReplyDeleteYes and the BBT is amazingly consistent with the Bible as in:
1) Time had a beginning.
2) Cosmic expansion.
3) the Universe wearing out.
But I was referring to CYCLIC BBT which is contrary to the current evidence.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCurrent evidence is limited to what our instruments and vantage point can observe.
ReplyDeleteWe have an exceptional viewpoint wrt to space* and time.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, "The heavens are declaring the glory of God" Psalm 19:1
*E.g. the Solar System is currently out-of-plane of a dusty orbit we could be in - affording us excellent viewing conditions for the present.
The Milky Way is in the way. An optimal vantage point would be as far away from a galaxy as possible.
ReplyDeleteIf the Sun were more ancient, this planet might be billions of light years closer to the singularity; or where the action was.
If Earth were closer to a galactic core, we might know more about galaxies.
Look at the contributions made by the exploration of the Solar System. Peering through a telescope is no substitute for sending a probe to where its needed. The instrumentation problem is a major obstacle for astronomy.
A number of ancient systems did not posit either a beginning or end. For them, being and becoming co-exist with becoming as the manifestation in time of the eternally unmanifest eternal being, taking place in terms of a regular cyclic process of emanation.
ReplyDeleteSome of these systems also included a conception at least analogous to the Western concept of "God," while others are non-theistic.
For example, some ancient Greeks, Aristotle for instance, held a "steady-state" theory rather than a creation theory. Aquinas concluded that it was impossible to rationally prove creation and it was a matter of revelation.
So those concerned about TBB theory sneaking God in aren't aware of the long history. A steady state theory doesn't avoid the issue the way they seem to think it does.
Anyway, God is ruled out of the scientific model by assuming naturalism. This assumption says nothing–and can say nothing–about the existence of that which is non-natural. That is simply excluded from modeling by the assumptions, which implies nothing about what is exogenous to the model.
See Cosmology and Theology at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for the Western and modern views.
The problem is that it doesn't kick God out. The 'steady state' is sufficient for agnostics.
ReplyDeleteIt goes without saying that strong atheists want to avoid the issue.
For those with inner "vision,"
ReplyDeleteTom You’re making my point here... try saying what you are trying to say without the “quotes”...
You can’t do it...
Tom we have been given pea brains in this era/epoch... we have to make the best of it...
ReplyDeleteAlthough I would say for WE who don’t think “we’re out of money!”... we’re might have been given Lima bean sized brains...
ReplyDelete“ Matt makes some useful contributions. However, it often seems to me that he goes over the top ”
ReplyDeleteI haven’t been given the proper temperament to deal with you non discriminating Platonists... that is for sure...
For those with inner "vision," Tom You’re making my point here... try saying what you are trying to say without the “quotes”... You can’t do it...
ReplyDeleteOf course I can, Matt. Try seeing without your physical eyes, you know, the way geometrical and mathematical abstract objects are cognized abstractly. Have you known any pure mathematicians? They wig out on this stuff.
For the controversy over math objects see Platonism in Philosophy of Mathematics at Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. This is about talk about the subject, that is, how to express knowledge of math objects. It can't be about experience of these objects, since there is no way to know if different people experience what they give the same name to differently.
For seeing without physical eyes and without abstraction from the senses, see the world's wisdom literature. In Christian mysticism, the vertical even has a name–the ladder of ascent and inner visions are common. A vertical-horizontal model also found in the Allegory of the Cave in Plato's Republic and Socrates's soliloquy in Symposium on the ladder of love as a means of ascension taught to him by the priestess Diotima.
BTW, not talking ESP here, but other forms of cognition not mediated by sense date or reasoning sometimes called intuition, insight or illumination.
Then there is experience of consciousness without an object aka pure consciousness.
There is little in the way of technical vocabulary in the West, but there is a highly developed one in the East with nuanced conceptual models.
But the proof is in the pudding. But one has to train oneself to develop non-physical refined sense. This would be interesting but not of much use if one could not use it. And the experience of many today shows that it is possible at least to some degree for most anyone that takes the opportunity to do so. YMMV.
One can try to reinvent the wheel on one's own, but a wiser course is to ask for directions of someone that knows the way (paraphrase of Rig Veda).
JR Barch used to insert this here at MNE periodically, but since he is no longer participating, I guess it falls to me to reiterate that the vertical-horizontal is hugely significant and important. This needs saying in a world where most dwell mostly on the surface of life.
Lots of research on this going on in the West now that meditation has been around for awhile and there are many subjects available for studies. This is the cutting edge of cognitive science.
"Tom we have been given pea brains in this era/epoch... we have to make the best of it..."
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure it is nature. Seems to me that it likely mostly nurture.
But there are plenty of smart people. The problem is that they are generally selected out of positions of responsibility and those positions are filled by either people that are unqualified or corrupt.
But there are two issues here. The first is the horizontal, where science is the preferred methodology for problem solving in the material world. This is the quantitative.
The second is the vertical having to do with the qualitative. This is a matter of character, values and subtlety. While this can be developed through training, some have more natural abilities than others.
Both are required in leaders. And democracy requires an educated and enlightened electoral to functions as advertised. Otherwise, expect a mess.
JR Barch used to insert this here at MNE periodically, but since he is no longer participating, I guess it falls to me to reiterate that the vertical-horizontal is hugely significant and important. This needs saying in a world where most dwell mostly on the surface of life.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand this attitude. Finding pure bliss may be important to you, and of no consequence to anyone else. Plenty of people are contented to dwell on the surface. They are in no need of spiritual guidance. They aren't searching for scientific explanations of supernatural phenomena. Science is not relevant to spiritual cultivation. That is what 'the vertical' boils down to.
These are legitimate topics for scientific inquiry. The findings may be hugely important for a few, and trivial for many. That divide is a measure of our evolutionary heritage. Food in mouth comes first.
For someone who has studied the vertical, you sure spend a lot of time posting links that dwell at surface level. I would despair if I were forced to wade through that garbage.
@ Peter Pan
ReplyDeleteThat's one way of looking at it — by dismissing alternatives about which one has no knowledge.
Those who are in need of alternatives will find them. Quit proselytizing.
ReplyDeleteIf Andrew can do it, so can you.
Aquinas concluded that it was impossible to rationally prove creation and it was a matter of revelation. Tom Hickey
ReplyDeleteYet the Apostle Paul said mankind was without excuse due to the Creation:
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. Romans 1:20 [bold added]
I should have said, "Aquinas concluded that it was impossible to rationally prove creation in time."
ReplyDeleteAquinas held that it is possible to rationally prove creation but not in terms of a beginning in time.
For Aquinas, creation in time was a revealed truth rather than the outcome of rational argumentation and as such creation in time an article of faith rather than a philosophical truth.
Aquinas asserted that reason alone can show that the conditioned must depend on the unconditioned, and the contingent on the necessary, effect on cause, change on the unchanging, order on ordering principle — "which we call God."
Aquinas constructed five proofs for God's existence, known as the five ways. See Five Ways
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTom Hickey -- a lovely and lucid comment, as yours almost invariably are. As a believer, I have been struggling with this thought -- how could God (all-knowing, all powerful, all good theodicy aside) be sure that there is no other beyond his/her knowledge?
ReplyDeleteI have been struggling with this thought -- how could God (all-knowing, all powerful, all good theodicy aside) be sure that there is no other beyond his/her knowledge?
ReplyDeleteCan't be answered on the level of the intellectual capacity of the ordinary human mind. There are several recognized sources of knowledge: 1) sense perception, 4) reasoning from evidence, 3) the authority of the those in a position to know.
Medieval thinker attempted to proof such things, but their arguments are generally rejected today, since they based on assumptions that no longer "fit," the modern world view being quite different.
Wisdom traditions are based on the authority of those who are taken to be a position to know based on non-ordinary cognition. so, "take it on faith." (Actually, much of our "scientific knowledge" as individuals is based on the authority of experts too, since few of us are in a position to acquire all knowledge in all fields directly through reasoning (lots of math) based on evidence.)
But these authorities say also that it is possible for any human to know such things by taking steps to elevate one's level of consciousness. This is what the spiritual quest is about from the POV of universal mystical spirituality based on application of "core spirituality" as the methodology that lies at the heart of these traditions.
As a believer, I have been struggling with this thought -- how could God (all-knowing, all powerful, all good theodicy aside) be sure that there is no other beyond his/her knowledge? Marian Ruccius
ReplyDeleteWhere in the Bible does it say He is sure there is no other? Instead:
‘Do not tremble and do not be afraid; Have I not long since announced it to you and declared it? And you are My witnesses. Is there any God besides Me, Or is there any other Rock? I know of none.’ Isaiah 44:8
And how can God be all-knowing if He, for example, regretted making Saul king? And why would God need to search hearts and test minds (Jeremiah 17:10) if He already knows everything?
You'd struggle less if you believed the Bible and not some mere human doctrine likely scavenged from the Greeks or flawed logic.
Andrew Anderson: rather a literal reading of Jeremiah, don't you think?
ReplyDeleteI set my course based on the Gospels -- and how about Revelation: "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last."?
My question was actually about uncertainty and the limits of knowledge.
Andrew Anderson: rather a literal reading of Jeremiah, don't you think? Marian Ruccius
ReplyDelete“The heart is more deceitful than all else
And is desperately sick;
Who can understand it?
“I, the Lord, search the heart,
I test the mind,
Even to give to each man according to his ways,
According to the results of his deeds. Jeremiah 17:9-10
It's perfectly clear from just these two verses but even more so with the example of Saul.
And in Jeremiah 18:8-10 God elaborates further:
If that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it. Or at another moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to build up or to plant it; 10 if it does evil in My sight by not obeying My voice, then I will think better of the good with which I had promised to bless it. Jeremiah 18:8-10
and how about Revelation: "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last."? Marian Ruccius
ReplyDeleteAs far as He knows - which He has already admitted. And it's a confirmation of God's truthfulness that He doesn't claim to know the impossible; that is, to prove a negative in general.
Andrew Anderson: if you accept an unbroken line between Jeremiah and Revelations! And you assume that the approach in Jeremiah is given as the "literal truth" rather than as more of a parable in the "as if" vein, withe God's thoughts imputed. And if you believe that this means that God acknowledges any such limitation, which is not self-evident from Revelations.
ReplyDeleteIt depends on one's exegesis.
Andrew Anderson: yours is an interesting and strong argument in many ways, I should add.
ReplyDelete