"The ultimate triumph of science"

[Tsyal Makto]

Originally Posted by Clarke

What "why" is there? I'm fairly sure that what most physicists accept as a ToE would explain the origin of the universe.

The existential "why?". Physics can answer how the universe got here, but spirituality would still exist as a way to answer the more existential questions of existence. Questions about the self, questions about our abstract role in life, etc. Many of the questions that spirituality had always been asking. Science is the realm of the "how," spirituality is the realm of the "why."

In fact, how do you know new forms of spirituality might not emerge in the wake of a ToE?

[Clarke]

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

The existential "why?".

Now I feel we might accidentally fall into "The Ultimate Question" territory. The joke being that when a race of superbeings build a computer to solve the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything, and wait 7.5m years for its answer, they are immensely frustrated when it comes back with "42." When they dig deeper, they find that neither they or the computer know what question "42" is the answer for. It's always been referred to as "the ultimate question." Nobody ever explained what that actually was.

Can you be more specific about "why," so we don't waste 7.5m years on a two-word answer?

Physics can answer how the universe got here, but spirituality would still exist as a way to answer the more existential questions of existence. Questions about the self, questions about our abstract role in life, etc. Many of the questions that spirituality had always been asking. Science is the realm of the "how," spirituality is the realm of the "why."

I remember someone suggesting that, under certain circumstances, "how" and "why" become synonymous. For instance, "why does 2+2=4?" "Because the axioms say so." vs. "How does 2+2=4?" "[Proof]." Or possibly the other way around.

Is there a risk that that might happen to our idea of "reality?"

In fact, how do you know new forms of spirituality might not emerge in the wake of a ToE?

I don't. Which is why this thread is here.

[Tsyal Makto]

Originally Posted by Clarke

Now I feel we might accidentally fall into "The Ultimate Question" territory. The joke being that when a race of superbeings build a computer to solve the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything, and wait 7.5m years for its answer, they are immensely frustrated when it comes back with "42." When they dig deeper, they find that neither they or the computer know what question "42" is the answer for. It's always been referred to as "the ultimate question." Nobody ever explained what that actually was.

Can you be more specific about "why," so we don't waste 7.5m years on a two-word answer?

Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?

Let's see...

In short, everything above the mechanics (matters of "how) of the universe. Spirituality/Philosophy add the values to existence (the reasons for living above instinct, the human drive, ideologies to life, the possible existence of the soul, afterlives, etc. Basically, what comes from the fundamental, existential question "why are we here?"), above the basic mechanics of reality that science lays out. Sorta like the "Nature of truth" thread, about giving value to reality above and beyond the bare-bones logic.

I know, judging by most of your posts, to you, the mechanics are all that matters, but to most people, there's a need for things beyond them.

Originally Posted by Clarke

I remember someone suggesting that, under certain circumstances, "how" and "why" become synonymous. For instance, "why does 2+2=4?" "Because the axioms say so." vs. "How does 2+2=4?" "[Proof]." Or possibly the other way around.

Is there a risk that that might happen to our idea of "reality?"

That seems like wordplay, to me. The question is still the same, a question of mechanics, of "how," it's just that the questioner who used the first terms asked for "how" by masking it in "why." That particular question is inherently a "how" by nature because it is asking about mathematical mechanics. As for whether this will happen to our reality, I think the subject is quite vast and diverse enough that there will always be a need to ask a "why" above simply the "how." Maybe for some subjects (and maybe with a bit of lazy mistake grammar) they can appear to be the same question, but in reality, they can be very different. As long as people continue to seek answers to life through existential questions, there will always be "why," and there will always be spirituality/philosophy.

My quick-n-dirty response. I'm pressed for time.

[Moco Loco]

IMO...
Beyond humanity, there is no "why". There is no answer, because humans had to first exist before they could ask this question. You are the answer to why you exist. You give the answer, and no one can prove you are wrong. Therefore, "why" is fun to think about, but its usefulness ends there.
I understand what Clarke means, and it absolutely comes down to opinion. If you believe everything in the universe is done with intention, then there is a why, but you'll still probably never know what it is. If the vast majority (and I mean vast) of occurrences in the universe are not affected by intention, there is literally no such thing as "why", because it is identical to "how" and loses its meaning.

[Tsyal Makto]

Well, we had to exist before we could ask "how," as well. We had to exist, period, before we could make any observation, whether outward (science) or inward (philosophy/spirituality). And if we as a species have the ability to look inward, and define our existential role in reality, then I believe "why" is a very important question. Remember, we all see reality from the same lens, and reality is only what we see through this lens, and we as a species must define this lens, so to speak. And IMO science and spirituality both make up sides of said lens. The lens is incomplete without either side of this lens, but together, they make a whole picture of reality that we see.*

And, well, there are some theories that intention plays a role in the universe. The many-worlds interpretation, for example. The universe splits every time we commit an action, consciously or unconsciously (and when every other thing in the universe acts, as well).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

*Look, I know vision metaphors tend to stick in Clarke's craw, but can we just roll with this one for now? K? You should be able to understand what I'm getting at just fine.

My $0.02. <-Should add this, to avoid risk of turning this into a debate.

[Moco Loco]

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

Well, we had to exist before we could ask "how," as well. We had to exist, period, before we could make any observation, whether outward (science) or inward (philosophy/spirituality). And if we as a species have the ability to look inward, and define our existential role in reality, then I believe "why" is a very important question. Remember, we all see reality from the same lens, and reality is only what we see through this lens, and we as a species must define this lens, so to speak. And IMO science and spirituality both make up sides of said lens. The lens is incomplete without either side of this lens, but together, they make a whole picture of reality that we see.*

I believe you have misunderstood me. I only meant that "how" has to exist before we do, since cause precedes effect. "Why" is not as necessary; something does not have to happen for a defined reason, unless the reason merges with the "how" (much like Clarke's example, how did the vase fall onto the ground? I pushed it. Why did the vase fall onto the ground? Because I pushed it.)

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

And, well, there are some theories that intention plays a role in the universe. The many-worlds interpretation, for example. The universe splits every time we commit an action, consciously or unconsciously (and when every other thing in the universe acts, as well).

Many-worlds interpretation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In this example, intention would arguably only play a role in the number of universes, and in this theory, a number of universes equal to the number of atoms or even subatomic particles in the universe is created every moment that an event or even the particle itself could have taken a different path through space. Therefore, the vast majority of these universes would not be created due to an action which was caused by intention at all, so intention does not cause this effect; it is happening anyway regardless of intention.

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

My $0.02. <-Should add this, to avoid risk of turning this into a debate.

You shouldn't feel you need to step so cautiously around calling something a debate, and I'm sorry you and many others do. I am not afraid of minor conflict should it arise, but I'll continue to do my best not to start it or even carry on with it, you have my word. The primary definition of "debate" is a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints. I personally do not see anything wrong with this, as it promotes the synthesis of ideas and expansion of understanding.

[Human No More]

Life existed before it could think, before it could be self-aware and have ideas.

Remember what a lens does. It allows you to see things that may not be visible without it - but it is based on observation - you can only see truth through one, there is no room for giving an opinion.

The many worlds interpretation (if true) still gives no special weight to choice - indeed, if anything, the opposite, since if it is to be believed, then all diverging chances have occurred separately, so any 'meaning' would be completely null and void in a majority of cases.

[Tsyal Makto]

Originally Posted by Moco Loco

I believe you have misunderstood me. I only meant that "how" has to exist before we do, since cause precedes effect. "Why" is not as necessary; something does not have to happen for a defined reason, unless the reason merges with the "how" (much like Clarke's example, how did the vase fall onto the ground? I pushed it. Why did the vase fall onto the ground? Because I pushed it.)

I think I understand what you're trying to say. Obviously a reality must exist for us to have arisen, but that still doesn't mean we don't define "how" ourselves, through outward observation, and the existential questions through inward observation. (IMO, because we view reality through ourselves, what is outward and inward are both equally important, valid, and need to be defined if we wish to truly live the human experience).

There are those examples where they are interchangeable, I guess. That's why I said "existential" when I said "existential why." There are cases where one can use "why" in the observation of mechanics (which, by definition would be a "how," as well).

We must build our lenses.

In this example, intention would arguably only play a role in the number of universes, and in this theory, a number of universes equal to the number of atoms or even subatomic particles in the universe is created every moment that an event or even the particle itself could have taken a different path through space. Therefore, the vast majority of these universes would not be created due to an action which was caused by intention at all, so intention does not cause this effect; it is happening anyway regardless of intention.

But the fact that intention can play such a role in the creations of any universes, period, is a testament to the power we might hold if the many-worlds theory turns out to be true. IMO this is a matter of quality, not quantity. HNM, just noticed your post. Couldn't the opposite also be true? Instead of canceling all choices, couldn't it equally validate them all? Every choice we could make turned into reality, each being lived by each of us to the fullest. Hell, in one universe, you might be Jake Sully.

You shouldn't feel you need to step so cautiously around calling something a debate, and I'm sorry you and many others do. I am not afraid of minor conflict should it arise, but I'll continue to do my best not to start it or even carry on with it, you have my word. The primary definition of "debate" is a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints. I personally do not see anything wrong with this, as it promotes the synthesis of ideas and expansion of understanding.

There's "debate" and then there's "debate." I have no problem with discussion, but I want to avoid things getting heated, as they so often seem to happen on this forum. I guess a good way to avoid this is to always reiterate that we are discussing opinions, and that everyone avoid asserting their opinions as fact. That's why I've been making an effort to say "My $0.02" to more and more of my posts, to prevent seeming too assertive.

As for the question of what role life might play in the universe, here is another interesting theory - biocentrism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocent...28cosmology%29

[Moco Loco]

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

I think I understand what you're trying to say. Obviously a reality must exist for us to have arisen, but that still doesn't mean we don't define "how" ourselves, through outward observation, and the existential questions through inward observation. (IMO, because we view reality through ourselves, what is outward and inward are both equally important, valid, and need to be defined if we wish to truly live the human experience).

My point is simple: "How" always has to exist. "Why" does not.

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

But the fact that intention can play such a role in the creations of any universes, period, is a testament to the power we might hold if the many-worlds theory turns out to be true. IMO this is a matter of quality, not quantity.

The number of universes is the quantity. The near infinite types of universes is the quality. Neither of these (quality or quantity) are independently affected by the decisions we actually make. Only the individual universe is affected. You could lay in bed every day for the rest of your life, but in other universes, you could still be going out. Or, you could go out same as always in this universe, but there would be another where you stayed in bed every day. Regardless of which universe the "you" I'm typing this response to is experiencing, they both will come into existence. They will exist regardless of what you do, of any decision you ever make. The split of a universe into other universes is unrelated to intention. TBH, I thought it was undermining to your argument to bring it up.

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

There's "debate" and then there's "debate." I have no problem with discussion, but I want to avoid things getting heated, as they so often seem to happen on this forum. I guess a good way to avoid this is to always reiterate that we are discussing opinions, and that everyone avoid asserting their opinions as fact. That's why I've been making an effort to say "My $0.02" to more and more of my posts, to prevent seeming too assertive.

If I am ever disrespectful to you, I expect you (or someone) to call me out on it in some manner, and I'll provide you with the same courtesy. Asserting your opinion is no crime, as long as you are allowing for the possibility of my opinion in some fashion. At least, these are the rules I go by for myself, unconventional as they may be

[Tsyal Makto]

Originally Posted by Moco Loco

The number of universes is the quantity. The near infinite types of universes is the quality. Neither of these (quality or quantity) are independently affected by the decisions we actually make. Only the individual universe is affected. You could lay in bed every day for the rest of your life, but in other universes, you could still be going out. Or, you could go out same as always in this universe, but there would be another where you stayed in bed every day. Regardless of which universe the "you" I'm typing this response to is experiencing, they both will come into existence. They will exist regardless of what you do, of any decision you ever make. The split of a universe into other universes is unrelated to intention. TBH, I thought it was undermining to your argument to bring it up.

TBH ever since I stumbled on biocentrism I'm thinking it's the better example of the two. Fine, I throw the white flag on Many-Worlds Theory.

As for your first point, I understand what you're getting at. As for my stance, in case you had any trouble understanding: Yes, a reality does exist, but we must define the "how" and "why" ourselves through outward/inward observation, through the tools we have at hand: science, spirituality, philosophy, etc. (I tend to give Epistemology a wide berth, in case you can't tell ).

That's a good rule to live by, friend. Too bad more do not follow it. I try to, at least.

[Moco Loco]

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

Yes, a reality does exist, but we must define the "how" and "why" ourselves through outward/inward observation, through the tools we have at hand

And no one can ever tell us that our personal "why" is wrong, so it also can never truly be correct. I choose to interpret the no true why as there being no why. Saves time and speculation, although I'll say some things are fun to think about regardless of their practical value.

I somehow missed your article on my last post, I'll hopefully read it tonight when I'm out of class.

[Clarke]

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

And, well, there are some theories that intention plays a role in the universe. The many-worlds interpretation, for example. The universe splits every time we commit an action, consciously or unconsciously (and when every other thing in the universe acts, as well).

The really cool thing about MWQM is that choice doesn't matter a smidge; the universe splits off every time anything anywhere gets measured. Or rather, it doesn't split anywhere. (Nobody said QM was simple, did they? ) We just head down another path in the big wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey tangle of Hilbert space, which contains every possible future. (Of course, I did hear someone extend this and say that some worlds have more reality than others, and so that's where quantum indeterminism comes from in the first place.)

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

As for the question of what role life might play in the universe, here is another interesting theory - biocentrism:

Biocentrism (cosmology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'd have thought that that would be trounced by Occam's Razor. It's much easier to construct the laws of physics as space and time containing computers than it is the reverse.

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

There are those examples where they are interchangeable, I guess. That's why I said "existential" when I said "existential why." There are cases where one can use "why" in the observation of mechanics (which, by definition would be a "how," as well).

What is the "existential why" after we have reduced the whole universe to sufficiently advanced mechanics?

[Fkeu'itan]

I guess the difference between the 'how' and the 'why' in this matter is yes, the vase broke because it fell when I pushed it... but did the floor break it, or did I break it?

[Tsyal Makto]

TBH I've always seen Occam's Razor as a bit of a cop-out. I think taking the easy way out isn't always right, or possible, because in a subject like this, there really is no easy way out. How many ToEs are floating around right now?

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to get me to say, I've already explained what I mean by the existential "why," twice. Well, maybe three times is the charm. The ToE would explain the mechanics of the universe, unify the already defined mechanics of quantum and relative physics. It would be the culmination of outward observation, but it won't answer the other half of the puzzle of the human experience: inward observation. Things like the meaning of life, the mind-body connection, how we should live, souls, afterlives, etc. If you're thinking, or hoping, that a ToE will somehow "kill" philosophy or spirituality, it won't. It may finally put some things like "creation" science to bed, but it won't answer the many other questions that have always encompassed spirituality or philosophy. In fact, they might become more invigorated topics, given how people like in "What the **** do we know?" view connections between science and spirituality.

How do you know a ToE will be such a groundbreaking discovery, that will somehow answer all of our scientific, spiritual, or philosophical questions? What happens if all it does is smooth out the bumps in the equations defining quantum and relative physics? If it is not some Holy Grale, and is just a way to clarify our equations? You seem to assume it will come with a roar, what if it comes with a whimper?

Moco - That's just in the nature of internal self examination, IMO. We are all unique in some way, therefore, our self examinations will all turn out to be somewhat different. Does that invalidate them all? No, the opposite, IMO. It helps paint a wide, beautiful mosaic of how people feel about internal existentialism, about how we feel about the inside half of our existence. A rather elegant way to view life, IMO. Half of reality can be defined for us, the other half, we must define ourselves. Come to think of it, Maybe if this is the case, there may eventually be a definitive answer, no? Maybe the answer of ourselves is in the sum, not the parts.

[Moco Loco]

Originally Posted by Fkeu'itan

I guess the difference between the 'how' and the 'why' in this matter is yes, the vase broke because it fell when I pushed it... but did the floor break it, or did I break it?

Those are two entirely separate questions and I fail to see how you are applying "why" to them. Both would be yes answers, but I fail to see your point further than this.

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

TBH I've always seen Occam's Razor as a bit of a cop-out. I think taking the easy way out isn't always right, or possible, because in a subject like this, there really is no easy way out. How many ToEs are floating around right now?

Biocentrism is more of a copout because the theory itself isn't inherently scientific, it's philosophical and untestable. In essence, it is a world view and not an actual "theory" as defined by science.

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

Moco - That's just in the nature of internal self examination, IMO. We are all unique in some way, therefore, our self examinations will all turn out to be somewhat different. Does that invalidate them all? No, the opposite, IMO. It helps paint a wide, beautiful mosaic of how people feel about internal existentialism, about how we feel about the inside half of our existence. A rather elegant way to view life, IMO. Half of reality can be defined for us, the other half, we must define ourselves. Come to think of it, Maybe if this is the case, there may eventually be a definitive answer, no? Maybe the answer of ourselves is in the sum, not the parts.

I do not doubt that our examinations of ourselves are valid as far as working out our issues and improving our communication and social skills. However, there will be fewer and fewer consistent patterns among us as the size of the group being surveyed decreases. A definitive answer to what, exactly? There are no true answers because everyone will have their own answer, no one more correct than the other.