George F.R. Ellis, On the Nature of Cosmology Today (2012 Copernicus Center Lecture)
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 01. 2013
- Cosmology is today a precision science with masses of high quality data every increasing our understanding of the physical universe, but paradoxically theoretical cosmology is simultaneously increasingly proposing theories based on ever more hypothetical physics, or concepts that are untestable even in principle (such as the multiverse). We are also seeing ever more dogmatic claims about how scientific cosmology can solve philosophical problems that have been with us for millenia. This talk comments in these trends, carefully distinguishing what is and what is not testable in scientific cosmology, and relating this solid scientific background to some of the recent philosophical claims made about how scientific cosmology relates to issues of meaning.
The fourth Copernicus Center Lecture - "On the Nature of Cosmology Today" - was delivered by Professor George Ellis, a famous cosmologist, mathematician, philosopher of science as well as researcher of the relationship between science and religion, currently Emeritus Distinguished Professor of Complex Systems in the Department of Mathematics at the University of Cape Town in South Africa. The 2012 Copernicus Center Lecture was part of the 16th Kraków Methodological Conference - "The Causal Universe", which was co-organized by the Copenicus Center for Interdisciplinary Studies.
Conference website: causal-universe.philosophyinsc...
Photos of the conference:adamwalanus.pl/2012/cc120517.html
Organizers' comment:
To date, the natural sciences provide extremely detailed description of how Universe functions by providing a set of scientific laws. These laws reflect regularities in nature and allow for the explanation and prediction of the observed phenomena. What seems to escape the power of contemporary science entirely, however, is the answer to the question of why the Universe is. Such an inquiry demands the use of a fundamental philosophical category of causality. Inasmuch as the "how" causality is associated with the determinism of scientific laws, the "why" causality reaches beyond the scientific discourse. In other words, one wishes to know why the Universe is and why it is as it is. The conference offers a unique opportunity to broaden our understanding of how to combine our vast knowledge of the laws governing the Universe in the quest for the ultimate explanation of its existence and specificity.
As George Ellis states in his famous article On the Nature of Causation in Complex Systems, the problem of causality may be found not only in the field of philosophy but also in physics and other empirical sciences:
The nature of causation is a core issue for science, which can be regarded as the move from a demon-centered world to a world based on reliable cause and effect, tested by experimental verification.
(...) Physics is the basic science, characterized by mathematical descriptions that allow predictions of physical behavior to astonishing accuracy and underlies the other sciences. The key question is whether other forms of causation such as those investigated in biology, psychology, and the social sciences are genuinely effective, or are they rather all epiphenomena grounded in purely physical causation?
(...) I will claim here that there are indeed other types of causation at work in the real world, described quite well by Aristotle's four types of causes. There are of course many contexts in which different kinds of causality are experienced: in physics and chemistry, where particles and forces interact in a way described by variational principles and symmetries; in biochemistry and cell biology, where information is important and adaptation takes place; in zoology, where purpose, planning, and anticipation are important; and in psychology and sociology, where analytic reflection, symbolic understanding, values and meaning all are causally effective.
One of the best videos on CZcams.
Simply wonderful. We are so fortunate to have such a thinker among us.
I watch a lot of videos on cosmology, physics and astronomy, and this is an excellent presentation.
Ellis is a genius!
Bruce Hayman hes not a lightweight
One of the best lectures I've seen. Very enlightening.
Absolutely fantastic talk, Dr. Ellis. I'm not particularly "involved" with religion in my personal life, but I have long found the manner in which Dawkins and Krauss go about their campaign against it distasteful and lacking integrity - you perfectly put into words the feelings that had been nagging at me on that front. I find it rather sad that they've seemingly left "real science" behind them to focus on what they're doing these days. Honestly, I think it's completely fair for scientists to respond to attacks upon science from the religious sector, but I think they should leave it at that - going "on the offensive" seems inappropriate to me. And I totally agree with your point that they exaggerate the "certainty" about some of the science that they use in said offensive. At least I can look to the past and regard Dr. Dawkins as someone who has made truly major contributions to scientific progress. Sadly, I can't say the same about Krauss.
Really fascinating lecture. Definitely adheres to many of the intuitions I've had about deficiencies in the claims by people like Kraus regarding the pre-big bang universe.
+ScienciaSineFinem You know George Ellis is Christian?? He's stupid too? Actualy these lectures are in Krakow in Poland, where we know what atheistic society can do to us, we lived with it for decades, saw atheist murder society, buldoze churches etc You're out of your depth. Secular society? Yeah been through that in XX century, dozens of milions killed, some members of my family too for being Christian. People in the west just have no idea. Going back to the lecture, George Ellis is Christian, Copernicus Center was established in Krakow by professor Heller, a cosmologist who happens to be a priest as well (that lovely 80 year old chap in the beginning of the video). One of the aims of Copernnicus Centre is to talk about all science, and build bridges between religion and science. For myself, I have a degree in physics from Vratislavia IT and I remember how first sip of science pushed me to atheism, but on the bottom of the glass I found God. Clark Maxwell was right all along :) peace
"Wrocław University of Technology" Translated Wrocław to Vratislavia cause you prenounce W differently in English so its easier for people like you, cause people like you dont have no clue about foreign languages. (and its easy to see an YT troll by some of the stuff their saing, to put down someone, thing like " I find it funny when people" "I love when people" "I laugh when people" or in your case "why do so many people") Don't teach us history, you have no idea how horrible it was, you have absolutly no idea, you idol Dawkins, Dennet Harris and the only thing you can do is calling other names. Typical atheist troll. Im not confusing a totalitarian regime cause I lived in it, I know more than any history book writen in a western country about us can tell you. Its a common thing atheist say, to run of the inevitable, that atheism was root of many suffering in XX century. Read Marks and Engels books, read what was the root, their principia, read Lenin and Stalin.
Youre out of your depth. You can say whatever you want, ride your high horse and live in your delussional world, abusing people for not believing like you. This is exactly people like you that when nothing constrain them they are likely to be moraly twisted. You would fir fine in Poland few decades ago, you would fir fine in SB, Ub or KGB. Killing people, abusing them, probably having sexual arrousnes too froim that. Judging from your words your some kind of psychopatch, locked in his closet. Pictures of Dawkins on the wall. Have a feast. I won't fuel your abuse because I know you enjoy that
@@HoneyBadger1184 the only reason why the first sip pushed you towards athiesm is because your stupid parents didn’t teach you the basics in logic and elementary science
Thanks for posting. Excellent
He made it clear that he was speaking philosophically about logic spaces that may pre-exist the universe. His objection is to untestable propositions being presented as scientific theory.
Ellis starts at 8:00 - well worthy skipping the first 8 mins!
Never skip the scientific accolades. This is the celebrity of science. Why should the Hollywood and TV stars have all the hoopla?
Some light can be shed on discussions like these by the lamp of Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason", in which Kant claimed that reason only operates really well when considering the attributes of things and assuming cause & effect. Scaling up and down in size and everything else is part of Reasoning, and can be empirically investigated, but at the same time inadvertantly assumes infinity in both directions of investigation, even though infinity is impossible to prove. Infinity is a concept used by Reason in it's empirical investigations. Kant then claimed that concepts can't be investigated by Reason, as they are the ground of Reason.....a ruler can't measure itself. Kant observed that some people are inclined to attempt to apply Reason to concepts, but in doing so end up making fantastical, unprovable claims. So when trying to explain the ultimate beginnings (or end) of a universe it is likely the case that we just can't do it....which is not to say there is or isn''t a beginning or end, but we're not equipped to comprehend or explain it. .
At around 1.22.00, the words “infinite number” were used. It should be noted that infinity is not a number. Thank you.
Where can one turn to in order to discuss these concepts?
You wrote exactly what I was thinking. :)
I've been doing some reading and watching... trying to understand Dr. Ellis' proposals. If anyone can chime in on these topics, add to this smattering of prose, shed light on these questions I have,... I'd gladly appreciate it!
1. Nucleosynthesis in the early universe -- simply because of the strong or weak nuclear force? I forget which, but the one responsible for holding protons, neutrons, and electrons together in the nucleus and composing atoms in the periodic table. I think the going theory about the fundamental forces early on is that the line between the observed manifestation is blurred: e.g. electricity was first observed to be distinct from magnetism. Maxwell discovered that they are manifestations of a single force, electromagnetism. Also goes for electroweak force, and the attempts of string theory and others to also unify gravitation with the others. So I'm not following Ellis' point about NS.
2. I don't see why one must take a philosophical stance of 'anything that can happen does happen'. No one familiar with the scientific method ought to be believing an unproven theory just because it's all we got. Sounds eerily close to believers resorting to a god for the original cause. Note that causality is inextricably bound to our concept of time, thus I would say causality is applicable only to our universe and things in it (because of space-time), but not necessarily to whatever might be outside of this universe in which it is expanding into. Thus, I would posit that the concept of causality is meaningless outside of our universe and, if a multiverse exists, meaningless outside of those universes also. It occurs to me that it would be useful to define new, more precise words for these things (universe used to mean *everything*... right? Now multiverse means "everything"... right?)
3. Yeah, sucks that some aspects of these theories is impossible to test today. As Ellis mentions, I'm glad there are ongoing experiments hoping to detect a dark matter particle. So far nothing -- you know, dark matter interacts very, very weakly with vanilla matter, if at all. Reminds me of the transience of neutrinos from the sun passing through us all the time. Perhaps future technology and discoveries yet to be made may allow a test for the multiverse [it's totally fiction, but I can't help but think of that TV series Sliders ;-) ].
4. Multiverse - my understanding was that we're talking about other universes like the one we inhabit: an expanse of space-time rapidly expanding into something else, presumably not our vanilla space-time. When Vilenkin's quote refers to our "clones" scattered among the cosmos, I feel it is misleading to use the word "cosmos". Typically, cosmos refers to our single universe, where there are galaxies, energies, space-time, and all that other fun stuff (plus us).
5. The nature of the universe prior to 10^-24 sec -- I figured Hawking and others think it might've been a singularity of infinitely small size and (nearly) infinite energy -- "nearly" because it looks like the universe has a huge amount, but not infinite, energy/matter/stuff and conservation of energy is supposed to still hold. I guess that means that black holes are essentially smaller versions in that they are a singularity? They do evaporate though... but so slowly it would take many orders of magnitude longer to completely evaporate than the universe has thus far existed.
6. Fine tuning -- the anthropic principle makes a lot of sense to me, despite how unsatisfying (and lacking of science) it is. But it IS based upon the observation that we are here talking about it. It sounds plausible to me that IF a multiverse were extant, perhaps an infinite number of universes have been created, and will continue to be created for eternity, by virtue of being an infinite number of universes. Unfortunately, that's a lot of "if's", which is never a good sign...
7. Infinity is to be restricted to mathematics, but not part of the physical world? Well, what about our universe? Evidence and observations reveal that our universe is likely to be flat, so doesn't that mean that the universe will continue to expand forever, continually reducing energy density, dying a cold, dark death?
Finally, it seems to me unequivocally true (and Ellis repeatedly says so) that observation and experiments are required for something to be science, for that is the scientific method, by definition. If a theory cannot be tested then it forever remains merely speculation and conjecture.
that's enough rambling for now
Very rational exposure.
Most interesting....
Thanks. I am a layman, never took advanced science class but I've listened to Krauss and Dawkins and they always made it very clear that any theory will be discarded if proved wrong. They aren't claiming this is Scripture
And yet, they both avoid addressing these issues raised by Ellis, and continue to preach misleading concepts that are contrary to known scientific principles simply because they can sell more books.
I think George has it!!!
49:00, 49:32 'Where do laws of physics physically exist / 'reside'? is not a question at all.
Laws which physical bodies obey are not physical entities like particles even in quantum physics.
It is like asking "where does 'multiplication' exist in mathematics"?!
George is as entitled to his opinions as anyone else. his point was how he is worried that alot of scientists are going a bit too far with their constructed models that have not or can not be tested.
I still cannot believe that this video got down votes.
I get a kick out of how he takes his questions, gives an answer, and then sits down authoritatively, like he's a member of Parliament or something. All that's missing is the cheers and jeers from the body politic.
Instead that saying that the laws of physics existed before the Universe I would rather say not before in terms of time but before in terms of level of existence - a subtler level which penetrates it all the time...
As George Ellis postulates, philosophical concepts such as "good and evil" are "built-in" to the universe as possible outcomes. This does not seem unreasonable.
please
can someone explain me what is a theory?
Why is the universe fine tuned for life? any universe that contained an entity capable of asking that question would have to be, so maybe it's a meaningless question. I don't think a multiverse is a solution to anything, but it was a good episode in Family guy.
Who's the old guy in the corner who keeps asking questions?
55:55 Claim of 'possibility space' of possibility (of the universe occurring), laws of logic, mathematics, physics, ethics all PRE-EXISTING the universe are as ridiculous as it sounds, because this presumes abstract entities (laws) generating physical entities (universe).
I feel like I have been transported by small steps from the irrationality of pi to the irrationality of wu.
I agree the criticism of philosophy disguised as physics, but then we jumped through the looking glass into philosophy disguised as wisdom.
"God is understood as creator and sustainer, embodying justice and holiness. God is personal, revealed most perfectly in Jesus, and active in the world today. The Kingdom is characterized by generosity, a forgiving spirit and loving sacrifice. The universe arose as “a voluntary choice on the part of the Creator, made because it is the only way to attain the goal of eliciting a free response of love and sacrifice from free individuals.”
~~~ Ellis, George F. R. “The Theology of the Anthropic Principle."
I really appreciate Professor George Ellis said that multiverse is not testable.
The problems are: is discrete or finite physics testable? Is the theory of finite brain states testable? There are more channels than synapses on neurons to be studied or even to be discovered. Not to mention quantum entanglement, the assumptions of quanta emerging from nothing, and the world beyond Planck measurement, etc.
It is difficult to study infinite directly, so analytic mathematics introduced and studied potential infinite, instead of studying infinite directly. However, this does not mean infinite does not exist.
I do not say infinite DOES or DOES NOT exist in physics. Sciences only can falsify certain things. To prove positively, we need better logic. In my logic theory, falsification is equal to positive proof only at some specific critical points in logic.
Argument is valid only if presented directly to the opposite side to allow them to refute. So I post my questions here.
A scientific platonic cosmology
1. In the beginning was the One, Plato's Mind, which is nonphysical, timeless and spaceless.
2. The physical universe of time and space, mind and matter, was created by Plato's One
conceiving of or engendering Leibniz's Many
3. The One remains timeless and spaceless, following Leibniz's Necessary Logic,
but the Many is in time and hence space, following Leibniz's Contingent logic.
[ See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Wilhelm_Leibniz#The_Principles ]
4. From Plato-Leibniz's metaphysics, as well as from quantum mechanics, the universe is dual.
There is the world of particles and that of particle fields, the material world and Leibniz's
corresponding mental monads.
5. The mental world is subjective, with the One as this perceiving, creating and controlling agent,
as in cybernetics, while the Many monads are its objects.
5. The universe must be governed in cybernetic fashion from a single control point. Note that
Norbert Weiner was an appreciator of Leibniz.
Else, without a single, universal mind to control, as with cybernetics, we have, as in Kant, Spinoza and
pan-psychism, either anarchy, a multiple personality disorder, or mob rule.
6. From this point, which Plato called the One, the Many of Leibniz are created, perceived, and controlled.
7. Hence it follows that, since there is no singular point of control at the bottom or elsewhere,
causation in the universe must be top-down from the top (and sio mental, not physical), that being the One.
8. We propose that gravity is the domain of quantum fields, since it alone is a field with no corresponding particle.
9. If we care to invoke Leibniz's computer program of pre-established harmony (PEH)
Mind is the agency which carries out the PEH.
10. There are also two types of particles, the fermion, which carries mass, and the boson, which carries force.
Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (retired, 2000).
See my Leibniz site: rclough@verizon.academia.edu/RogerClough
For personal messages use rclough@verizon.net
An intelligent and capable scientist out to decimate Dawkins' arguments.
Dawkins seems fevereshly defensive of his Atheism to the degree that one begins to wonder if he has serious doubts about his doubt .
51:34 "Possibility space" for thoughts/emotions/values is also ridiculous.
Because a live brain is biological entity and thoughts/emotions/values are BOTH abstract & transient, they do NOT & can not 'take up' any 'physical space'.
28:32 The Quantum Cosmology.
Oy the Platonism. :(. Dude is still awesome tho. Thank you.
I’m listening.
One of these guys tries to make me wrong.
Please ask Steve Harvey to go see my mother, I used to go visit her in Wuality of Life Nursing Home in Mercer, Pa. sliding fast. You have to see how she loves you, Buddy, Please?
First there was nothing but consciousness. Nothing else but mathematical logic could be derived from that situation, and Adam was born. But Adam needed companionship, an imaginary friend, to complete his Logic. And so, Eva was born out of Adam. Things became complex when they were together... In fact Eva couldn't flourish in the perfect world of Adam. There was only one way out of that boring paradise. So she did what she had to do and the heavens collapsed into this 3D world (+time). Adam's Mathematics generated the elementary matter particles, and Eva took care of the 2 elementary emotion particles, Ecstasy and existential Fear. They are both now living inside everyone of us and every animal too. Now they can finally experience joy and sadness, love and hate and all the stuff that was missing in paradise.
I don't know; I just don't buy platonism. Ideas derive from reality not the other way around. I mean isn't every idea an idea about something real? Sure we have imagination and can come up with ideas of things that don't exist, but those are just variations on our ideas about real things. As for abstract ideas such as mathematics, I tend to think that most of it is tautological. Yes, these are not based on physical things, but they have to do with properties and relations of physical things. I think the fact that we can abstract these ideas from the real world falsely leads people to believe that some ideal realm exists in some substantial way, but I doubt it. Some sort of dual aspect monism, perhaps, but platonism?
c. 59:00 When he starts with wheat, soul & spirit he loses track BIG TIME!
Platonic Physics vs the integral philosophy of ken wilber
After developing the concept of platonic physics, the integral philosophy of ken wilber
has been suggested as a superior way of viewing the world. I find it difficult to find
fault with wilber's philosophy, except that it is integral, making it quite complex.
He has certainly put a lot of work into it. But it is difficult to find a cause agent or
theory of causation. Platonic physics is, in this sense, much simpler (see below).
It is cybernetic. There is only One cause agent, the One. So causation is topdown,
Thus there can be no conflict. because there is just one monarch and the universe
is its monarchy. Man is just another object in the world, he is a passive puppet.
Platonic physics is not cloughism.
I heartily invite a correction to this criticism (see email address below).
Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (retired, 2000).
See my Leibniz site: rclough@verizon.academia.edu/RogerClough
For personal messages use rclough@verizon.net
The three levels of reality in Platonic Physics
Roger B Clough, National Institute of Standards and Technology (Retired)
(11-28-2014)
Abstract
Here we combine the top-down metaphysics of Plato and Leibniz with the inside-out categories of C S Peirce to enable us to view the world in a new, more useful light, simultaneously from two perspectives, and in more detail than Leibniz's pre-established harmony. The top down structuring from Plato and Leibniz allows us to view the world as it is: governed cybernetically by thought from the top singularity (the One, comparable to a computer processing unit), rather than from the ungoverned perspective of current science. This allows us not only to understand the world properly, but to structure the world cybernetically. with all creation, perception and control coming in the form of thought from the top down, but inside out using C S Peirce's three categories.
1. Introduction. While C S Peirce is well known to the philosophy of science, the worlds of Plato and his follower Leibniz have been less explored for such purposes. Plato was an Idealisti and Arthur Eddington spent much of his life adapting Plato to science, but his use of Mind in a world thoroughly established in materialism ihas largely blocked exploration of the use of Mind cybernetically, as a singular, mental control point, so that the current world of science is only governed, if at all, in fiefdoms. But more significantly, materialism and a lack of a single cybernetic control from top down has hindered the develepment of an understanding to consciousness, thought and the role and nature of the self. For example, Dennett in his explanation of consciences does not have a perceiver (or at best a fancifal and abstract invention of one). Moreover the perceiver, to obviate the homunculus with homunculus problem, must be on a higher ontological level, and which has to be a living singular entity, not an abstract reference. By application of Leibniz and Plato and common sense as well,, we see that the perceiver must be singular-- the One, the cybernetic Perceiver and control point, the central processing unit, to use a computer analogy.
The learning curve on Plato-Leibniz is a bit steep at first, foreign to most physical scientists because of their unfamiliar top down control, which is also done indirectly by thought rather than directly by physical interaction, but also because of Leibniz's unfamiliar spreadsheet style ontology, using not atoms but complete concepts called monads, which can be nested like sets. That would seem to render Leibniz more understandable to mathematicians and computer science, but his thinking in terms of substances and monads can be off-putting. Once these are understood (through his Monadology [ ]) and if one sticks to the elementary particles scale (the particles are both substance and monads) one can proceed fairly smoothly.
2. The three levels
Firstness -Mind- The One, the Monarch- this is the realm of Plato's Mind. It is life itself, pure nonphysical intelligence. Purely subjective, timeless and spaceless - with innate knowledge and a priori memory, containing the pre-established harmony, necessary logic, numbers - the womb of the WHAT. Mind creates all, perceives all, controls all. Thus the individual mind controls the brain, not the reverse. Mind plays the brain like a violin.
Secondness -- Mental objects so both subjective +objective- The Many. In this, the WHAT separates from Mind and becomes a HERE. Accordingly. Heidegger referred to existence as "dasein". "Being here."
According to Leibniz, all monads are alive to various degrees. There are of three gradations of life in these, according to Leibniz:
a) Bare, naked monads, which we can think of as purely physical ( Eg, a fundamental particle).
b) Animal and vegetative monads, which Leibniz calls souls, which can have feelings, but little intellect.
c) Spirits (corresponding to humans), which have, in addition, intellectual capacities. Mind transforms physical signals in nerves and neurons into experiences. If Mind then reperceives or reflects on these experiences, they are said to be thoughgt or apperceived. To be apperceived is to be made conscious. Thus consciousness is the product of thought. Intentions are also made in the same way, so that we caqn say that thoughts are intentions by Mind.
The human brain is a monad which contains as subsets, mental capacities. Neuroscience tells us that there is binding between monads for parts and functions of the brain, but since monads cannot act directly on each other, this binding must be indirect, through the sequential updates of the perceptions and appetites of the subfunction monads. These must be made by Mind, either directly or through the preestablished harmony PEH). Unfortunately the Stanford Leibniz site on Leibniz makes no mention of the action of Mind on the individual mind, IMHO a gross shortcoming.
Sensory signals and signals for feelings must also go through such a binding process. In a sense, the binding process plays the role of a self, but in conventional neuroscience self is a function of the brain, rather than the other way round, as common sense suggests and the intentionality of self or mind proves, along with the need for a PEH.
This shortcoming in conventional understanding of the brain becomes all the more nagging if we consider thinking, which is closely related to apperception, because it must be conscious.Thinking, we submit, consists of consciously manipulating and comparing such apperceptions.
Through Mind, with its potentially infinite wisdom and intelligence, intuitions and thoughts can arise spontaneously in the individual mind. If these are to be immediate and/or original, it is reasonable to believe that they originate in Mind, rather than indirectly through separate although bound parts of the brain. Anyone who has experienced a vocal duet in which the vibratos are in phase should become convinced of this.
Mind is the monarch of the intelligent mind, which controls the brain. Mind plays the brain like a violin. Mind is also is able to focus on a thought for a brief period, within the context of one's memory and universal memory, for purposes of thinking an comparison, making the biological brain and its complex bindings seem hopelessly indirect and subject to confusion.
Thirdness - Corresponding physical objects as is appropriate- -here the object is born or emittted from the monad--and emerges into spacetime as a particle, becoming completely objective, a WHAT+ HERE +WHEN., In addition the Thirdness of a private thought or experience is its public expression in some appropriate form.
3. Conclusions
This format allows us to examine quantum phenomena from inside out and perception, thinking and consciousness ontologically- from physical nerve signals to mental experiences such as thought, consciousness, and cognition. It also avoids problem encountered in “bottom-up” science, such as complexity and emergence, if for no other reason than there is no apparent way of conceiving of a singular control point at the bottom.
--
Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (retired, 2000).
See my Leibniz site: rclough@verizon.academia.edu/RogerClough
For personal messages use rclough@verizon.net
Spelling errors: really difficult to understand in context.
The multiverse theory doesn't actually solve the fine tuning problem. Infinity is no guarantee that all possibilities will be realised. It is no guarantee that there will be repeats. E.g. there are infinitely many primes, but there are never any repeats, you will also never hit any even numbers in this infinity many entities.
The condition of being infinite is not sufficient by itself.
To add, any atheist who believes there is no God has faith. Those who don't believe either way don't.
As for religion, you either follow it and believe, or not. You thus have faith. A lack of evidence of a proposition doesn't make its negation true. There is no default position or proposition. Evidence can come at anytime or not at all.
We know nothing as Socrates says. We all have our beliefs. Some may actually have historically been realised. Some are only in the imagination, some are not.
The multiverse theory also just pulls the question along one step back.
how many pins can you put into the head of an angel
Wow, he swerves off into pure nonsense at the end.
No Down Thumbs....my bad
I don"t get it. this guy is upset some writers are presenting theories that cannot be proven and then goes on to talk about ethics that exist before the universe. That is proven? Sorry, this comes across as just his musings by someone who seems angry at popular science writers.
I’m not smarter than these people.
I've always had a pet peeve when people talk about an infinite number of any physical thing. Infinity isn't a number. Infinity is a mathematical construct. So I applaud the speaker for his comments on the ridiculous notion of there being an infinite number of actual physical universes in a multiverse. A large number of possible universes maybe. An infinite number of possible universes no.
I don’t get it- first a tirade about a creeping anti-empirical sentiment in scientific cosmology and physics; then promptly followed by some equally unempirical, unverifiable and arbitrary chutzpa about platonic realms/forms. Methinks the pot is calling the kettle black. Obviously Ellis hasn’t kept abreast of the work on embodied/grounded cognition. Oh, and it gets worse.
I'm reading up now on embodied cognition, never heard of it before. Very interesting, thanks for mentioning it. I don't understand though how it relates to this lecture. Could you explain, please?
potatoporridge
Not all that clued up on Ellis' ideas, but here he advocates belief in Platonic forms/ideals. You should check out the work of (mainly) George Lakoff (Mark Johnson and Raphael Nunez) esspecially "Philosophy in the Flesh" where they go after the conceptual foundations of Philosophy with a big stick (including the notion of Platonic forms). I believe you can scrounge a PDF copy of the interweb. Also have a look for "The Metaphors we Live by" and "Where Mathematics comes from". The essential Idea is that Language/concepts/ideas/Mathematics and yes even Philosophy is a (complex) hierarchy of metaphors that ultimately have a basis in rather mundane, (natural!) primitive/basis sensory-motor activities/routines.
modvs1 Thanks a lot. Those books look extremely interesting. Just downloaded the first two you mentioned.
modvs1 Ellis's critique is that (very smart and accomplished) people use the language and status of science to give false answers to philosophical problems. For example, "the universe from nothing" and "multiverses" are sciency-sounding answers to philosophical questions about ultimate origins, meaning, and necessity. When scientists misuse science this way, they trivialize both science and philosophy. For his part, Ellis is not claiming that possibility spaces are scientifically verifiable. In fact, he is quite explicitly positing a philosophical answer to a philosophical problem. If Ellis had said, "I am giving you a scientifically testable answer to these philosophical problems," then it would be the pot calling the kettle black.
modvs1 Nailed it
I thought this talk would be about the latest development in cosmology. This pseudo-scientist conveniently answered all those "Where did blah blah came from?" with "God did it". It's too early in the game to proclaim what the scientific method isn't capable of answering.
The first law of thermodynamics states that energy/mass cannot be created or destroyed, just transformed from one form into another. If one believes this is true, which I do, then it's a miracle that anything exists at all.
what utter nonsense
57:30 Dude. Morals and ethics do not need religion or god to exist. We evolved on this planet to have certain instinctual behaviors because it aided survival through the process of selection; human solidarity, care for your neighbor, etc etc have proved to increase our survival: team up, share resources, the beginnings of tribalism or something like that. Trying to kill your neighbor is risky- even if you succeed one may walk away injured and die of infection, or any other scenario of the sort. Kinda condescending to say that I had to be told YOU MUST NOT KILL to know better. Duh?
At least, this is how I understand Mr. Dawkins' theory for the origins of morality.
Wrong, evolution couldn't produce any of those, even Dawkins wouldn't agree with you. Morals do need religion or some other type of ideology/phylosophy, if you were born in a communist country as an atheist you would end up as a communist. Evolution is natural selection, survival of the fittest therefore the opposite of carring. By your "dude logic" every pack animal would evolve to our intellectual state.
+Nikola Perkovic by your logic, why do wolf packs cooperate and bond with one another? They don't read and use a holy book to learn that killing one another is wrong. "Do not murder" seems to be a commandment instinctual to social creatures, not Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc. Please tell me why social species obey this moral value without an ancient man writing it down and passing it through the centuries via a game of telephone. Thanks.
+Nikola Perkovic oh yeah one more thing. I see you do not fully understand Darwinian evolution. Evolution through natural selection is not a guided process. The evolution of caring is similarly plausible as bipedal locomotion in terms of what is the best adaptation for the environment. They call that anthropology or evolutionary sociology. Further, to assume all avenues of evolutionary change arrive at the same point at the same time is preposterous and does not follow any pattern of the taxonomic tree of life.
And DUDE, pointing out a colloquialism is definitely relevant to this discussion. Kudos and a gold star for pointing that out.
+Michael Fuery wolf packs do not cooperate and work with one another wolf pack kill each other for territory including killing the pups of the other pack. Educate your self before making a comment. The social structure of an individual pack doesn't work in your favor either. Every wolf pack has an alfa male and alfa female and their offspring with some other few wolves, the alfa pair governs with strength and tyranny and if a strong male feels a spot of weakness in the alpha he will attack and kill him. There is no empathy in nature, it's the survival of the fittest, as I already explained.
+Michael Fuery I never said evolution is a guided process. If anything it is obviously you that doesn't have a clue about evolution. You answer to questions you made up and yet point the answer to me? Why did I even communicate with an airhead... Yo duuude, you're so, like, rad brah.