reply to post by Mindpeace
Firstly, thanks for your response and kind comments in the last post; apologies if i have misunderstood your earlier sentiments or your stance.
If you don’t seem to be attracted to any particular thoughts offered, well…that’s good too.
I'm eager to lend an ear to alternative thoughts and opinions, that's part of the reason i'm here, as i imagine you are yourself.
I'm willing, perhaps even eager, to entertain possibilities and probabilities, i will listen to any theory whether it be the "Big Bang" theory or even
"Fractal Theory" provided there is logic or reason for that theory.
Even as a sceptic, in some cases, i have explored the possibility that an Alien race could have engineered humans, but i will not claim it as truth,
nor will i "believe" in it. I admit, sometimes the want to believe overides the reasons to believe. ( i don't know why i would want to believe that
As science is a great tool for discovering information or even knowledge regarding the universe, i trust it's critique, if it is agnostic in regards
to the "meaning" or source of the universe then i have to humbly admit that i am too. We don't have conclusions yet. We have "theories" on somethings
I admit " i don't know "- And again i am willing to entertain other people's ideas and theories, but agnostic as we are, they have to remain
possibilities, in some
cases some logic suggests improbability (i.e. God is a bowl of fruit)
I do have, however, concerns with regards to "Arguments from ignorance", and unfalsifiable hypothesis and absolute moral objectivism.
Cosmic Teapot anology regarding religion's unfalsifiable claims.
I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able
to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I
were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should
rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth
every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and
entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
In regards to your questions/ponderings;-
“Within the realm of “Flatland”, what manner of “verifiable evidence” could the two-dimensional scientists have sought out (or even
recognized AS “verifiable evidence”) to confirm the validity of a three-dimensional sphere?”…
“Would the absence of “verifiable evidence” (if this turns out to be the case) related to the existence of the three-dimensional sphere actually
confirm its non-existence and, if so, would this claim, this conclusion of non-verifiability/non-existence be "true" only to the laws and beliefs
associated with the two-dimensional Scientific Doctrine?”
Brilliant question, and this ties in with what i wrote above;
Unfalsifiable hypothesis, is an unprovable "theory", it can't be physically demonstrated but NOT necessarily false(or true), and not always
Science can develop theories of dimensions the same way science develop theories such as the multiverse theory, Using information and maths to
rationalise what we experience. I am certainly no scientist and i'm afraid i claim to know the maths or the means by which these theories were
The great Carl Sagan had a concern with the "argument from ignorance" concept because like i said, unfalsifiable hypothesis does not necessarily mean
it is false. The more rational a hypothesis, perhpaps, the more probable.
Sagan stated it was "impatience with ambiguity", pointing out that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
Again, you have to look at why someone is making a metaphysical claim, a claim that is beyond the means of physically testing, Science aims to
rationalise the universe. Of course, maybe there is a great reality of which we all apart that we don't yet understand, levels of reality that are not
plain to the eye.
Science is always at the brink of the "known" for what it does not know, it can theorise.
Metaphysical claims such as "afterlife" and "heaven" and "hell" seem to be wishful rather than rational.
Thanks again for your kind sentiments and eloquent words. Pleasure to discuss ideas.
Peace and a Happy New Year too!
edit on 31/12/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)