If concepts are here taken to be abstract objects, then I would disagree with this contention, as abstract objects lack causal efficacy, and any God worth believing in does have such efficacy. — Arkady

You don't think that the concept of a circle, pi, the right angle, or the Pythagorean theorem have any causal efficacy? I beg to differ.

If concepts are taken to be mental states of some sort, then this analogy may be closer to the mark, provided we do not adhere to an identity theory of mind, wherein mental states are identical to the physical states which realize them (as that would imply that God is physical, contradicting the premise that he's immaterial). — Arkady

I agree, this would be a problem, but there is no reason to adhere to an identity theory of mind. If a concept is a mental state, it is an unchanging state of mind, an idea, held like a belief. When referring to the physical brain, there is no such thing as a "physical state", because the brain is continuously active, even in sleep. So there cannot be "identity" between these two.

I've seen the trinity expressed as "Father", "Son", and "Holy Spirit". Holy spirit refers to the relationship between father and son. There is no father without a son, and no son without a father. So the existence of both Father and Son is dependent on the existence of Holy Spirit. Remember, God is supposed to be immaterial, having the same type of existence as a concept. Introduce the notion of a daughter and we could have a father without a son, thus breaking the logic of the trinity.

God may not be revealed to you at the time of your death. I think the Christian notion, anyway, is that resurrection happens only at a later time. There may be some Purgatory waiting for you.

Perhaps we might proceed by your addressing a simple question; a child can talk about a tree, without being able to set out any even partial 'essence-of-tree'. How is that possible on your account? — Banno

If you listen to young children speak, who are just learning how to talk, you'll hear that they use some words in ways which demonstrate that they don't know the proper way to use the word. They'll use the wrong word. They'll even make up a lot of words because they are repeating sounds, but speaking them incorrectly. Speaking words is not what is at issue here, what is at issue, is speaking correctly.

So when a child talks about a "tree", it is not necessary that the child is using the word "tree" correctly. The child might be referring to a rock or some other thing. So your question should really be, is it possible that a child may talk correctly about a tree without even being able to set out any partial 'essence of tree'? Maybe you use "essence" in a different way from me, but I would say that learning to us a word correctly is the same thing as learning the essence of what is referred to by that word. If one does not learn the "essence", then the individual develops habits which often consist of mistaken use. Therefore to consistently use the word correctly, it is necessary to have some notion of the essence. The better one understands the essence, the less likely one is to make a mistake in using the word.

With respect to the op then, what is being asked is how to use the word "life" correctly.

No, many cultures don't accept monotheism. It's even arguable that Christianity isn't monotheistic entirely, especially Mormonism. — Hanover

Those cultures which are not monotheist don't believe in God, do they?

Obviously, the societies of the time have something to do with the characteristics of their God, but I was interested in knowing what you thought about the idea of there actually existing only one God, which is identified under different names/personalities across all global religions. — Javants

Isn't that fundamental to the idea of "God", that there is only one God. And despite what you might say about God, you are saying it about that one and only God. The reason why different people attribute different properties to God is that they don't know God very well.

The idea that different representations of God, are actually different gods, is based in the atheist assumption that the representation is the god, i.e. that God is a fiction.

Because of the possibility of life after death. — Noble Dust

Life after death is contradictory, unless we remove the individuality of living. We can consistently say that life itself continues after an individual dies, so there is life after death, but this doesn't hold up to rigorous logic because it is a category error. In one case, "life" is the property of particulars, individual beings, and in the other, it is a generalization, life in general continues. If we remove the individual, to say that life continues, then we don't have any real grounding for the concept of "life", because we get a nonsense notion of life, without an individual being which is living. It's very difficult to make sense of "life" without that individual being which is living.

So all the ancient traditions, such as the myths recounted by Plato, portray individual souls in the post-death condition. At that time, way back then, and to this day now, our minds have not been able to grasp this generality of life, separate from the particulars, so there has been no portrayal of life in general, persisting after the death of the individual. In all these ancient myths, we always encounter individual souls. This implies that life is somehow bound to the particular, that individuality is an essential aspect of living. We tend to assign individuality to the material body, saying that it is the properties of the material body which make us different from each other. But then when we try to abstract the soul from the material body, i.e., the soul leaves the body at death, we have no way to dissolve the individuality of the soul, and individuality does not get lost in the abstraction. Therefore, individuality is what is essential to the soul. If we follow this into mysticism, that individuality becomes a Oneness, a Unity. But this mysticism breaks the logic, the individual souls are lost into the One, the Soul, and there are no logical principles for this. Just because the individual is a single unity, a particular, or one, this does not justify a One, in the sense of an abstract unity.

The individuality of the resurrected human being is an important issue in Christianity. I believe it was Paul who argued strongly, in the early years of Christianity, that the individuality of "the person" is maintained in resurrection. This is important because it's contrary to the mystical platform of One Soul. But the Christian position opens up a whole new problem, and that is the continuity of existence of the individual. In the ancient myths, there was a necessary continuity of existence of the soul, after the death of the body. When the body dies, the soul must keep living, so it has to go somewhere. The Christians seem to allow a break in the continuity. We die, then later there is a judgment, when we are brought back in resurrection. Now there's a temporal gap which may be filled with the concept of purgatory. If we don't opt for that concept of purgatory, we have to account for this discontinuity. How can the individual soul stop existing for a time, then come back later for an eternal existence? What constitutes this break in existence? What kind of existence does the soul have in this break period? As an analogy, consider a seed, or a spore. Those things can go into a suspended animation for an extended period of time, when they are not living, but then when the conditions are right, they spring into life? What supports this capacity for discontinuity which life demonstrates?

Also, it sounds like you're equating "survival" with something like "ultimate survival" here. Of course we've "achieved survival". We still exist as a species. We achieve survival every day. — Noble Dust

This is the category error which I was trying to point out. A species is not a living being. It doesn't make sense to say that the species exists as a thing, because it is not a living being, it is an abstraction. So the same error follows if we say that the species "survives". If we bring "survive" into the proper category, we have to refer to ourselves. Yes, it surely makes sense to say, of course we've survived, I'm here today, and you're here today. You and I have survived. But of what import is that survival when we could both be gone tomorrow, and our own lives are but a flash in the pan anyway? To have survived is not the same thing as to survive. We can give "survival" a more important meaning, by making it a goal, a purpose, to survive after that break in continuity, described above.

So do you consider survival more important than achieving the highest good? — Noble Dust

I haven't yet seen good support for your separation between "survival" and "highest good". To me, I see no reason yet why survival should not be the highest good. You keep trying to drive a wedge between these two, but it seems like a wedge of categorical separation, such that "survival" is something which a species does, while morality is something which individuals do. When you put these both in the same category, then I see no reason why survival of the individual (which includes the above discussed "life after death"), should not be the highest good.

Is this a continuation of the argument you start at the beginning of that paragraph? I can't really tell; it doesn't make much sense to me in relation to what you initially said. For instance, you seem to be conflating being "of the same species" with "following[ing] the same cultural norms". But then almost immediately you say "Within the same species, there are different cultures." — Noble Dust

The point I was trying to make is that "species", and "norms" are of the same category, and that is abstractions, they are concepts. There is no such particular, individual, existing thing as the norms of a culture, nor is there any such particular individual existing thing as a species. These are concepts, abstractions. As they are both ways of comparing individuals with respect to certain properties, and establishing principles of commonality, I see no reason why we can't make a valid comparison between the two. Why do you keep insisting on denying such a comparison?

It's important in the same way that a car engine is important. It gets me from A to B. But it's not the purpose of my trip. — Noble Dust

You don't seem to appreciate the true meaning of "survive". You put survival into the past, to say "I have survived, therefore I have fulfilled my desire to survive". I have made it to point B, therefore if getting to point B was my goal, I no longer have a goal. But this is what "survived" means, it is not what "survive" means. Survival is an ongoing, continuity. It does not end with a conquest of survival, it continues onward indefinitely. If survival ended in such a conquest then there would be no more survival afterwards, and it would negate itself at that point of conquest.

You seem to believe that there is something more important to your life than actually living. What could that possibly be? Being alive is necessary for you to do anything, so how could anything be more important than this? Therefore being alive (and hence survival) is of the highest importance, because anything else which you might do, including being moral, is dependent on this, being alive.

And then, taking it a step further, I was suggesting that maybe morality and survival are stages, if you will, along the course of evolution. It's an idea that I'm toying with, that I haven't fleshed out. Basically, morality supersedes survival in the evolutionary process. Maybe with other steps in between, maybe not. I hope that at least makes more sense? — Noble Dust

How could it makes sense that morality could supersede survival? Since we all die, and there is a possibility that life may be eradicated from earth, we haven't yet achieved survival. If we instil morality as the goal or purpose, then how can we ensure that this morality would produce survival? If there are beings which are living, and they do not have morality, then doesn't this indicate to you that survival is of a higher priority than morality? In relation to being in general, don't you think that to be alive is of a higher priority than to be moral. Morality exists as a hierarchy of values, as Aristotle says, one thing is for the sake of another, which is for the sake of something further, etc., until we reach the highest good. But morality is the means by which we reach the good, it relates to the actions, the means to the end, it isn't the good which is sought. So morality must be for the sake of some higher good.

What I'm seeing is this: there is a tendency to try to understand morality through the lens of evolutionary survival. I think that's incorrect. I see this more in the general population, not necessarily in a philosophical realm as much (other than the new atheists, although they're of course not actual philosophers). — Noble Dust

I see evolution through the lens of morality, so my thinking is somewhat different from the general population. Notice that we all think in a different way, you, me Wayfarer, and others, yet we always seem assume that there is a way of the general population. The differences are what makes us individuals, yet we always assume that there is something which unites us as "the same". We take this for granted, that we are of the same species, that we follow the same cultural norms, but how do we really justify this? Within the same species, there are different cultures. Within the same culture, people think in different ways. Isn't there a reason why we try to be like others?

I shouldn't have assumed this. But it's certainly something I see from others. But, what do you see as the purpose of evolution? Is there a telos? If not, then who cares? What's the point? — Noble Dust

Come on Dusty, how can you ask me what's the purpose of evolution? Isn't this like asking for the meaning of life? Don't you think that survival is very important? If you want to supersede survival, as the purpose of evolution, then you need to determine the purpose of survival. That's not an easy question.

Post Delete

What things exactly? And what is their relevance to this discussion about modelling particles as located objects with no internal structure? — apokrisis

Those are the things I'm talking about., the things with no internal structure.. If a thing occupies space, i.e. is spatial, dimensional, it has a spatial form and that is its internal structure. (For example, a circle has an internal structure expressed by pi.) Therefore it makes no sense to talk about things with no internal structure as anything other than non-dimensional things. Since they have no spatial existence, then the idea of locating them in space is somewhat dubious, and how they relate to things which have spatial existence is questionable. That is why I suggested that this problem may be resolved if a way could be devised to locate them in time.

To clarify, I said that if morals are a function of evolution, then this would undermine evolution. So not just any relationship, but a relationship of morals being a function of evolution. — Noble Dust

I must admit, I had difficulty with this, and had to reread numerous times, because "function of" may be taken in numerous ways. I never did resolve the question of what you actually meant. If I look at evolution as a real physical occurrence, then "a function of evolution" would imply that evolution plays a part, a purpose, in a larger role. Morality then, if it were a function of evolution, would be this larger role. But this is inverse from what I meant, what I meant is that evolution would be a function of morality, morality playing the part of the function, in the larger role, evolution. So I'm talking about evolution being a function of morals, morality having the function, of influencing evolution in particular ways.

The assumption you're making, thanks to our fixation on Darwin still, is that "survival" is a constant. — Noble Dust

Clearly I'm not assuming survival as a constant. I'm dealing with the individual, and the individual does not survive in evolution. In fact the death of the individual, to be replaced by others which are different is essential to evolution. Furthermore, extinction of certain species is inherent within evolution, so I do not see how survival could be a constant. What we might see as a constant, is the will to survive, or the desire to survive, which is held by the individual, But natural forces always confound this will to survive, as each and every individual is fated to death.

Why is survival a constant, rather than a function that is subject to the same change? — Noble Dust

Again, I have great difficulty with your use of "function" here. If evolution were for the purpose of survival, then evolution would be a function (having the purpose) of survival. This is a possibility, that since we cannot, as individuals, survive, life as a whole evolves, and survives. But it would make no sense to say that survival is a function of, or has the purpose of, evolution, because no individuals survive, so it is impossible that survival could be a given, which serves as a function toward some larger role.

No, I don't believe that. I don't believe anyone 'has' a soul. If the word has meaning (and it's an 'if'), it's because it refers to the totality of the being - not simply the mind, personality, physique, but the whole being. That is what I take 'soul' to mean. — Wayfarer

So you disavow these dualist principles? The body and soul are necessarily a unity, and there is no possibility of separation, not even in principle? Do you realize that this is contrary to the fundamentals of most religions?

Right, that's exactly what I'm talking about. We can "treat" something as if it is zero dimensional, meaning that it occupies no space, has no spatial existence. But we have no principles by which we can say that this is the reality of the thing. What I am expressing is that there is a need for principles to allow for real non-dimensional existence. The argument I was making, was that if we want to be able to realistically treat something as non-dimensional, we need some principles whereby a non-dimensional thing can have real existence.

You can treat the Earth as a mathematical point too - a centre of gravity. And it works so long as you are far enough away not to be bothered by the Earth's material variations - the effect that mountain ranges would have for instance (coincidentally, Peirce's specialist area in science). — apokrisis

You're confusing the issue here. Peirce understood the problem, but his solution was to deny the reality of non-dimensional existence, opting for infinitesimals. So deferring to Peirce supports my argument that there is a real problem with representing things as non-dimensional points. The difference between Peirce and I is that I apprehend a need to assume real non-dimensional existence, whereas Peirce saw no need for this and chose infinitesimal existence instead, to account for the existence of the things which physics treats as non-dimensional.

Likewise the standard model can call an electron a point. But then string theory or braid theory might discover an internal structure that shows the pointiness to be merely an effective theory of the real deal. — apokrisis

This illustrates the problem I am referring to. Since there is nothing real which is referred to by "zero dimensional point", then the reality of the entity which is represented as a zero dimensional point may be interpreted in infinitely many different ways. So take your example of the earth. If we represent the earth as a non-dimensional point, then the actual form that the earth has, could be anything. To properly understand the earth would mean to produce a proper representation of its spatial form.

You naturally assume that the thing represented as a zero dimensional point has a spatial form, because you're physicalist, and you cannot comprehend any other type of existence. I accept real non-spatial existence, so my claim is that there are real things, demonstrated by physics to have real existence, which cannot be represented as having a spatial form. These things are non-spatial, non-dimensional. So we need some way to differentiate between things like the earth, which can be represented by a point, but still have a spatial form, and things which are really non-spatial, non-dimensional, having no spatial form. Otherwise we'll be continually trying to give non-spatial things a spatial form, such as in your example with string theory.

I suppose, to put it in a way that is compatible with the scientific view - when h. sapiens evolved to a certain point, then s/he is no longer determined by purely biological factors. At that point we transcend the merely biological. That, I think, is the real meaning of the myth of 'the fall' - that at the point where humans become self-conscious, self-aware, capable of making judgements of 'good and evil' (the fruit of the tree of good and evil), then at that point moral decisions become necessary, and they're no longer governed by purely biological forces. — Wayfarer

But don't you believe that not just human beings, but all living creatures have a soul, and therefore all these creatures "transcend the merely biological"? If this is the case, then there's no reason to believe that becoming self-conscious, or self-aware, is what allows transcendence of the biological.

I agree that the capacity to judge good and bad is something special which comes about with self-consciousness, and self-awareness, but I think that "the fall" concerns the loss of naivety. It has to do with the feeling of guilt which comes into existence with the capacity to judge one's own act as if it were external to one's self. One can say "I shouldn't have done that" with regards to a particular act. Once we have that capacity, we can know when we've made the wrong choice and proceed to develop a sense of responsibility. Prior to this, the animals lived in a sort of ignorant bliss. They still chose their acts, attempting to reap the rewards, and avoid suffering the consequences, but without the capacity to recognize the acts themselves as good or bad, there was no capacity for guilt. The feeling of guilt comes from realizing I should have done otherwise. And since human beings will always make mistakes we will always be haunted by guilt.

Actually it's you who doesn't get it. If there is no correspondence between the model and the reality, it is a falsity.

The point I was making, which started this discussion is that we have no way to establish correspondence between the model and the reality, because the things are modeled as non-dimensional, and we have no way of conceiving of non-dimensional existence. If your argument is that the model doesn't necessarily represent the reality, then you are arguing that we should accept fiction.

If the defining feature of the model does not describe the reality of the thing being modeled, then it is a falsity. If I state the defining feature as a red 1964 Ford Mustang, then the reality being referred to better be a red 1964 Ford Mustang, or my defining feature is a falsity.

I think evolution is a biological theory. It is about 'how species evolve'. The fact that it has now become a de facto 'theory of everything' is, in my view, a cultural defect and not a philosophy at all. I know evolution occured, in fact sometimes i sense a strong connection with my ancient forbears. But I think trying to combine biological evolution and ethical philosophy is fraught with many problems. — Wayfarer

We have to face the facts though. We believe in evolution, we know that it occurred. We also know that we are biological beings included within evolutionary theory. So the question is, is it the case that all the properties of living beings are products of evolution, or are there some properties which are special, and are not the products of evolution? Since morality, as a property of living beings, appears to be exclusive to human beings, then how can we account for its coming into being except through evolution? Therefore morality itself cannot be that special property which is not a product of evolution.

But, it's got nothing to do with evolution, per se. If I wanted to study evolution, I would enroll in biology, to start with, and then study all the requisite disciplines - geology, biology, and the rest. As I mentioned, that is not what I studied, and I don't see how it's relevant. — Wayfarer

The point though, is that seeing morality as a product of evolution can give us much better insight into a more comprehensive understanding of the relationship between the individual and evolution. And what we can find is that there is something which we might call "the will to act", or something like that, which inheres within every individual living being, as a property of the individual. Now we have found a special property of living beings which appears to transcend evolution. It is not a property of evolution because it is common to all living things.

Your quoted passage clearly states: "Its defining feature is that it lacks spatial extension: being zero-dimensional, it does not take up space." So what's the fuss? Are you and aletheist denying this?

I agree with Noble Dust. It's easy to append the term 'evolution' to everything nowadays, and commonplace to ascribe to 'evolution' what was previously ascribed to 'divine will'. I've been arguing a related argument on this forum all along - that subordinating morality to evolution reduces it to a mere adaption, like a tooth or claw or peacock's tail. There's a very good essay on this called Anything But Human by Richard Polt. — Wayfarer

So how would you answer my question to Noble Dust then? How would a relationship between morality and survival undermine evolution itself? As I said to Noble, to make such an assertion is one thing. but how would you support it? The passage you quoted indicates that one cannot turn to evolution to answer one's moral questions, but that's not really relevant. What's at issue in my mind is whether we can turn to morality to answer questions about evolution. Can we look at morality as an instance, an example, of evolution? If so, then since the individual's will is paramount in morality, then we'd have to adapt our concept of evolution to allow for the role of the will of the individual. Rather than reducing morality to mere adaptation, we'd have to consider the role of will in adaptation. It is by turning to ourselves, the individual, that we get a true understand of the individual living being. So I believe we must bring this understanding of the individual, derived from understanding oneself, to bear on the role of the individual in the concept of evolution. Then "divine will" is properly understood through an understanding of the individual's will.

The fact that you think I am just blabbering makes my point for me. — aletheist

You were critical of my attitude, as if I had no idea of the difference between a representation and the thing represented, without addressing anything which I actually said. That, I think is just blabber. If you would have paid attention to what I said, you would have noticed that what I was saying is that we do not have any way of representing real, non-dimensional existence. Yet it is implicit within QFT that there is real non-dimensional existence. That is the problem of interpretation of quantum mechanics, we have no adequate way to represent what quantum mechanics tells us because it deals with non-dimensional existence.

You seemed to have missed the point aletheist, so I'll try to explain better. We have immense, abstract, conceptual structures called fields. The field has no corresponding spatial structure, but it is related to spatial existence through the means of points. But the point is still a non-dimensional, non-spatial entity, so there is no real correspondence here at all. That's why the existence of particles at various points is only probabilistic. The "real particle" or whatever it is which is existing in dimensional space, has no corresponding representation. The entire structure is set apart from, and does not actually correspond to any real dimensional (spatial) existence.

What I suggested is that it is completely conceivable, and logical, that we can give real existence to non-dimensional points, by allowing them to be actual points in time. But this requires that we dismantle the field structure, dismiss the relativistic approach, and develop a new approach which starts with the premise of real points in time. This is dependent on the determination of real points in time. Once we determine the real points in time, we can produce a representation of the corresponding spatial existence. It's just a potential way of simplifying the unnecessarily complicated field structure, but it requires work and experimentation to determine real points in time. You might simply dismiss this by asserting that there is no such thing as real points in time, special relativity denies this, but until someone carries out the work in an attempt to find them, this assertion will not be confirmed.

I think you've set up a division between what is known by human beings in general, and what is practised by particular individuals, and then you try to relate this to "evolution". The problem being that individuals do not "evolve" in any way which is related to the concept of "evolution", So it appears to me like you freely cross category boundaries, perhaps committing category error.

The difference is knowledge versus practice. This is where religious life comes into play. — Noble Dust

So you start off with this distinction of knowledge versus practise, and how it relates to religion. I would assume that "knowledge" here refers to what is held by the religion in general, and "practise" refers to the actions of individuals. If we want to produce categorical consistency, we need to bring "knowledge" into the minds of the individuals. So we make it clear, and unambiguous, that "knowledge" here refers to beliefs which are held by the individual, within the individual's mind. "Religion" then must be a particular type of belief which one holds, a belief in God or some such thing, which is part of an individual's knowledge.

There is a difference between "knowing", or being able to "distinguish right and wrong" in a more and more nuanced way, versus applying that knowledge towards an everyday practice. You seem to assume that the two are interchangeable. This is actually classic Biblical wisdom; it's "head knowledge versus heart knowledge" (ugh, what a gross phrase, yet so true). Practice means consciously applying the actual concepts; things like charity, unconditional love, meditation — Noble Dust

Now you need to justify this distinction between head knowledge and heart knowledge, the difference between knowing what is right and wrong, and practising what is right rather than practising what is wrong. So let's say that "knowing what's right and wrong", consists of general principles which one holds, and let's say that practise consists of applying general principles to particular situations. So the distinction here is between what is held in one's memory, and what is actually going through one's mind at a particular time. We can refer to Augustine's tripartite mind, memory (principles held within), intellect (what's actually going on in one's mind, active thought), and will (that which ends the activity, the decision).

This is what I mean by "moral evolution of the inner life of the individual". What I mean is: There is not an evolution of more and more people applying the more and more nuanced moral concepts we have to their everyday practice. What we have instead is that the general knowledge of moral problems becomes more and more nuanced over time, but this has nothing to say about the actual application of that knowledge by individuals to their lives. — Noble Dust

So this doesn't make a lot of sense to me. You refer to "nuanced moral concepts", Does that mean that there are differences in the moral principles which one has to remember. Does this mean that a child can remember the same fundamental moral principle in a number of different ways, such that each way has a subtle difference from the other? So when that person is later in some particular situation, and applying the moral principle, using the intellect, the person can decide, "I like this version of that principle better than that version", so I'm going to apply this version of that principle in this situation?

Is that what you mean when you say that the knowledge of moral concepts becomes "more and more nuanced over time"? It cannot be that the concept acquires more and more particularities, because then it would become less and less applicable. In order to be applicable to the widest range of particular situations, the principle must become more and more general.

In fact, if anything, the ever-increasing complexity of moral problems just serves to confound the average person, leaving them to fall back on whatever political or religious sentiment is convenient and sufficient enough to stay the tide of overwhelming moral dilemmas that our current world consists of. This is ultimately not about abstract philosophy; it's about personal practice. Morals always ultimately come down to this: the individual person. Conceptions of morality that don't revolve around the individual de-humanize the individual, which is to say that they de-humanize humanity itself. — Noble Dust

Here, you need to distinguish between complexity in the world we live in, and complexity in the moral principles which guide our actions. What is confounding the average person is the complexity of the world which we live in, this is the individual's environment. The individual need not adopt complex and confounding moral principles. One can take something simple, like "love thy neighbour", and cling to this as the highest guiding principle. But in a complex societal environment, one might choose a different highest principle, like "be loyal to your family", or "be patriotic". Choosing a different one of each of these principles to support one's practise, as a highest guiding principle, could produce a radically different practise, depending on which one is chosen.

A complex social environment may make it more difficult for one to properly maintain a hierarchy of moral values, requiring more effort, but an individual cannot blame the societal environment for holding a corrupt hierarchy. This would be to shirk one's responsibility by claiming determinism.

So I disagree with you to a large extent. Yes, I agree that it is "about personal practise", because personal practise is what affects the world, what we observe, and how we judge people. But the "abstract philosophy" consists of the guiding principles which influence one's personal practise, so what morality is "really about" is these abstract principles. To slip in one's adherence to the highest principle is what causes corrupt practise. To hold a "nuanced" highest principle within your mind (memory), i.e. to have a choice of highest principles, is that slippage.

To turn the other way now, away from such slippage and corruption, toward the good, we should seek to more clearly define that highest principle, make it more universal acceptable, and more universally applicable. We should establish the necessity and facilitate the application of the highest principle. Looking back at the foundations of Christianity we can see how Jesus' message of love evolved into forgiveness before going into the stages of corruptive decline. I believe we must renew the highest principle, and that we have not completed the evolution of the highest principle.

This is a classic conflation of survival with moral good. Survival is a mechanism of material evolution; taking this mechanism and applying it to the realm of morals is a misapplication, and this is why: To assume that morals are a function of survival undermines evolution itself; so if evolution is based on change, then there will be a change from survival to something else. Morals are a function of that new form of change, and we live in that world now. Our evolution is no longer based on survival. — Noble Dust

This really doesn't make any sense to me. You have already denied "moral evolution", claiming that there is no such thing, and this I objected to. All you do here is assert that there is no relationship between morality and survival, so you are just begging the question. Your support for this assertion makes no sense to me. How would a relationship between morality and survival undermine evolution itself?

We measure these motions with classical astrophysics, not GR. We describe and predict what we measure with "spatial expansion", which GR endorses. The expansion itself isn't contradictory if you're speaking in terms of transposing the expansion into direction and velocity. — VagabondSpectre

What do you mean by "classical astrophysics"? Do you measure the the Doppler shift of the CMB with classical astrophysics? What principles of measurement would you use to establish wavelengths?

Are you going to make a point or just blabber?

There is a definite evolution of moral concepts, but I see no evidence of a moral evolution of the inner life of the individual or humanity as a whole. — Noble Dust

"Moral" refers to the distinction between right and wrong in human actions. So if there is an evolution of moral concepts, then there is an evolution of the distinction between right and wrong in human actions, and by definition, this is moral evolution. However, I don't know what you mean by "moral evolution of the inner life of the individual". But as for humanity as a whole, if there is evolution in our moral concepts, then there is evolution in our ability to distinguish right and wrong in human actions, an therefore moral evolution.

The result is the appearance of an inner moral evolution of mankind (held up the most conspicuously by the new left), but the actual inner moral evolution isn't there. Look to the proliferation of fundamentalist tendencies like shaming, virtue-signaling and the suppression of free speech (all on the left) as evidence of this lack of moral evolution. — Noble Dust

Evolution is based in change. What leads toward the survival of the species we might call good change, and what leads toward the extinction of the species we might call bad change, if survival is what is designated as good. To give evidence that some moral principles may change for the worse is not evidence that there is no such thing as moral evolution, as evolution consists of changes for the worse as well as changes for the better.

You are conflating the actual particles with the hypothetical (i.e., mathematical) representations. — aletheist

What actual particles? That's the point. The representation is as a non-dimensional point, but what does this actually represent? It can't be a particle, because a real particle cannot be at a non-dimensional point. So what is being represented? If a real dimensional particle were being represented, it would have to be represented as being at more than one point. But then it would not be a fundamental particle, because occupying more than a point would indicate that it is divisible.

Spatial expansion is the only thing we can come up with that reconciles and predicts these seemingly contrary motions that we observe. We can only reconcile our observations by proposing that the space in-between sufficiently distant objects expands and push/pulls us apart. The fact that GR infers spatial expansion and that we observe it is points for GR, not a mark against it. — VagabondSpectre

The issue is that there is motion of objects which cannot be comprehended by GR. This motion is said to be caused by "expansion". So the fact remains that a vast amount of motion, if not the majority of motion in the universe cannot be comprehended by GR, and "spatial expansion is the only thing we can come up with" to explain these contrary motions. How can we even begin to measure these motions when our only means for measuring them, GR, views them as contrary motions, i.e. contradictory.

How can you extrapolate back in time, when you do not even know what these "contrary motions" consist of? Spatial expansion is the only thing we can come up with, but what does it really mean to have everything moving away from every point in space? It's not like everything is moving away from one single point, like an explosion, as "big bang" implies, it's the case that everything is moving away from every point. So the big bang is way off track, because there must be a big bang at every point in space, to account for the observation that everything is moving away from every point in space.

I propose that events occurring on sufficiently small scales are indistinguishable from "non-dimensional events". GR breaks-down at quantum scales, it's true, but to an extent that doesn't matter as long as what GR says about Newtonian scales remains true. It's true for Newtonian/macro scales. — VagabondSpectre

Not only is GR no good at the scale of the universe, because it cannot deal with the motions which are attributed to expansion, it is also no good at quantum scale. How can one even consider the possibility that GR gives us an appropriate representation of the relationship between space and time? It only provides a workable relation between space and time at a very limited spatial scale. A scale which has proven to be convenient for our meagre existence.

That's fine, let's assume that all physicists believe that fundamental particles, and virtual particles which are represented as points, have no real existence. Then it is quite evident that they have no intelligible or coherent idea of what is referred to by "particle".

Consider that in The Republic somewhere, Plato says that the same individual who is capable of doing great harm to society is also capable of doing great good to society. We might say that this person has potential, and potential is power, which might be turned toward good or evil. Some of this power is attributable to the person's circumstances, but a large part of this potential may be attributable to the person's motivation to act, ambition, spirit, or passion. So if you take what I said about a person's dissatisfaction, and consider that this dissatisfaction provides motivation to act, then you can see how this ambition might be turned toward great harm or great good, depending...

But Christianity taking hold never seems to work out well. But Christian morals, bereft of a religious context don't seem to hold up, which stirs doubt in me about the efficacy of any form of humanism whatsoever. But organized religion is equally destructive to mankind. And why? It's because there's no moral evolution. — Noble Dust

The time of Christianity is past. There can be no such thing as a new Christianity because then it would not be Christianity at all, but a new form of religion. That's how evolution works, it builds on the successes of the past while dismissing the failures. But the new organization is a different "being", as it distinguishes itself from the old, with a rupture of discontinuity. The discontinuity is known in biology as death and extinction.

I do not believe that organized religion is destructive to mankind, because evolution is rooted in organization. This necessitates that any form of revolution against the organizations of the past, must itself be a form of organization. And there is no other form of moral organization other than a religious form of organization, as religion is the manifestation of moral organization. So we have in the past for example, the revolution of Jesus and his followers, as a revolt against the ancient Jewish religion. But this itself was an organized revolt, and it had to be, or else it would not have had the power to be successful. So out of that revolution came another organized religion, Christianity, and that was moral evolution.

It is false to claim that there is no such thing as moral evolution because Christianity is a very good example of this. Prior to Christianity the highest moral principles were to abstain from bad acts. Christianity introduced to western religion, the idea of engaging in the best, or highest act, which is the act of contemplation. This is the nature of free will, as described by St Augustine, to free oneself from the influences of temporal existence, in order to contemplate timeless principles. Engaging with such eternal truths leads one toward correct decisions.

That would be the word of God? Could we trust God's word, that it really happened?

It's a reductio ad absurdum argument. God's decision to move the universe is not a premise, it's the object of analysis. Does it make sense for God to move the universe? — Mongrel

If you believe in God, yes. If you do not, no. God is an immaterial existence, so if time is relative to God, then a change in time does not necessitate a change in material existence. But if you do not believe in God, then there cannot be a change in time without a change in material existence.

I believe it is a certain philosophical attitude, which is described in the character of Socrates. It's a type of open-mindedness, a healthy respect for the unknown, and an unwillingness to quit looking for strong principles to provide support for any knowledge. The majority of individuals are groomed by society, unquestioning of the principles which are fed to them. They develop their own personal body of knowledge, to the extent that it is needed to live their lives within their societies, and they go on their way, doing just that. They have no desire, will, or need, to question the principles which they are taught, because that knowledge allows them to live a happy and satisfying life.

Some though, might find things difficult to understand, perhaps the person's mind wanders in school, not developing a desire to learn the principles being taught. Perhaps some well-accepted principles may appear inconsistent or contradictory to that person, so the person's mind just can't adapt to them. Remember, Socrates lived in a society with an abundance of sophistry. The sophists would tech you, for a fee, but Socrates found their principles to be unsound. So what exactly were the sophists teaching?

Notice that what is evident is a certain degree of dissatisfaction in what is being taught. This is a dissatisfaction with the state of society, the societal norms. If that dissatisfaction exists, and one turns to reading Plato, then the whole realm of skepticism is opened up for that person. All sorts of unjustified principles are put forward by characters claiming that it is the truth, and most of these, being moral principles, are very relevant even today. Then the dissatisfaction of the person is validated, the person is not necessarily a societal misfit. So the person who has approached Plato with that dissatisfaction for what is being taught, may find a real, warranted place, a therefore satisfaction, in questioning the soundness of the principles being taught. Others just sneer at the idea that the principles being taught might not be sound.

I don't think God would be able to detect the change either. Think about the question Pierre asked: what is the change relative to? — Mongrel

The change is relative to God. That's the issue, the proposition assumes a God to carry out this act, so we cannot just dismiss God now, to claim that the change is not relative to anything. Now God is understood as an immaterial being, so the change is relative to an immaterial existence. The change is undetectable to us, because we gauge time by judging material changes, but now we've assumed an immaterial existence, and this immaterial existence must have some other means of gauging time.

The observational evidence for an expanding universe doesn't rely on GR though. — VagabondSpectre

The information received by Hubble is interpreted with the use of GR.

Hubble measured and demonstrated the positive correlation between the distance of deep space objects and the speed which they are all traveling away from us (a positive correlation). This means that either we are at the center of a central point of expansion of matter (hence everything is heading away from us) or everything is moving away from everything else (it's all spreading out via some kind of metric expansion). If we were at or near a central point of expansion, then it stands to reason that there would be some sort of pattern in the distribution of matter, but the distribution of matter at the largest observable scale has no such detectable pattern or form, and we would be very lucky indeed if we truly were the center of the universe. — VagabondSpectre

OK, so this is what I mean when I say expansion is unintelligible. Imagine a point in space. Then imagine a point some distance to the right, and a point the same distance to the left, and points above, and below, etc.. Everything is moving away from each of these points. How would you reconcile such different motions? Clearly relativity theory is incapable of reconciling such radically different motions, which are actually the same objects observed from different perspectives.

The legs of your disagreement are that A) General relativity leads to spatial expansion, which is "nonsense", and B) An unexplained objection about the real relationship between gravity and time which GR fails to describe... — VagabondSpectre

It's not the relationship between gravity and time which I object to, it is the relationship between time and space that general relativity creates, which I think is misguided. And I explained this, you just wrote it off as "unintelligible" without even trying to understand it. The issue is with non-dimensional (non-spatial) existence. Mathematicians and physicists utilize non-dimensional points, as if they have real existence. But the physicists have no ontological principles which allow that a non-dimensional point could have real existence in the world. Nothing can actually happen at a non-dimensional point, because there is no space there for anything to happen in, (though physicists seem to allow that some type of incoherent and unintelligible activity is going on there). To resolve this issue, to make non-spatial activity intelligible, we need to invert the relationship between space and time, such that time becomes the 0th dimension, rather than the 4th dimension. This would allow us to deal with the vast quantity of evidence, that there is non-spatial activity which occurs, in a coherent and intelligible way.

I know that your distaste for the concept of spatial expansion doesn't negate it's validity, so what about general relativity is really so inadequate? In light of all the predictive power it lends us, what evidence do you have to suggest that it is somehow false? — VagabondSpectre

It is not a distaste for spatial expansion which I hold. I believe very strongly in spatial expansion, but I believe that it is grossly misunderstood, due to the approach, which is GR. Why I dislike GR then, is that it gives us no approach toward understanding spatial expansion, which is the real nature of space.

It's not "undetectable to us." It's undetectable even in principle. Then apply Leibniz's Law. — Mongrel

If God moves time back, then God knows that time is moved back. If God knows this, then it is in principle "detectable". We need to allow for the possibility of things which are undetectable to us, but are detectable by means which are not available to us. This would not negate the absoluteness of time, because we allow for absolutes within different categories, just like different infinities. So time would be absolute, but not the absolute absolute because we've allowed God into this scenario, and God takes that place.

Same argument to address time: If time is absolute (and so something objects pass through and present in a void), then God would be able to turn the universal clock back by 4 hours. We can see that even in principle, no time change would be detectable, so blah blah blah.. no change in time took place. Time can't be absolute. — Mongrel

I don't see how this argument makes sense. If time were absolute then God could turn back the time by 4 hours. But no time change would be detectable to us. So how do we know that God didn't turn the clock back 4 hours, and a change in time which was undetectable to us didn't take place?

Who said we can't prove the existence of anything?

For example, when we see Indica rice, we know that it is Indica rice. This is because we have defined Indica rice. People mistaking Indica rice as Japonica rice is because such people have no clue of the definition, and this is not the same as misinterpretation. — FLUX23

Sorry for the delay in response Flux. What I meant here is not that we haven't defined what it means to be X (this or that type of rice, or whatever), but that we haven't defined what it means to exist. That's why we can't prove the existence of anything, we just take it for granted that things exist. So we see this or that type of rice, and we assume that these things exist, but we have no way of proving that they exist, because we have no specific definition of what conditions must be fulfilled to qualify as existing.

This is different from god(s). First of all, no one actually met a god (some claims so but without evidence). We don't even know if it exists. The concept came before observation of the actual object (unlike Indica rice). For this reason, the definition of god comes from the complete opposite approach than how we defined Indica rice. The definition of god is not definite at all because we have plenty of religion out there. — FLUX23

So the point made already, is that things like concepts exist, but we don't meet them, we don't even sense them at all. And a concept need not be derived from an actual object. We have the concept of a circle, and pi, which relates the circumference to the diameter. But there is no actual circle, precise to the definition of pi, which expresses an irrational ratio.

"Spatial expansion" isn't a problem, it's a working solution to a problem. Without it the observational evidence leads to great confusion. — VagabondSpectre

This is where we have a difference of opinion. You think that assuming "spatial expansion" avoids great confusion. I think that "spatial expansion" is just a term which hides the great confusion which lies underneath. I think that the application of general relativity to the vast expanse of the universe creates the observational evidence known as "spatial expansion". But the term is just a placeholder which we can refer to rather than referring to "the great confusion".

Scientists do attempt addressing that problem. They just haven't got a universally acceptable solution or alternative. So you are right, general relativity is, by no means, a complete, fully accurate description of physics.

Unlike special relativity, where theories like QFT have unified quantum mechanics and special relativity, general relativity lacks any good alternative or generalizing theories. In fact, even one of the most successful theories like Quantum Field Theory is still inadequate to completely explain several experimental data such as particle physics. This is due to the fundamental nature of QFT. — FLUX23

Right, I'm glad to see that someone here agrees with me to an extent anyway. And I agree with you about the obvious, that QFT has unified special relativity with quantum mechanics. But this is not without its problems. From my perspective, special relativity suffers from the same fundamental problem as general relativity, and that is that it establishes a faulty relationship between space and time. As I described earlier in this thread, the result of this is that it gives us no platform toward understanding non-dimensional (therefore non-spatial) existence.

Mathematicians and physicists regularly utilize non-dimensional points, but there are no principles whereby we can say that a non-dimensional (therefore non-spatial) entity has any real existence. As a result, QFT misleads physicists into studying all sorts of virtual particles and different symmetries, without any grounding for the reality of these things. But real non-dimensional (non-spatial) existence can be provided for by allowing that time can be passing without material change occurring. Then this occurrence, time passing, is itself non-dimensional existence, and time becomes the 0th dimension rather than the 4th. From this perspective we can validate non-dimensional points by locating them in time rather than space. A general area in space, may be associated with a point in time, the point in time having real existence, rather than the perspective produced by special relativity which associates a general area in time with a point in space. See how the vagueness is shifted from a temporal vagueness to a spatial vagueness.

So then, from the practical point of view, what are you insisting we do? Forget about scientific theories and be "philosophical", which in my opinion is even worse in this particular case? Or we just stop talking about it and be agnostic? — FLUX23

Scientific theories come into existence through philosophy. When a theory is put forth, that's what it is, speculative philosophy. And so Einstein was practising philosophy when he put forth the special theory of relativity. We can continue to practise philosophy to resolve the problems involved with relativity theory. Theories are philosophical by nature, science is the method by which theories are tested and supported through empirical evidence. I think it is a mistake to attempt to distinguish philosophical theories from scientific theories, it's just the case that some theories are more speculative than others.

This tells me that ... is a lie. — FLUX23

I don't know what would qualify as "a reasonable scientific background" to you. Perhaps you think that one cannot understand science without mathematics, but I'll point you to the fact that must renowned scientists publish their theories in plain terms with very little math. For example, you'll find very little math in Newton's work, none in Darwin's evolutionary theory, and very little in Einstein's special theory of relativity, though there is an abundance in the general theory. Mathematics has become a crutch for modern science. If the evidence doesn't fit the theory, then create some new mathematical axioms, such as imaginary numbers, to force a fit.

I thought you were against extreme skepticism. — FLUX23

I guess you don't know me too well. To be extremely skeptical is to question theories, analyze them for consistency and inconsistency. It is not to flatly dismiss them in an absolute way. When I said, in the other thread, that we take existence for granted rather than proving existence, this is because we do not know what "existence" means, we don't know what it means to exist. So to prove that something exists when we do not know what it means to exist is a kind of nonsense, it would be like trying to prove that an object is heavy when we do not know what it means to be heavy. Before we can prove whether a particular identified thing exists, we need to prove what "exists" means.

Objects on cosmologically small scales (our local galactic group and smaller) exist within a gravitational field strong enough to counteract metric spatial expansion. If I understand the science correctly, spatial expansion occurs everywhere, it's just counteracted by other physical forces (nuclear bonds/gravity) and therefore not at all measurable on small scales. It can only be experimentally observed using cosmologically large scale distances (millions of parsecs). — VagabondSpectre

I believe that gravity is incorporated into the space-time metric, it is a property of space time. So if there is a part of space, at a great distance between objects for example, in which there is no gravity, then general relativity does not apply here, there are no objects moving in relation to each other, they are too far away. Yet there is still activity of space relative to time here, what is known as spatial expansion. So general relativity gives us an inaccurate representation of the relationship between space and time.

When I talk about the big bang as if it is bona fide knowledge , what I'm saying is essentially is that the above description of the evolution of matter in the observable universe is all very well reasoned by physical science. You can focus on the fact that we cannot see beyond what we can only faultily describe as a "singularity", and say the big bang is bullocks, but you would be discounting everything that we know about what came afterward, which in every possible sense of the word, is everything. — VagabondSpectre

Actually, what I am arguing is that your starting point, general relativity, is faulty, and that is why your finish point, the big bang is faulty. So I believe that the entire described scenario is deficient. Look, general relativity cannot account for the activity which is known as spatial expansion, scientists do not know what this is. There are no principles to explain it. So your entire described scenario is just unprincipled speculation. The problem is, that when cosmologist come across a problem, something which makes no sense, or appears to be unintelligible, then instead of recognizing the most likely cause of this problem, that the general theory of relativity is inadequate, and this inadequacy is causing the problem, they'll just invent some new fiction, like dark matter, to account for the problem. Instead of accepting the most probable reason for the problem, that they do not have an accurate model of the relationship between space and time, as general relativity is unreliable, they'll assume the existence of something like dark matter, which has no evidence for its existence, other than that there is something which the theory cannot account for. So the only evidence of its existence is the fact that assuming its existence makes the theory work.

But the point I make is a very general one: that the tradition of the sanctity of every individual is a distinguishing feature of Christianity. — Wayfarer

I would say that the concept of free will was first given a formal description by St Augustine, and has since become a central part of Christian morality, and perhaps somewhat exclusive to Christianity. And, I argue that it is the real existence of free will which validates the individuality of the individual. If we give up on the reality of free will, opting for any form of determinism, we also give up the principle which allows us to believe that we each have independent existence, as an individual.

A lot of extremely clever scientists, utilising sophisticated technology, have come to the view that the Universe began with rapid expansion from a single point. They're not simply sitting around the camp-fire spitballing 'how did it all begin, George?' There are masses of observational data - and besides all the hypotheses are subject to constant questioning and review. Scientists don't believe anything just for the sake of believing it. Certainly there are many things unknown about it, but the fact that you can't believe that it happened doesn't count for evidence against it. — Wayfarer

As I said, they proceed to this conclusion, from the evidence, which is spatial expansion. But spatial expansion as understood in cosmology is a nonsense notion. As I explained earlier, there is inconsistency between the expansion of space interior to an object, and the expansion of space exterior to an object. This inconsistency is produced because relativity theory does not provide us with the proper relationship between objects and space.

All these "extremely clever scientists", simply overlook this inconsistency because none of them have the balls to address the real problem which is the failings of relativity theory. Any physicist who expresses doubt concerning the almighty relativity theory is immediately ostracized from the community of "real scientists".

have a lot of respect for your posts on philosophy, but I think most of your arguments against scientific topics are variations on: 'I can't understand that at all, and unless you can explain it to me, it must be nonsense'. There are very many confounding discoveries in science, things that highly intelligent people have wrestled with, even to the point of breakdown. Often they can only be represented in the language of mathematical physics which I know I don't comprehend. But that doesn't mean they're 'talking gibberish'. — Wayfarer

I have a reasonable scientific background and you might be surprised at how well I understand this stuff, despite an inability to clearly express myself. I admit my mathematics is very low, and that's why I ask for clear descriptions. So when something which is clearly contradictory in terms of description, (such as the expansion of space inside an object being different from the expansion of space outside an object), can only be accounted for with mathematics, I consider such an application of mathematics to be deception, used to hide a contradiction.


Yes, I completely understand how the use of general relativity theory led to the conclusion of spatial expansion. My claim is that the fact that the expansion of space, as recognized through general relativity, is not the same internal to an object as it is external to an object, indicates a failing of general relativity's expressed relationship between space and objects. You insist, that there is "mountains of evidence to confirm" general relativity, with unwavering disregard for the blatant evidence against it.

An expanding universe implies that in the past everything was closer together, and taken to it's extreme implies that all observable objects were in a very dense (and therefore hot) cluster. — VagabondSpectre

Sure, interpreting observations of the universe through the use of general relativity indicates that in the past, objects were closer together. But we all know that objects themselves are made up off parts, and each of the parts might also be represented as an object. Why is it that the parts of an object were not closer together in the past?