The Science Illusion

airmano wrote: Airmano: I have been very happy so far that we managed to lead this discussion on a theoretical level and without any references to the Quran. Here I feel as if you (ab)use the Quran to reserve yourself "specific rights" to not do the job. Could you stick to this line and try to come up with a better answer ? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Could you please answer my question (see at the very top) first before we move on ? After that I'll be happy to reply to your remarks.

I think my answer was very much to the point. A Creator model has this founding premise that not everything in this universe can be established through evidence. Whereas a no-Creator model has no such limitations unless something self imposed by its proponents. So, for me having a theoretical model or not, is not of any concern. However, if there is someone out there who has got a credible enough no-Creator model that can be established through scientific evidence; I am ready to accept it. I think that is a fair position for discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------

airmano wrote: QE Complexity is a highly relative term. I think I gave a clear example for it. The reason why I did not give any deeper example is -put sarcastically- the suspicion that people who still believe in Scientific Miracles in the Quran will not be able to grasp it. ------------------------------------------------------- So 1) the fact that things seem complex to man cannot be a reason to argue that there cannot be someone else to whom things are no more complex Correct, but I haven't seen anybody able to do so yet. Allah has so far been a no-show. -------------------------------------------------------- 2) at the first place why should things seem complex to man at all, especially when he argues that such systems came in to existence as per a set of predefined natural laws? Again, try to understand the logic of chaos theory. A simple formula can give rise to very complex structures. Another -highly aesthetic- entry point may be the the Mandelbulb which gives rise to a (yet deterministic and fractal) structure. These structures are highly variable and almost unpredictable without the use of modern computers.

So based on your comments I hope we can draw the following conclusions:

1.     There is a characteristic of complexity in this universe that remains beyond man�s comprehension.
2.     As it is a fact that there are things beyond man�s comprehension, there is no reason to eliminate the possibility of an entity that comprehends everything.
3.     As theoretically even simple systems could get in to extremely variable and unpredictable behaviours, it becomes all the more puzzling why various systems in this universe be subject to certain predictable behaviours at first place.

The fact of affairs being such, is it not a bad idea to jump to definitive conclusions with a no-Creator model when there is absolutely no scientific evidence to support such a model?
-------------------------------------------------------

airmano wrote: Sorry QE, this is not to goof on you, but the way you ask the question shows that you have not understood the most basic notion of science. Quantum Mechanics (or any other scientific theory) is not nature but a description of [a specific aspect of] nature.

No worries airmano, I was just referring to your comment �QM -or call it nature- is deeply probabilistic� in the earlier post.
--------------------------------------------------------

airmano wrote: Now another question pops up, what came first, QM or the laws of nature? See above.

If it was not clear, here is the question again: Which one came in to existence first � the everlasting laws of nature or quantum fluctuations?
--------------------------------------------------------

airmano wrote: Besides point 1) (everlasting) my model does not need 2-7 whereas yours (mainly) does. Can you explain me what "Creator" or "Sustainer" got to do in my model or why I should need it ?

Whether you acknowledge these embedded assumptions in your model or not, the facts are clear that any model that tries to explain this universe has to address all these aspects and more.

Feel free to share some scientific evidence for absolute Self Creation and Self Sustenance from the physical world, and then we can see if your model can stand without these embedded assumptions.
--------------------------------------------------------

airmano wrote: I already asked you twice to stop this "out of nothing" nonsense - or prove me wrong by showing me where I said so. The term "harmonious" that you obviously like, is a sentimental one which can not be quantified. I replied to your "harmonious" with clear counterexamples, so obviously what is harmonious for you may not be so for others. May be we should continue this discussion with a different term like "predictable" (as opposed to chaotic) or "static" ? Could you make a suggestion yourself ? If your "why question" means why our solar system was chaotic at the beginning to become more stable over time why don't you make the effort yourself to google a bit?. I get the impression that you try to use your pretended(?) ignorance to derail the discussion and that in reality you have zero interest in any real information as soon as you smell a conflict with your book.

It is not relevant whether you said it not. The point is whether you have a credible explanation with scientific evidence that your model can explain the origin of universe, whether out of something or nothing. If you can�t do that, then what is the point in making a fuss about the �out of nothing� description?

I agree with your suggestion of predictable vs. chaotic nature of the universe as a point for discussion.

My �why question� is more to do with why the systems get settled or work in a certain way among the numerous alternatives, especially when there is a clear possibility for things to proceed towards more chaotic ways.

Thanks for sharing the link on the Nebular Hypothesis. Look how close is the description of this hypothesis published in 1775 to what is mentioned in Quran 41:11 around 1100 years earlier �surprising isn�t it!
---------------------------------------------------------      

airmano wrote: I am always amused by this islamic viewpoint but I appreciate your "at least" which puts it into more relative terms. Ruminating that science changes all the time (which is already plain wrong) and claiming that Islam does not, overlooks that there are changes in the interpretation of the Quran more often than I change my T-shirt(= every day) and that even at any moment in time you have the opposing opinions from tolerant Sufis to hardcore Jihadists who all claim to have the [only] right view on the very same religion - not to talk about things like "abrogation", "fiery beings", man being made out of clay or rivers of wine (47:15) in paradise and so on.

I think it would be one of the most unreasonable statement to make if someone says science does not change with time�it is in fact one of the prominent characteristics of science that hypotheses and theories are continuously subject to the test of scientific evidences and those that do not survive these tests are either amended or become completely obsolete over a period of time. I am truly surprised that you claim to be a proponent of science but are blind to this reality!

Variation in interpretations among individuals or over a period of time is a fact in the human domain. It is not limited to the interpretation of Quran, it happens in almost all human interpretations. For example, you look at a criminal case judged by various courts; you are guaranteed to find different interpretations at different levels. Or look at the same contract interpreted by different parties, or a medical report interpreted by different doctors. If human interpretation didn�t vary with individuals or time, there would have been no requirement for an appeal or a second opinion or a revision etc. But it remains a fact that human domain is such a way that we have different interpretations among individuals and with updated knowledge over time.

That�s what makes the choice interesting�whether as an individual you are able to understand the true path irrespective of the numerous distractions around you!

airmano wrote: Back to the subject: You started this quote with "When you fail to explain things..." followed by: "...and then you try to ridicule others who at least have a time-tested book to support them!". So I suggest you to get real and to put some flesh to your claims: a) Could you please give a real world case/example where the scientific concept fails as you claim ? b) Could you then also stay in line with your above statement and explain why and how your explanation (probably based on the Quran) with respect to the same case is superior ? c) Obviously, I expect the case to be such that theories about it are (at least in principle) falsifiable, i.a.w. not of the "why some people go to hell" (tauto-)logic.

a)     Please refer the following links for real world cases of scientific concepts that have been proven as failures:

Einstein's Static Universe and Other Failed Theories

Obsolete Science Theories - Wiki

b)     As I have explained before, Quran caters for a higher purpose and is not limited to just the realm of science. There are a number of references of scientific nature that are used in the Quran as a way of explaining Allah�s signs. These references far exceed the level of knowledge at that time, are devoid of any and all scientific misconceptions that were prevalent during and after the revelation of Quran, and are fully in line with proven scientific facts as on date. Feel free to share if you think you have any point with credible evidence to disprove any such statement from the Quran and we can have a discussion on that.

c)     Of course a number of scientific references in the Quran are falsifiable in nature. We can discuss further if you choose to discuss any point in detail.

Tim the plumber wrote: There is no particular reason that we know of which will stop us one day understanding the universe. That day has yet to come as there is much more that we do not yet understand than we do understand. Fun to be in the exploration phase of human society isn't it?

I completely agree with you that we are in the exploration phase. The problem is when people try to draw definitive conclusions with no basis to do so as we are still in the exploration phase.

It is completely a matter of choice to be optimistic that someday man is going to have all the answers about this universe. But then one is prompted to look how pragmatic such an approach is. From the beginning of the scientific approach there have been many theoretical models trying to explain this universe, and essentially almost all of these theories have failed to stand the test of time, some have become completely obsolete, whilst some others have undergone changes over the time, and yet we have no real estimate of when man is going to have all the answers.

So if you think of this theoretical approach over a period, there would have been people in the past that would have lived their life and died, drawing definitive conclusions based on some theoretical model that was in effect at that time, but are now been proved that they were wrong with their conclusions. In other words, drawing definitive conclusions based on theoretical models pose a great risk of dying under the wrong belief!

Tim the plumber wrote: The universe does not run on unrestricted chance.The way the physics of it works defines the way it looks and behaves. That this gives rise to structure at may levels of detail is not. mathamatically, surprising.

The moment you deny an absolute Creator, you are effectively leaving everything to chance. Then what perplexes man is the fact that again that chance is not unrestricted, the chance in fact follows certain set laws. And the realm of science is limited to explaining �how� such a system works, that too with limited success. But the realm of science can never explain �why� such a system�at best it is again left to chance!

@QE

Airmano The point is however: why does the non-creator model have the obligation to (be able to) explain everything, whereas the creator model can do almost completely without [evidence]* ? QE: For me there is a reason why man cannot explain everything, because the Creator specifically says man cannot.

I have been very happy so far that we managed to lead this discussion on a theoretical level and without any references to the Quran. Here I feel as if you (ab)use the Quran to reserve yourself "specific rights" to not do the job.
Could you stick to this line and try to come up with a better answer ?

-----------------------------------------------------

But for a no-Creator model is there any specific reason that prevents man from explaining everything?

Yes, complexity. We are able to predict a desert storm fairly well but we will never be able (nor will your God by the way) to calculate the trajectory of each individual grain of sand a hundred years in advance. You'd need a computer bigger than the Universe to do so. We are not even able to solve the three body problem although we clearly know the laws ruling it.
The second reason is Quantum Mechanics (QM). QM -or call it nature- is deeply probabilistic. The laws of nature forbid us to go below a certain level of knowledge (of the state of a system) and I strongly doubt that any God is able to go beyond it.
Despite that we do have very precise ideas about the development of our Universe, the solar system, and finally the evolution of life and why we are the way we are. You don't need to be able to know the history of each individual rock to explain a moraine at a glacier's end. ...And all these rules work without invoking a creator.

Now you can of course take the backdoor and argue that a creator made these rules, but I [still] don't see the advantage of introducing an (1)everlasting, (2)intelligent and (3)intentional creator (4)making these rules - over simply (1)"everlasting rules".
------------------------------------------------------

If you assume that things are created on their own...

Once more: I never said so and I clearly explained why. I'd wish you'd stop repeating this false statement or show me where I did state so.
-----------------------------------------------------

...then there is no necessity that such independently created things have to behave in a coordinated manner so that they all sustain without any chaos. Yes, there is this striking harmony you can observe in the planetary systems and also all throughout the nature, which is obviously too hard to be dismissed to mere chance.

Rules are essentially the opposite of chaos and that's what I am talking about.
Physics can even explain quite neatly why our solar system seemed/was rather chaotic at the beginning (yet obeying precise laws) and became much more stable over the millions of years.
So, what you call "harmony" today is simply(?) the result of a long, violent and well known planetary "weeding process" and yet there is still a fair chance that one day we may get a rather inharmonious comet on our head. Remember the dinosaurs being wiped out by a comet ?
Similarly we have an even [much] higher likelihood to be killed by an equally inharmonious earthquake (The inability to explain these forms of mass killing otherwise, crazily prompts many [muslim] scholars to interpret it as God's punishment).   
The impression of "harmonious" is (at least on a planetary level) only due to our short human life span preventing us from observing deviating processes on an individual scale.

BTW: In a bit more than a billion years the sun will roast the earth, again, not a very harmonious thought.

If you feel like presenting another (better ?) example of what you consider as "harmonious" I am of course willing to reply to any suggestion.



Airmano


*) Added the 20. Nov

Edited by airmano - 20 November 2016 at 12:00pm

airmano wrote: I finally understand why you asked so many question that I felt to be unrelated. The point is however: why does the non-creator model have the obligation to (be able to) explain everything, whereas the creator model can do almost completely without ?

For me there is a reason why man cannot explain everything, because the Creator specifically says man cannot. But for a no-Creator model is there any specific reason that prevents man from explaining everything?

-----------------------------------------------------

airmano wrote: Not quite sure what you mean with "harmony" (and/or "unity in design") Is it something like "planets not colliding with each other" or the fact that the sun shines ? Obviously I have to understand what you try to say to be able to answer.

If you assume that things are created on their own, then there is no necessity that such independently created things have to behave in a coordinated manner so that they all sustain without any chaos. Yes, there is this striking harmony you can observe in the planetary systems and also all throughout the nature, which is obviously too hard to be dismissed to mere chance.

airmano wrote: I come to that, once the other two points above are sorted out.

Sure