Moral Compass

[Harbal]

You misunderstand what "natural law" means, then.

Once again, it is enough that You agree that matter follows natural Law.

"Enough" for what?

If matter follows natural law, then it follows entropy. If it follows entropy, it's neither eternal in the past nor eternal in the future. So any thought of an eternal material universe is debunked, and we have to account for the huge infusion of order that suddenly appeared in the universe at some time in the past, and from which it's been entropically declining.

That's a very simple and obvious deduction. So one thing it's not "enough" for, is for anybody to continue to believe in the eternality of matter. So I suppose that, yes, it's "enough," but certainly not "enough" to allow that mistake to persist...at least, not for rational persons.

Don't they say that gravity will eventually pull everything back together again into a small, compact mass, followed by another Big Bang? Or something like that.

[Immanuel Can]

Once again, it is enough that You agree that matter follows natural Law.

"Enough" for what?

If matter follows natural law, then it follows entropy. If it follows entropy, it's neither eternal in the past nor eternal in the future. So any thought of an eternal material universe is debunked, and we have to account for the huge infusion of order that suddenly appeared in the universe at some time in the past, and from which it's been entropically declining.

That's a very simple and obvious deduction. So one thing it's not "enough" for, is for anybody to continue to believe in the eternality of matter. So I suppose that, yes, it's "enough," but certainly not "enough" to allow that mistake to persist...at least, not for rational persons.

Don't they say that gravity will eventually pull everything back together again into a small, compact mass, followed by another Big Bang? Or something like that.

"They" are not being scientific, if that's what "they" say. "They" might be being wishful, speculative and ideological, but not scientific.

For if they were scientists, they'd know that a) there is nowhere close to enough matter present in the existing universe to allow any gravitational force to collapse it again,and b) the matter is moving outwards, expanding, and has already long ago exceeded escape velocity (i.e. the point at which reversal is possible). So no known force in the universe is capable of producing a "Big Crunch," as it is called; and hence, once again, the universe is not cyclical but linear in time, and is not eternal.

[Harbal]

"Enough" for what?

If matter follows natural law, then it follows entropy. If it follows entropy, it's neither eternal in the past nor eternal in the future. So any thought of an eternal material universe is debunked, and we have to account for the huge infusion of order that suddenly appeared in the universe at some time in the past, and from which it's been entropically declining.

That's a very simple and obvious deduction. So one thing it's not "enough" for, is for anybody to continue to believe in the eternality of matter. So I suppose that, yes, it's "enough," but certainly not "enough" to allow that mistake to persist...at least, not for rational persons.

Don't they say that gravity will eventually pull everything back together again into a small, compact mass, followed by another Big Bang? Or something like that.

"They" are not being scientific, if that's what "they" say. "They" might be being wishful, speculative and ideological, but not scientific.

I really couldn't say how scientific they are being, if they say that. I'm curious about your suggestion that they might be being wishful. Why on earth would anyone wish for that, do you suppose?

For if they were scientists, they'd know that a) there is nowhere close to enough matter present in the existing universe to allow any gravitational force to collapse it again,and b) the matter is moving outwards, expanding, and has already long ago exceeded escape velocity (i.e. the point at which reversal is possible). So no known force in the universe is capable of producing a "Big Crunch," as it is called; and hence, once again, the universe is not cyclical but linear in time, and is not eternal.

I'm not going to check the veracity of that; my intuition will probably serve just as well.

[Immanuel Can]

Don't they say that gravity will eventually pull everything back together again into a small, compact mass, followed by another Big Bang? Or something like that.

"They" are not being scientific, if that's what "they" say. "They" might be being wishful, speculative and ideological, but not scientific.

I really couldn't say how scientific they are being, if they say that. I'm curious about your suggestion that they might be being wishful. Why on earth would anyone wish for that, do you suppose?

Well, there are certain beliefs that require a perpetual universe. In the religious world, the Hindu-Buddhist cluster require perpetual cycles of reincarnation, and so they need a perpetual material universe. But in the secular world, the motive is much more simple: a universe that never had any beginning, and which has perpetual cycles, does not presuppose the need of any Creator. One can avoid the God question entirely, then, by pretending there were infinite cycles before this one, and will be infinite cycles in the future. That's an incentive for some, for purely ideological reasons, to want to keep believing in perpetual cycles or a perpetual universe.

For if they were scientists, they'd know that a) there is nowhere close to enough matter present in the existing universe to allow any gravitational force to collapse it again,and b) the matter is moving outwards, expanding, and has already long ago exceeded escape velocity (i.e. the point at which reversal is possible). So no known force in the universe is capable of producing a "Big Crunch," as it is called; and hence, once again, the universe is not cyclical but linear in time, and is not eternal.

I'm not going to check the veracity of that; my intuition will probably serve just as well.

Yes, you can see it's true. If you are aware of the simple fact that the vast majority of the universe is actually occupied by empty space (a fact you can see on any space picture), you can realize that it would take some kind of force of immense magnitude but presently entirely unknown to science to do anything like "crunching" that thin quantity of matter with those vast spaces between them.

[Harbal]

"They" are not being scientific, if that's what "they" say. "They" might be being wishful, speculative and ideological, but not scientific.

I really couldn't say how scientific they are being, if they say that. I'm curious about your suggestion that they might be being wishful. Why on earth would anyone wish for that, do you suppose?

Well, there are certain beliefs that require a perpetual universe. In the religious world, the Hindu-Buddhist cluster require perpetual cycles of reincarnation, and so they need a perpetual material universe. But in the secular world, the motive is much more simple: a universe that never had any beginning, and which has perpetual cycles, does not presuppose the need of any Creator. One can avoid the God question entirely, then, by pretending there were infinite cycles before this one, and will be infinite cycles in the future. That's an incentive for some, for purely ideological reasons, to want to keep believing in perpetual cycles or a perpetual universe.

So some people already know what conclusion needs to be arrived at, and just pick a theory that delivers it. What a strange way of going about things.

[Immanuel Can]

So some people already know what conclusion needs to be arrived at, and just pick a theory that delivers it. What a strange way of going about things.

It's what most people do, actually. They have some set of suppositions about what's true, and about how life works, and they feel resistant to anything that might force them to rethink...and enthusiastic about things that might mean they can continue to believe what they already believe. So they hear about something like "The Infinite Worlds Hypothesis," or "The Multiverse Hypothesis" or reincarnation, or "The Big Crunch," and rejoice, and conclude that they don't have to worry themselves about living in a linear universe. They take the first opportunity they get to say, "That's enough -- I get to continue as I was."

But before we sound to hard on them for that, it's also true that somebody who changes their whole worldview at the very first sign of a controversy probably didn't believe anything worth believing in the first place. So somewhere between complete credulity about one's own prejudices and complete cynicism toward them is where an intelligent person is likely to be found.

Maybe the most sensible person is the one who believed one thing for a bit, was challenged about continuing to believe it, fought back-and-forth for a bit, and then either reformed his earlier beliefs or changed them in principled ways. But that takes mental work...and people and work don't always mix.

[Janoah]

You misunderstand what "natural law" means, then.

Once again, it is enough that You agree that matter follows natural Law.

"Enough" for what?

For me, you have answered my question sufficiently.
You agree that matter follows natural Law.

[Immanuel Can]

"Enough" for what?

For me, you have answered my question sufficiently.

I'm glad to have helped.

[Harbal]

Maybe the most sensible person is the one who believed one thing for a bit, was challenged about continuing to believe it, fought back-and-forth for a bit, and then either reformed his earlier beliefs or changed them in principled ways. But that takes mental work...and people and work don't always mix.

No, I think the most sensible person is the one who can accept that he just doesn't know. There's nothing wrong with speculating, and maybe some things seem much more likely than others, but when you don't actually know, and there is currently no way of knowing for certain, what's wrong with just settling on that?

[Janoah]

"Enough" for what?

For me, you have answered my question sufficiently.

I'm glad to have helped.

Okay, now next question,
is he God who is followed by matter?

[Immanuel Can]

Maybe the most sensible person is the one who believed one thing for a bit, was challenged about continuing to believe it, fought back-and-forth for a bit, and then either reformed his earlier beliefs or changed them in principled ways. But that takes mental work...and people and work don't always mix.

No, I think the most sensible person is the one who can accept that he just doesn't know.

There's sense in saying, "I don't know right now." That can be honest and suitably humble.

However, there's rarely any sense in just assuming, "I can't know," or "Nobody can know." The second would be anti-educational: it would assume that if a person doesn't already know something, he can't come to know it in the future.

Of course, that would be absurd.

[Immanuel Can]

For me, you have answered my question sufficiently.

I'm glad to have helped.

Okay, now next question,
is he God who is followed by matter?

Could you put that in Standard English, or in more explicit terms, so I can understand your question?

[Harbal]

Maybe the most sensible person is the one who believed one thing for a bit, was challenged about continuing to believe it, fought back-and-forth for a bit, and then either reformed his earlier beliefs or changed them in principled ways. But that takes mental work...and people and work don't always mix.

No, I think the most sensible person is the one who can accept that he just doesn't know.

There's sense in saying, "I don't know right now." That can be honest and suitably humble.

And that is exactly what I do say, because I am sensible, honest, and suitably humble.

However, there's rarely any sense in just assuming, "I can't know," or "Nobody can know." The second would be anti-educational: it would assume that if a person doesn't already know something, he can't come to know it in the future.

Yes, and that is why I used the word, "currently". There is still much to learn about physics and the universe.

[Immanuel Can]

There is still much to learn about physics and the universe.

Obviously, about many things. None of us knows currently even a small fraction of 1% of what we could know.

So it never makes any sense for a person to conclude, "We just can't know X," unless X is something for which there is definitely no possibility of knowledge becoming possible. And how many matters are there that are that clear?

So far as I can see, very few. None of us will ever calculate pi to the final digit. But there are obvious reasons why nobody can know the absolute value of pi. Or the actual size of the universe, at any given second...none of us can know that because of the limitations of time and space, as well as of our capacity for knowledge. But most matters are not at all like those. So it rarely makes any sense to conclude from "I don't know" that "I cannot know in the future."

Instead of being humble, that would simply be dishonest.

[Harbal]

There is still much to learn about physics and the universe.

Obviously, about many things. None of us knows currently even a small fraction of 1% of what we could know.

So it never makes any sense for a person to conclude, "We just can't know X," unless X is something for which there is definitely no possibility of knowledge becoming possible. And how many matters are there that are that clear?

Yes, and I didn't say that we can't know how the universe came to be, or what it's future is, I just said we can't know right now, because we simply don't have the necessary information available to us at present.