PDA

View Full Version : Why there is a need for an "outside agent"...



calluke
2007-Jan-18, 01:27 AM
There is a need of an "outside agent" in our universe, because without it, the Laws of the Universe would not be possible. Please read my argument below...

If one believes that the laws of the universe are given the credit of governing space and time, than these laws are 'self-contained' and exist independently of any external influence. The satisfactory aspect to this view is that it demonstrates the concept of order: the action of law upon the universe.

However, the faulty aspect to this view, on the other hand, is that these laws are labeled as being self-contained. But a self-contained system of universal laws, you see, is an impossibility. Quite clearly, something external to the system of laws must exist to organize the laws and designate their roles. Something (not "nothing") must exist, furthermore, that maintains the laws of the universe: an element that "breathes life" into the laws, without which the laws of the universe I believe, would die!

Now my question for the forum is, "how does one scientifically argue there is no outside agent, yet still believes and trusts in the laws of the universe being self-contained, when this seems very contradictory?"

01101001
2007-Jan-18, 01:41 AM
There is a need of an "outside agent" in our universe, because without it, the Laws of the Universe would not be possible. Please read my argument below...

This was posted to the Questions and Answers subforum. What's your question?

Your advocacy -- of what almost seems religious, and not about space or astronomy -- probably belongs elsewhere, another subforum, perhaps even in a forum other than the BAUT Forum.

(You're new, right? You might want to check out Rules For Posting To This Board (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=32864).)

George
2007-Jan-18, 01:52 AM
But a self-contained system of universal laws, you see, is an impossibility. Yet, that is a subjective viewpoint and outside of science.

As stated, this is the wrong forum for how science and beliefs interact. You might enjoy this thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=51709).

calluke
2007-Jan-18, 02:05 AM
This was posted to the Questions and Answers subforum. What's your question?

Your advocacy -- of what almost seems religious, and not about space or astronomy -- probably belongs elsewhere, another subforum, perhaps even in a forum other than the BAUT Forum.

(You're new, right? You might want to check out Rules For Posting To This Board (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=32864).)

Forgive me. I did intend to pose a question. My question is, how does one scientifically argue there is no outside agent, yet still believes and trusts in the laws of the universe being self-contained, when this seems very contradictory?

And also, thank you "01101001" for posting the rules. But i have already read them and i have not broken any of them in my post (accept maybe not asking a question, but that was by accident).

Rule #12. Politics & Religion

"Due to the contentious nature of these subjects, forum participants are strongly advised to avoid discussing religious and political issues. Please don't begin or contribute to a topic that's merely going to incite or fuel a flame war. "

----- i never mentioned religion --------

01101001
2007-Jan-18, 02:10 AM
----- i never mentioned religion --------

And you're not going to. Good. Glad you read them. Sorry for thinking you hadn't.

OK, what sort of thing is it that might breathe life into the laws, to keep them from dying?

And is this really about science? Maybe I missed school the day the teacher covered the life-breathing thing in my science class.

Van Rijn
2007-Jan-18, 02:14 AM
Forgive me. I did intend to pose a question. My question is, how does one scientifically argue there is no outside agent, yet still believes and trusts in the laws of the universe being self-contained, when this seems very contradictory?


How is that contradictory? From your previous post:



However, the faulty aspect to this view, on the other hand, is that these laws are labeled as being self-contained. But a self-contained system of universal laws, you see, is an impossibility. Quite clearly, something external to the system of laws must exist to organize the laws and designate their roles


What is the scientific basis for this statement?

BTW, this sounds more like an ATM argument than something for the Q&A section. But if you are going to argue for something "outside" the universe, you would be expected to present your evidence and a scientific argument.

calluke
2007-Jan-18, 02:20 AM
OK, what sort of thing is it that might breathe life into the laws, to keep them from dying?

I came here to GET answers, not give them! :o)

So do you have an answer to my original question or even your question to me for that matter?

calluke
2007-Jan-18, 02:26 AM
How is that contradictory? From your previous post:



What is the scientific basis for this statement?

BTW, this sounds more like an ATM argument than something for the Q&A section. But if you are going to argue for something "outside" the universe, you would be expected to present your evidence and a scientific argument.

Either please answer my question or don't reply to my post. I haven't been here too long on this forum, but I have quickly realized this is not a place to "question" science. I have seen more than one poster get all hot and bothered by my questioning, rather than giving me answers! Now if you don't have the answers, than just say so - but don't belittle me and talk down to me when you are the ones that look foolish for not having an answer.

Ken G
2007-Jan-18, 02:42 AM
My question is, how does one scientifically argue there is no outside agent, yet still believes and trusts in the laws of the universe being self-contained, when this seems very contradictory?

Here's your answer. It is not the least bit necessary for science to argue there is not an outside agent! Science is not at all about arguing what is not, and I'm sorry if anyone ever gave you that impression. Science is about making testable models of the predictable behavior of what is. If you can offer a testable model describing the behavior of your outside agent, and then make predictions and actually test them, then and only then are you doing science. That is what science does. I am willing to be that you mistakenly think that something can be taught in science class whenever science cannot prove it doesn't exist. You are mistaken-- science classes teach science. You need a better understanding of science-- your thoughts on outside agents are entirely up to you and science is moot on it.

calluke
2007-Jan-18, 02:56 AM
Here's your answer. It is not the least bit necessary for science to argue there is not an outside agent! Science is not at all about arguing what is not, and I'm sorry if anyone ever gave you that impression. Science is about making testable models of the predictable behavior of what is. If you can offer a testable model describing the behavior of your outside agent, and then make predictions and actually test them, then and only then are you doing science. That is what science does. I am willing to be that you mistakenly think that something can be taught in science class whenever science cannot prove it doesn't exist. You are mistaken-- science classes teach science. You need a better understanding of science-- your thoughts on outside agents are entirely up to you and science is moot on it.

I like to call this the "smoke screen affect". You don't have an answer, you realize it IS contradictory, and so you must belittle me and my questioning instead of posting an answer. If you believe that a self-contained system can have universal laws, than prove it. That is why i am here - not to give answers, or my own personal beliefs, or spread "religion" or whatever. I want answers. I'm not saying that I even BELIEVE there is an outside agent, rather I am posting my arguement and question in hopes that someone could possibly have an answer. Obviously, you don't!

calluke
2007-Jan-18, 02:59 AM
Here's your answer. It is not the least bit necessary for science to argue there is not an outside agent! Science is not at all about arguing what is not, and I'm sorry if anyone ever gave you that impression. Science is about making testable models of the predictable behavior of what is.

Than please prove to me that it is possible to have a closed, self-contained system and yet have laws of the universe that govern themselves. Because that is what science argues as fact - yet it is unprovable AND contradictory.

Ken G
2007-Jan-18, 03:18 AM
Than please prove to me that it is possible to have a closed, self-contained system and yet have laws of the universe that govern themselves. Because that is what science argues as fact - yet it is unprovable AND contradictory.

OK, lesson two. Science is also not about proving what is possible. It is about making models that have predictive and conceptual power. That's all it is, that's all it ever was.

calluke
2007-Jan-18, 03:23 AM
OK, lesson two. Science is also not about proving what is possible. It is about making models that have predictive and conceptual power. That's all it is, that's all it ever was.

Than please point me in the direction of where I might find a model that is predictive and has conceptual power and demonstrates that we ARE in a closed, self-contained system and yet have laws of the universe that govern themselves.

If you want to play a game in semantics, thats fine - but you look just plain silly to the rest of us.

01101001
2007-Jan-18, 03:37 AM
No. Here's what's silly:

Wikipedia: Burden of proof (logical fallacy) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_%28logical_fallacy%29)
Wikipedia: Ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)

Ken G
2007-Jan-18, 03:56 AM
Than please point me in the direction of where I might find a model that is predictive and has conceptual power and demonstrates that we ARE in a closed, self-contained system and yet have laws of the universe that govern themselves.
You aren't listening, I'm telling you what science is because you don't know. The models that science makes that have predictive and conceptual power are things like studying the laws of dynamics so we can fly in airplanes, or the laws of statics so we can drive over bridges. Done either of those? Fortunately you don't need to understand science to have it work for you. That's kind of the point-- science has objective usefulness. So what is "silly" is your asking science to perform a particular function for your bidding, like it was a waiter in a restaurant. It doesn't work that way-- science does what it does, and what it does not do is "demonstrate that we are in a closed, self-contained system". What it does do is act from a perspective of being in a closed self-contained system, because it has no choice at all to do anything else, and see how far it can take us. Oh yeah-- it took us to the Moon.

If you think that an "outside agent" can help you build models with predictive power that you can actually go out and test and will help you fly in faster airplanes, understand biological systems better, or drive heavier trucks over bridges, then, and only then, will you be doing science, and only then will you be seen in a science classroom.

Van Rijn
2007-Jan-18, 04:09 AM
Either please answer my question or don't reply to my post.


It's a loaded question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_many_questions). You might as well ask "Do you still beat your wife?" You're making assertions without showing their scientific basis, asking questions based on those assertions, then expecting us to answer them.

AGN Fuel
2007-Jan-18, 05:58 AM
Hi Calluke,


However, the faulty aspect to this view, on the other hand, is that these laws are labeled as being self-contained. But a self-contained system of universal laws, you see, is an impossibility.

This is a very definite statement. What makes you declare with such emphasis that a self-contained system of universal laws is impossible?

(The weak anthropic principle gets a lot of bad press for some reason - personally I have yet to come across a simpler and more satisfying explanation).


Quite clearly, something external to the system of laws must exist to organize the laws and designate their roles.

Again, why? 'Designation of roles' sounds like a very anthropocentric (and obviously a teleological) concept. Again, I suggest that the weak anthropic principle has this covered - the apparent 'fine tuning' of the Laws of Physics is rebutted by the fact that if they were other, we would not be here to contemplate them! This may sound flippant, but I honestly believe it is not. We cannot be surprised to find ourselves in a universe conducive to life - if it were not, we would not find ourselves in it at all! Further, as we investigate the universe more closely, it may well turn out that the Laws of Physics could not have structured themselves in any other way.


Now my question for the forum is, "how does one scientifically argue there is no outside agent, yet still believes and trusts in the laws of the universe being self-contained, when this seems very contradictory?"

I do not see any contradiction. I honestly believe that such issues stem only from observing a universe with a viewpoint that we have been placed here as as some sort of 'finished product'. I do not see H.sapiens in that light at all. Life has evolved to this present position as it adapts to the niches in which it finds itself. After 13.6 billion years, it finds itself with one species living precariously on a small rock that has evolved sufficient intellect to ask "How did I get here?". The tempting answer is to say that something like us, but much bigger must have set everything up for us. The real answer is that over unimaginably many steps, over unimaginable lengths of time, life adapted to the circumstances in which it found itself, until it found itself as you (and as cats and elephants & bottle-nosed dolphins and bacteria and krill and millions more species on this rock alone). Give it another couple of billion years and H.sapiens will be as curious a stepping stone to the inquisitive inhabitants of that time as archaeopteryx is to us.

TrAI
2007-Jan-18, 06:16 AM
You know, reading this thread made me think, if a selfcontrolled universe is impossible, then, what controlls the rules that makes the structure or entity/entities that compose this outside agent possible... It seems circular in a way...

AGN Fuel
2007-Jan-18, 06:18 AM
You know, reading this thread made me think, if a selfcontrolled universe is impossible, then, what controlls the rules that makes the structure or entity/entities that compose this outside agent possible... It seems circular in a way...

Agreed! If I may adapt your sig for a moment:

"Thank you for playing the game of infinite regression. You can't win, but good on you for having a go!"

Ken G
2007-Jan-18, 07:12 AM
You know, reading this thread made me think, if a selfcontrolled universe is impossible, then, what controlls the rules that makes the structure or entity/entities that compose this outside agent possible... It seems circular in a way...

What that is is the exact reason why postulating an agent that is external to the system is simply not scientific. That is the kind of thing you have to put in to science manually, it is never something that you can get out of science. External agents appear in science only in the form of boundary conditions, and there is no explaining boundary conditions.