Introduction: The Illusion of Design [Richard Dawkins]

Natural History Magazine ^ | November 2005 | Richard Dawkins

[RightWhale]

The Cross is Plato's twice divided line, among other things in geometry. We are in big trouble when we begin to critique our metaphors.

[cornelis]

We are in big trouble when we begin to critique our metaphors.

Welcome to life.

[RightWhale]

Row, row, row your boat . . .

[hosepipe]

[ The Cross is Plato's twice divided line, among other things in geometry. We are in big trouble when we begin to critique our metaphors. ]

Sorry.. I didnt mean the snippet I posted but the whole snippet in #817.. what I posted I can grasp I think..

[aNYCguy]

This suggest to me that the artist(s) was fully aware of his own mortality. Do you suppose that animals have such awareness? Or homo erectus, for that matter?

Homo erectus were tool users with problem-solving intelligence, and they ceramonially buried their dead with tools and objects like horn racks. Ditto Neandertals, of course. I think their awareness of mortality is obvious, but you can decide for yourself.

Elephants show a particular and unusual interest in other dead elephants, and distinguish between the bones of elephants and other animals. Again, you can decide for yourself:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/10/1031_051031_elephantbones.html

[aNYCguy]

One thing's for certain. We'll all either blink off into oblivion or wake up face to face with God. We'll just have to see.

False dichotomy. There are infinitely other possibilities. Myself, I hope to wake up on a Hawaiian Beach face to face with a mountain of cheesesteaks.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your replies! But, if we are to engage in a discussion of this we’ll need to make sure we are on the same page.

From previous discussions on this thread (as I recall) your worldview is that time is an illusion rather than a dimension, energy is an illusion, mass is an illusion. If that is the case, then the first question ought to be what do you consider to be physically real?

Also, when you speak of a “zero dimension universe” I will take it to mean a physical universe not a mathematical construct because you use the term “universe”. If you wish to discuss a “zero dimensional construct” then physics would not apply – then again, it would not have anything to do with the original subject, the void. Moreover, if that is to be the direction of the conversation, I would not be as interested since there are various instances where mathematical constructs do not translate well to physics. Constructs with less than 2 spatial and 1 temporal dimension are among these - as is the mathematical construct of infinity.

Black hole entropy is based on thermodynamics not information: black hole entropy.

We also need to make sure we are speaking of singularity theory and not the larger subject of mathematical singularity.

As a final issue, we need to agree to the difference between “zero” spatial and temporal dimensions and null spatial or temporal dimensions.

For Lurkers: the number 201 means there are no tens, the zero is a placemarker. The number would be written differently if tens do not exist at all, e.g. 2_1.

[hosepipe]

[ False dichotomy. There are infinitely other possibilities. Myself, I hope to wake up on a Hawaiian Beach face to face with a mountain of cheesesteaks. ]

A little faith is better than none at all.. even if your God is your stomach.. Honesty reparte' is a blessing..

[cornelis]

I wouldn't be simplifying since the statement, like all good poetry, is already something complex simplified. I think that you want me to go the other way, back to the data that is concentrated in the thought.

And if I try, I would begin with the phrase "A is A," because that is somewhat familiar and what many like to return to, here.

The A-is-A phrase is an epistemological shorthand describing our human method of individuating. It describes human analysis. It is a circumscription so that we don't talk about everything at once. (Funny thing, it's used as a chant and an excuse to talk about everything at once.)

Why is this phrase so important? Because in our attempt to understand human life, we are in the habit of saying we've said it all when we merely have defined one aspect of human life. We mistake A for non-A, because we took A to be bigger than it was. Consider all the -isms. Each one of them are a diseased infatuation with a particular aspect of reality, turning a particular into a totality. The lawyer thinks all the world's a court. The psychologist thinks all the world's a couch.

The point is, human life always involves something else to which it belongs to. It's A is somehow connected to non-A. We are not symmetrical totalities by ourselves. And once we realize this, we reach a crossroads: we are what we are not and that is something darkling . . . and complex. Dogma and simplicity then become the temptation and substitutes (the second realities) to protect from complexity.

That's a start, hosepipe, and I hope it helps. It can be said in other ways and will be.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your reply!

If there is a kind of light beyond what we can measure or know about.. Could explain the problems with string theory.. and Einsteins dilema too, the gravity one. Ya think?..

From the physics point-of-view, massless particles could exist and escape detection if they have no indirect effect which is detectable. Likewise, it is posited that time-like paths of massive particles in four dimensions can arise from null paths in a fifth dimension, where there is an oscillation around the hypersurface we call space/time. Wesson also suggests that a particle in the fifth dimension could be multiply imaged in the four dimensions, and that the weak equivalence principle in the four dimensions may be the symmetry of a corresponding five-dimensional metric. Or to put it another way, instead of there being 10⁸⁰ particles in the visible four dimensions, it could actually be the case that as little as a single particle in the fifth dimension is multiply imaged.

From the theology point-of-view, physical light is a metaphor for good (v. evil) [Sermon on the Mount] and “God is Light” [Hebrews 1:3, I John 1:5] speaks to His person. Again looking at the physical realm as a metaphor, the cosmic microwave background recorded the harmonics in the sound waves of the early universe at the moment when the universe cooled and photons decoupled from electrons, protons and neutrons – atoms formed, and light went its way. And God said, let there be light (two meanings, heaven and earth, spiritual and physical).

[hosepipe]

[ Dogma and simplicity then become the temptation and substitutes (the second realities) to protect from complexity. ]

Masterful diagnosis and cure.. I'm healed Doc.. I'm not easy either.. Done with so few words.. simply brilliant!..

Simplicity then is both a curse and a blessing.. Big difference, then, between simplicity and simplistic..

"A man has gotta know his limitations"- Dirty Harry

[cornelis]

Is any argument/proof purely empirical?

[cornelis]

False dichotomy. There are infinitely other possibilities

Either we retain an identity or blink off into oblivion.

In retaining an identity we are necessarily a part of something that transcends the periodicity of material change. And whatever transcends this, is either personal or impersonal. Infinite possibilities may exist for a plurality of identities, but there are some basic dichotomies in play for us.

[cornelis]

I think I'm talking simplistic. : ) But there may be some overlap (hope so). It's just that simplic-ity gives symmetry with complex-ity.

[hosepipe]

[ From the theology point-of-view, physical light is a metaphor for good (v. evil) [Sermon on the Mount] and “God is Light” [Hebrews 1:3, I John 1:5] speaks to His person. Again looking at the physical realm as a metaphor, the cosmic microwave background recorded the harmonics in the sound waves of the early universe at the moment when the universe cooled and photons decoupled from electrons, protons and neutrons – atoms formed, and light went its way. And God said, let there be light (two meanings, heaven and earth, spiritual and physical). ]

Darn.. I think I understood all that.. at least some of it.. Your good, real good.. That made the hair on the back of my neck stand up.. maybe I ain't nutz.. The fact that there could be indeed an ligit argument for what, I think, I see is encouraging.. Thanks a million..

Gives me a some ideas to be developed and prayed about too.. What a blessing you three(list above) are to me.. Comments on this particular subject would appreciated by Boop and Cornelis too.. Trust me, its important to me.. And you too AG if you can expand on the two, lets say, photonic paradigms.. I'm gobstruck with this.. thanks again..

[hosepipe]

[ I think I'm talking simplistic. : ) But there may be some overlap (hope so). It's just that simplic-ity gives symmetry with complex-ity. ]

Any partial knowledge is simplistic to the whole.. 2 + 2 = 4 is simplistic in one context but complete in another context.. Various formulas for evolution seem to be true in one context but in another context seems to be untrue.. same kind of dicotomy...

Simple context and simplistic context.. as opposed to the whole text.. is a problem with arrogance.. Who then is totally aware on any subject.?.. If there were no God well there ought to be one.. Honest study then should drive one to the feet of God in abject humility.. even if there were no God.. He should create one as has been done time and time again..

Mankind sometimes to appears to be a two year trying to trick his Mommy.. The Mommy is so far ahead of the two year old.. his actions are cute.. Unless he is playing with fire.. or sticking something onto a light socket.. etc.

[grey_whiskers]

Somewhere along the line, perhaps about 1915, we left off the main line: which was the development of the science of science.

Fascinating idea, but why 1915 in particular?

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

A black hole contains a singularity due to to the illusion of relativity

Flesh this out, please?

Why do you call relativity an "illusion" ?

E.g. prediction of precession of perihelion of Mercury was predicted by relativity, not otherwise explainable classically...

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

Science is sophism.

Interesting take, and the hell of it is, you're right.

Never thought of it in that way before; but then why bother with experiments or mathematical proofs?

Oh well, at least it beats watching CSI or the OJ trial on TV :-)

[grey_whiskers]

False dichotomy. There are infinitely other possibilities. Myself, I hope to wake up on a Hawaiian Beach face to face with a mountain of cheesesteaks.

From my post #785 (I don't think it was to you, though...): "Hence you have an atheist countering "Pascal's wager" with a counter-dilemna of higher multiplicity: so I go to Hell if I don't believe in God, you say. But I can posit an infinite number of gods, so which one should I believe in..."

Cheers!

Full Disclosure: a mountain of cheesesteaks? No chips? No tuna salad on pumpernickel? No beer?
NO THANKS! :-)

Cheeres!