<div dir="ltr">Having been deeply into spirituality for a time I well know its strengths. However I found little there that I can trust more than what the best science an rationality I am modestly capable of has verified. I fervently wished it was otherwise. I really wanted to BELIEVE. </div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 4:27 PM Stuart LaForge <<a href="mailto:avant@sollegro.com">avant@sollegro.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">John Clark wrote:<br>
><br>
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 8:00 AM BillK <<a href="mailto:pharos@gmail.com" target="_blank">pharos@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> *> there are many questions that do not have scientific answers because<br>
>> they were not legitimate scientific questions to begin with. Many of<br>
>> these questions concern the things that are most important of all:<br>
>> faith, hope, love, truth, beauty, and goodness ? these do not lie in the<br>
>> territory of science.*<br>
><br>
> Hope, love, beauty, and goodness are all important virtues in my opinion<br>
> but I don't expect science to say anything about them. Science can inform<br>
> me what the universe's opinion about various things are but these virtues<br>
> are not about the Universe's opinion they are about mine, and even the<br>
> Universe doesn't know more about my opinion than I do. But truth is<br>
> different, science can help us get more of that. As for faith, in my<br>
> opinion faith is not a virtue at all, I think it's a vice.<br>
<br>
You are right in that science cannot say anything about those virtues.<br>
That is both a strength and a weakness of science. It is due to the<br>
empirical nature of science. Science is the art of using experiments to<br>
prune away falsehoods. What this leaves you with is a mixture of truths<br>
and unfalsifiable hypotheses.<br>
<br>
Now keep in mind that there are many reasons why a hypothesis could be<br>
unfalsifiable.<br>
<br>
For example, limited resources. I could hypothesize that crashing<br>
red-giant stars together would make a blue giant star. Since we cannot yet<br>
crash stars together on purpose, my hypothesis is unfalsifiable which does<br>
not necessarily make it true or false.<br>
<br>
Another reason hypotheses might be unfalsefiable is for legal or ethical<br>
reasons. I could hypothesize that human centipedes would not live very<br>
long unless the people involved happened to all be the same blood type and<br>
HLA tissue type. Since creation of human centipedes is unethical and<br>
illegal, the hypothesis could never be tested.<br>
<br>
Less disgusting but equally unethical would be conducting experiments<br>
regarding things like love and hope because these entail emotional<br>
manipulation of other people.<br>
<br>
A third reason a hypothesis could be untestable is that it is logically<br>
impossible to falsify. For example, solipsism would fall into this<br>
category as would many other religious claims.<br>
<br>
All that being said regarding the limitations of science. Now lets turn<br>
our attention away from science, the art of determining falsehood through<br>
empiricism, and turn it to math, the art of generating truth. Math is all<br>
about truth.<br>
<br>
A mathematical theorem is true in every place and every time. If a<br>
mathematical theorem fails to be predictive of your world, it is because<br>
you have misapplied it to something that falls outside of the scope its<br>
intended axioms. The theorem itself is inevitably true.<br>
<br>
Math too has its limitations, however, and its limitations are interesting<br>
in relation to those of science and can be contrasted with them to good<br>
effect. One notable limitation to math is the notion of uncomputable<br>
numbers and functions. Another is Goedel's Incompleteness, which states<br>
that in any consistent system of axioms there are true statements that are<br>
nevertheless impossible to prove within that system.<br>
<br>
Now I state that it is self-evident that the intersection of the set of<br>
unfalsifiable hypotheses and the set of unprovable truths is non-empty. I<br>
leave the proof as an exercise to the reader. It might be possible that<br>
some religion somewhere might be an element of that set. This is<br>
especially possible if we live in a simulation.<br>
<br>
> Tell that to the religious nuts who burned Giordano Bruno alive or<br>
> threatened to torture Galileo and imprisoned him for life or to the<br>
> Taliban<br>
> who kill doctors who try to vaccinate children. Or tell it to any<br>
> evangelical Trump voter who thinks the universe started not 13.8 billion<br>
> years ago but in 4004 BC .<br>
<br>
But the very gravity of these things should inform you that regardless of<br>
the truth of their dogma, all religions are very real entities. This goes<br>
back to my argument that all Shannon information has an energy content. If<br>
you don't believe me then do a BOTEC using Landauer's principle for how<br>
much energy it would take to erase all the information in the world<br>
pertaining to radical Islam for example.<br>
<br>
You would find it to be quite substantial.<br>
<br>
> I don't understand why so many people typically feel that in order to be<br>
> a good person one must be a religious apologist.<br>
<br>
I don't think it is about being a good person, so much as it is about<br>
being politically correct to avoid offending people. I am reminded about<br>
an apocryphal story that when Voltaire was on his deathbed, a priest urged<br>
Voltaire to renounce Satan. To which Votaire supposedly replied, "I am<br>
sorry, father, but now is not the time to make new enemies."<br>
<br>
Stuart LaForge<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
</blockquote></div>