Quote:
Originally Posted by NJFemmie
We believe what feels right within. I think the original question was "what does it mean to you" - and those answers are not always going to be comprised of answers based on scientific fact, everyone's rationalization is going to be what feels right to them.
What do people get out of believing such things?
For me, it's illogical to think that everything is purely scientific and "logical". Because in reality, NO ONE REALLY KNOWS - they only know what they do know - and if the universe is infinite, so are the possibilities.
|
I read the question a bit differently. For instance, let's take, as a point of contrast, belief in a divine being (which I also see no reason to believe in). This can be a comforting belief. But what does one gain from believing, for instance, that a now extinct civilization (not the people but the civilization) predicted some ill-defined cataclysm? It's certainly not comforting NOR is there anything one can do about it. As another point of contrast, consider (if you're old enough) the response to fears of a nuclear war that dominated the (industrialized) world from 1948 until the early 1990's. Here there WAS something that could be done about it. Fear that Goldwater might be crazy enough to attempt to fight a nuclear war kept him from the Presidency and, quite possibly, prevented us from getting into one. Or consider the somewhat more remote possibility of a planet-killer asteroid out there. If we can spot it we MIGHT be able to divert it (it's essentially a physics/engineering problem). But if the threat is ill-defined (something will happen, who knows what) then what is the point? As I said yesterday it sells books and movie tickets but other than making Hollywood moguls and New Age gurus a little heavier in the wallet, what actual *good* does it do?
As far as everything not being scientific and logical, this depends upon what you mean. To give another illustration, I'll take something I mentioned in the paper I linked to yesterday. You are mostly empty space. Everything is. There is a non-zero probability that you could walk through a wall. However, because both you and the wall are macro-objects if you started *today* to try to walk through a wall and you attempted once every second to do so, you would have to wait until the universe were around a hundred billion years old before you had done enough attempts that it would have some probability of actually happening. We can, therefore, treat walls as solid objects that it is impossible to pass through.
What's more, there are things that are *conceivable* but so highly improbable that we save a great deal of time by treating them as impossible. For instance, there is no law of physics that prevents air from *spontaneously* re-inflating your tire when it goes flat. The process that deflates your tire is, in fact, time-reversible meaning that it is process-reversible. However, the statistical nature of the movement of molecules means that it is very *unlikely* to ever actually occur. (This, by the way, is one way of understanding the Second Law of Thermodynamics: e.g. entropy)
Lastly, I would have to say that the possibilities are not actually infinite nor is there any reason to take our *profound* ignorance about nature to mean that anything goes. It is simply true that, to the best of our knowledge, it is *impossible* to accelerate an object with mass to the speed of light through space-time. We can safely treat any claims that someone has built a device that can achieve acceleration to the speed of light as a false claim. The same applies for perpetual motion machines (any machine where it generates its own energy without any loss: e.g. 100% of the energy used by the machine can be used for work). To say that 'no one knows because the universe is infinite' is to treat the laws of physics as nothing more than just some localized, arbitrary caprices when, in fact, they are not.
I want to tack on another question: what is WRONG with the universe having limits on us? Why is it that people balk at that? Why does the universe 'owe' us perpetual motion machines, psychic powers, or a divine being that cares for us (but, interestingly, doesn't condemn us to hell). Why is it illogical for nature to be governed by some set of rules that are discoverable by any species clever enough to hit upon the idea of the scientific method?
It seems to me that this claim is actually somewhat testable. For instance, if there are psychic powers (whatever that might mean) then we should expect that these powers would exhibit SOME kind of behavior. For instance, Einstein came up with a clever suggestion about how to determine if psychic powers existed. If they are a field then they should fall off according to the inverse square law (just like every other field does) if they don't, in other words if distance from the source has no effect on strength, then they don't exist because *every other single field we have discovered* obeys that law. Now, alternatively, if psychic powers aren't subject to the inverse square law of fields then those who argue in favor of them have the burden of proof placed on *them* to explain the nature of these powers and why they are the exception.
This is just a matter of consistent thinking and an attempt to keep the cognitive dissonance to the absolute minimum possible.
Cheers
Aj