philosophy, psychology and other long words beginning with p. discussion

Philosophy > Magic

Comments Showing 1-14 of 14 (14 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Eilish (new)

Eilish Bonnar | 20 comments there is no such thing as magic as even if there is, someone will always question it and then find a scientific reason for it. fairies and unicorns etc. was someone writing down there imaginatio and playing with little things that sound true because they are close to reality for example: unicorns are horses with horn, in my dream everyone had wings, humans with wings. see my point?

message 2: by Eilish (new)

Eilish Bonnar | 20 comments where did u get the something came from nothin idea, who told u that lool

message 3: by Eilish (new)

Eilish Bonnar | 20 comments its not guesswork to scientists its a fact. they have found scientific prof check it out on google

message 4: by [deleted user] (last edited Nov 21, 2011 08:31AM) (new)

Scientific theories are based on a series of falsifications and expected outcomes given the current paradigmatic framework of scientific knowledge. They're hardly "guesswork" in the sense of someone just postulating a solution on a whim. People seem to have a problem with mixing "theory" with the word "hypothesis," which is a guess albeit an educated guess. A theory is a group of tested hypothesis and outcomes that move us toward believing something about the nature of reality.

The universe being eternal can mean two things in relation to the big bang:

1. That the universe always existed in the state it is in or with little variation. (Steady state theory.)
2. That the universe is eternal in the sense that it always existed in some form. (What is proposed here.)

The first way in which the universe might be eternal, was the view that was held before the big bang theory was proposed. It was the theory of choice for people like Einstein and Fred Hoyle. Unfortunately for them, a series of expected outcomes ironically building off of Einstein's theories of relativity showed that the universe could not of been eternally in the same state in the way they described. The age and distance of quasars and nebulae for instance, The uniformity of cosmic microwave background radiation, temperature and physical laws and the breakdown of such laws the further out that we look into the universe. All of these things were predicted or bridged off of the work of scientists and scientific theories before them. It was hardly a shot in the dark and this version of the eternal universe was put to rest for good, as all of this showed that at some point in the past there was a common origin or locality we all expanded out from. The big bang wasn't a guess, it was a slowly proposed idea, given the evidence as the death of the steady state theory became apparent over time.

The second form of eternal universe is not exactly incompatible, with the big bang theory. Since we don't know what came before or if there was a before, we have to assume that whatever it was was on the same time line or cosmic "causal" chain that made the big bang happen. Though that would be guesswork since we cant currently even imagine a universe or what would confirm it prior to the big bang. Though the big bang is not necessarily concerned with this. It reminds me of the mix up of evolution and abiogenesis people often make. Evolution is concerned with life after it already occurred, not with ultimate origins, in the same way that the big bang is concerned with the provisional origin of our current universe and not necessarily the ultimate origins of it.

I also have to take notice of the phrase "it is just a theory." A lot of our knowledge is based on much less then something being a theory which means something is rigorously being tested and shown to be true on a daily basis. Yes there is always room for something being wrong. But all scientific knowledge is inductive in this sense. The idea that gravity exists, that diseases and infections are based on genetic and bacterial problems, that the world is made up of ever smaller particles is all a theory as well and yet most of modern life and our current technology would be impossible without them.

That being said, I don't think science is always right or that it cant make mistakes. Criticisms of this kind though are often based on bad common definitions and not on real problems with the scientific enterprise.

As for the universe/existence being "magic." That isn't something that can be inherent in our knowledge as it is a perspective based on an emotional disposition. It is like saying life is inherently absurd, a joke, wonderful, etc. I can immediately imagine scenarios where a person might not think existence is all that inherently magical, someone who is abused constantly for instance or starving or in some other state of suffering or duress. Perspectives cant really be argued for or shown to be "true," they can only be rhetorically praised or disliked.

message 5: by [deleted user] (new)

A)You didn't, in fact I think the only time I was addressing you was in the "just a theory" comment and the last paragraph. Though we seem to roughly be in agreement on that.

B) What lol? I think you misunderstand my criticism there. Though I cant really think of a better way of rephrasing it.

message 6: by [deleted user] (last edited Nov 21, 2011 09:11AM) (new)

You may have not of meant it this way, but when people usually say something to the effect "it is just a theory" people take it to mean that it is a flimsy proposition. Which I don't think is the case at all and you don't seem to think that either. So take it as an attempt at showing the definition of theories in another more elaborated way. If you want.

My point in regards to the universe being "magic" is that, that is descriptor based on perspective. Not that you think magic really exists, don't know where that came from lol.

Think of it like this. Three people are observing a birth. One person, is really happy to see a child come into the world, they describe life as being "magical" in this regard. Another person might see it in a more mediated terms and not really care either way, they're just there as support for the women giving birth. Then the third person is a cynic, they don't really see what is so great about a new child coming into the world and they describe the birth in cynical terms and gestures. All three of these people are looking at the birth through different lenses, we might prefer one to the other, but I cant really prove the perspectives I don't hold to be wrong in this regard.

I can use these same three people to analyze "something coming from nothing" in the same way and in those same circumstances I cant really say who is wrong or right. Since their dispositions are based on subjective states and emotional dispositions and not necessarily on the "truth" or some neutral objective point of values. My point with people that have difficult lives is, that it is easier to think of existence in positive terms from certain standpoints and perspectives and some people might not see existence as all that great in and of itself.

message 7: by [deleted user] (new)

But I am some random person on the other side of the world! ;P Actually I don't know how true that is, I don't know where you live. I don't know about the rest either, your definition of magic is a little too vague for me at this point. So I'll leave it at that.

message 8: by Marieange (new)

Marieange (marieangebouchard) I think its a matter of perspective, whether you want things to be cold, hard facts and formulaic theories, or whether you experience life more through emotions and faith in something greater, or beyond understanding. I kind of fall in between somewhere, and don't necessarily feel the two are exclusive of one another :)

message 9: by Marieange (new)

Marieange (marieangebouchard) I agree. Faith must be partially based on something solid, something real, or else it is an illusion. Flip side, faith based entirely on something solidly fact is not faith but knowledge O_O

message 10: by Marieange (new)

Marieange (marieangebouchard) You mean like having faith in the factuality of the facts? Which would take faith, I suppose, because 'facts' are proven and disproved every day. Yes, some people ignore facts because it 'disagrees' with their faith, just like some people ignore facts because it 'disagrees' with their (un?)faith. Perhaps you are right in that it takes faith on either side. Very profound!

message 11: by Marieange (new)

Marieange (marieangebouchard) Yes.. I confuse myself sometimes, sry lol ;)

message 12: by Marieange (new)

Marieange (marieangebouchard) Haha nice! Chubby smiles rock! :D))

message 13: by ARTPOP (new)

ARTPOP  | 27 comments Magic does exist. Did you ever hear of voodoo's. Look it up. It is this magical man thing...
Look it up. It is hard to explain.

message 14: by ARTPOP (new)

ARTPOP  | 27 comments Yeah. It probobly dosn't work.

back to top