the distortions & illusions are known by a knower and both need a substratum to exist which pervades everything and is real & beyond unreal , real & unreal !
That's an interesting observation in an episode called _'Critical Realism!'_ It _is_ just you because it's not. Water can't go backwards into a fountain however you do have an excuse: Video cameras shoot at 28 frames per second & if the water drop positions are out of phase with that rate each one is photographed in a position slightly higher up the one in the previous shot so you're not actually looking at the same droplet moment to moment. Because of this it appears to be going upwards not downwards. You sometimes see this reversal phenomena in Westerns where the spokes of a wagon wheel start off moving anticlockwise & as it accelerates they end up seeming to move clockwise against the direction of the wagon! There reason why is the same: the regularity of 28 frames a second mismatch with the perceived position of the spokes you think you see but again you're actually seeing a different spoke from moment to moment & at a certain frequency the illusion of reversal or even stasis can occur as a result! This fact kind of fits in with the subject of the episode doesn't it because you shouldn't always believe what your brain makes of the data it receives from your eyes: supposedly reversal of time but no. That's simply a misconstrual of photographic facts!
@@paulbrocklehurst7253 That was great but if you actually observe frame by frame at both the base and the fountain head, you can see individual drops in their path and discard stroboscopic effects. The pan of the fountain was originally shot top to bottom.
This is more on scientific realism than it is on critical realism. How can we have a whole episode on critical realism and not one mention of Roy Bhaskar??
Excellent conversations-coming from theists and atheists at that! This should set the bar when these questions are discussed, and not the gutter-rambling of a Dawkins and his so called new atheist buddies.
@@schmetterling4477 surely you are not saying that everyone with a high school education should have a full grasp of quantum mechanics. That would be absurd.
@@moriyokiri3229 No, but I am saying that a good high school education does actually have the power to give people a high level of critical thinking. Since the internet is a cacophony of nonsense about pretty much anything, it should not come as a surprise to a person who can think critically that most everything they will hear about physics on the internet is also total nonsense. So it's not the underlying nature of reality that is the problem but the nature of the internet that leads to a distortion of reality. Peace!
The universe is a word for anything that exists, whether we know of it or or not. If a god exists outside the universe, then by definition, a god does not exist.
This is a syllogism. False Logic. It is tantamount to you saying...if it's raining outside, ergo-- the streets are wet. But what if I was watering my lawn, or the dam broke and flooded that street? Pardon my candour but You give us the impression of a mad silly over reach to deny God exists. Wow! It's going to take a more...whole lot more than a little ant like you to knock down that huge magisterial cathedral call Allmighty God.
I don't think we CAN, ever prove a god or gods exist. Just because one believes in something doesn't mean it exists, in layman's terms. Sometimes we get lucky. Atoms were believed to exist long before we had any ideas of how we could explore this hypothesis. Until we can measure the evidence, I prefer to not believe in things just because we can think them up.
Yes, there is some disanalogy between unobservable God in theology and unobservable (not directly observable) particles in science: God is not part of the world He created, while particles are. (10:19-11:56). However, God is present in the world, just as particles do. Thus, the disanalogy is lesser than was thought. Will we regard particles (protons, electrons, etc.) as unobservable if we implant an artificial eye with the additional function of a powerful microscope instead of the natural eye? This will soon be possible. Particles will soon be directly observable. Therefore, they are not mere theoretical instruments of successfully doing physics and technology; particles really exist. Scientific Realism is true. In theology, we can talk about a human soul as part or aspect of the world, just as we talk about directly unobserved particles as parts of the world in science: the soul can be regarded as a cause of the behaviour, just as a particle is considered a cause of a track in the tracking device. There is no disanalogy between a soul and a particle, except that we don't have a mature scientific theory of the soul.
Genuine science seeks better explanations of the nature of the world. Criticism is essential in science to solve problems and to create more problems. Genuine science works for small improvements in knowledge through error correction and elimination. Religions generally hope to spread the beliefs that whatever happens, the god(s) did it.
@@rubiks6 Science is making continuous progress toward understanding reality. We know that our reality is quantum mechanical. Scientists whose goal is to explain the world understand that we have escaped an eternity of no problems to an infinity of more and better problems. This will only continue if humans choose to eliminate errors (religions and bad philosophies) and solve problems through human creativity.
@@rubiks6 I know you are a big fan of the "Holy Bible." Maybe you have seen this criticism of your god: The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion (p. 51). Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Kindle Edition.
@@rubiks6 Have you ever thought about what the world might be like right now if Darwin would have decided that he better run his book by the pope and see if it might not be justified because the book might be contrary to the holy scripture ?
"god is an unobservable entity". yet another claim without credible evidence. theology is a morass of such useless claims. these people feel a god ought to exist and so they flesh out an imaginary being and argue about imaginary properties of that imaginary being.
Ok then God is an observable entity, right ? Or maybe, you're just too dumb to see what isn't right in front of your nose, that's also a possibility...
@@pierrestober3423 today's postmodernist thought and the deconstruction of grand narratives, people are too eager to the dismissal of metaphysics and unfortunately the ground has been fertile since the rise of the so called enlightenment of the last 300 years. Rampant materialism has taken root at the expense of spiritual growth. It's a desolate landscape, scientist are the new priests of the new era now. It's a mindless, blind, random, unguided evolutionary process help they say by natural selection an elegant dance to nowhere. Our age has shifted all emphasis to the here and now, and thus brought about a daimonisation of man and his world. The phenomenon of dictators and all the misery they have wrought springs from the fact that man has been robbed of transcendence by the shortsightedness of the super-intellectuals. Like them, he has fallen victim to unconsciousness. But man’s task is the exact opposite: to become conscious of the contents that press upwards from the unconscious. Neither should he persist in his unconsciousness, nor remain identical with the unconscious elements of his being, thus evading his destiny, which is to create more and more consciousness. As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being. It may even be assumed that just as the unconscious affects us, so the increase in our consciousness affects the unconscious. Excerpt From: "Memories, Dreams, Reflections: An Autobiography" by Carl Jung. Scribd. This material may be protected by copyright. Read this book on Scribd: www.scribd.com/book/485222434
Why do i say this channel should not debate on Religious Beliefs? They are fundamentally incompatible for debate. A Belief is something deemed as fact. Science is different. A belief is a conclusion. Science is seeking the truth. ITS POINTLESS to discuss beliefs because its a concluded story
How could any critical realism be discussed without reference to Roy Bhaskar ?!!!?
There is something real even in distortions and illusions, although not what we think it is.
the distortions & illusions are known by a knower and both need a substratum to exist which pervades everything and is real & beyond unreal , real & unreal !
Is it just me, or is the water from the fountain falling in reverse? 1:30
That's an interesting observation in an episode called _'Critical Realism!'_ It _is_ just you because it's not. Water can't go backwards into a fountain however you do have an excuse: Video cameras shoot at 28 frames per second & if the water drop positions are out of phase with that rate each one is photographed in a position slightly higher up the one in the previous shot so you're not actually looking at the same droplet moment to moment. Because of this it appears to be going upwards not downwards. You sometimes see this reversal phenomena in Westerns where the spokes of a wagon wheel start off moving anticlockwise & as it accelerates they end up seeming to move clockwise against the direction of the wagon! There reason why is the same: the regularity of 28 frames a second mismatch with the perceived position of the spokes you think you see but again you're actually seeing a different spoke from moment to moment & at a certain frequency the illusion of reversal or even stasis can occur as a result! This fact kind of fits in with the subject of the episode doesn't it because you shouldn't always believe what your brain makes of the data it receives from your eyes: supposedly reversal of time but no. That's simply a misconstrual of photographic facts!
Good observation. It is a good example of how deceptive the senses often are. there are videos of helicopter blades seeming to not move as well.
Yes, I noticed that too !
From the pond to the level it's supposed to fall from, it seems to be traveling up.
@@paulbrocklehurst7253 That was great but if you actually observe frame by frame at both the base and the fountain head, you can see individual drops in their path and discard stroboscopic effects. The pan of the fountain was originally shot top to bottom.
Reality simply exists. The more attempts at interpretation the more the lens is muddied.
Delighted to see new uploads! 😊
This is more on scientific realism than it is on critical realism. How can we have a whole episode on critical realism and not one mention of Roy Bhaskar??
Excellent conversations-coming from theists and atheists at that! This should set the bar when these questions are discussed, and not the gutter-rambling of a Dawkins and his so called new atheist buddies.
" Of all sciences I am the spiritual science of the self " Bhagavid-gita 10:32.
Bhagavad-shit-a woo woo 🙄
A zoo of interpretations of quantum mechanics makes me wonder what is the underlying nature of reality.
Why are you telling us that you didn't listen carefully in high school? If you had, quantum mechanics would not be a problem to you.
@@schmetterling4477 surely you are not saying that everyone with a high school education should have a full grasp of quantum mechanics. That would be absurd.
@@moriyokiri3229 No, but I am saying that a good high school education does actually have the power to give people a high level of critical thinking. Since the internet is a cacophony of nonsense about pretty much anything, it should not come as a surprise to a person who can think critically that most everything they will hear about physics on the internet is also total nonsense. So it's not the underlying nature of reality that is the problem but the nature of the internet that leads to a distortion of reality. Peace!
What would the universe look like at a scale where quantum waves would be "visible"
Love this ☺️
I can be blind but i didnt see Francisco J Ayala and J Matthew Ashley in the video. ^^ But good video ^^
The universe is a word for anything that exists, whether we know of it or or not. If a god exists outside the universe, then by definition, a god does not exist.
Only by the definition of 'universe' you have given.
This is a syllogism. False Logic. It is tantamount to you saying...if it's raining outside, ergo-- the streets are wet. But what if I was watering my lawn, or the dam broke and flooded that street?
Pardon my candour but You give us the impression of a mad silly over reach to deny God exists. Wow!
It's going to take a more...whole lot more than a little ant like you to knock down that huge magisterial cathedral call Allmighty God.
I don't think we CAN, ever prove a god or gods exist. Just because one believes in something doesn't mean it exists, in layman's terms. Sometimes we get lucky. Atoms were believed to exist long before we had any ideas of how we could explore this hypothesis. Until we can measure the evidence, I prefer to not believe in things just because we can think them up.
Yes, there is some disanalogy between unobservable God in theology and unobservable (not directly observable) particles in science: God is not part of the world He created, while particles are. (10:19-11:56). However, God is present in the world, just as particles do. Thus, the disanalogy is lesser than was thought.
Will we regard particles (protons, electrons, etc.) as unobservable if we implant an artificial eye with the additional function of a powerful microscope instead of the natural eye? This will soon be possible. Particles will soon be directly observable. Therefore, they are not mere theoretical instruments of successfully doing physics and technology; particles really exist. Scientific Realism is true.
In theology, we can talk about a human soul as part or aspect of the world, just as we talk about directly unobserved particles as parts of the world in science: the soul can be regarded as a cause of the behaviour, just as a particle is considered a cause of a track in the tracking device. There is no disanalogy between a soul and a particle, except that we don't have a mature scientific theory of the soul.
Religion is neither critiical nor does it appear to have any use for realism to get to the extraordinary assertion(s).
Another goodn 👍
equiped enamblements and observable learning stage of philosophy seem and if need related to science religion would be associated why isn't
I was curious about this man until I found how deeply tied he was to the dictator of China. I am disgusted.
real is the square box 1 of e mc squared = + 1 e equals mc squared
Emanuel Kant
Genuine science seeks better explanations of the nature of the world. Criticism is essential in science to solve problems and to create more problems. Genuine science works for small improvements in knowledge through error correction and elimination. Religions generally hope to spread the beliefs that whatever happens, the god(s) did it.
@@rubiks6 Yeah. How dare I attempt to explain the world in terms of reality. I should be deep like you?
@@rubiks6 Science is making continuous progress toward understanding reality. We know that our reality is quantum mechanical. Scientists whose goal is to explain the world understand that we have escaped an eternity of no problems to an infinity of more and better problems. This will only continue if humans choose to eliminate errors (religions and bad philosophies) and solve problems through human creativity.
@@rubiks6 I know you are a big fan of the "Holy Bible." Maybe you have seen this criticism of your god:
The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion (p. 51). Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Kindle Edition.
rubiks6 I guess that is doubt. Maybe u are making progress. Best to you Pat
@@rubiks6 Have you ever thought about what the world might be like right now if Darwin would have decided that he better run his book by the pope and see if it might not be justified because the book might be contrary to the holy scripture ?
"god is an unobservable entity". yet another claim without credible evidence. theology is a morass of such useless claims. these people feel a god ought to exist and so they flesh out an imaginary being and argue about imaginary properties of that imaginary being.
Ok then God is an observable entity, right ? Or maybe, you're just too dumb to see what isn't right in front of your nose, that's also a possibility...
@@pierrestober3423 today's postmodernist thought and the deconstruction of grand narratives, people are too eager to the dismissal of metaphysics and unfortunately the ground has been fertile since the rise of the so called enlightenment of the last 300 years. Rampant materialism has taken root at the expense of spiritual growth. It's a desolate landscape, scientist are the new priests of the new era now. It's a mindless, blind, random, unguided evolutionary process help they say by natural selection an elegant dance to nowhere.
Our age has shifted all emphasis to the here and now, and thus brought about a daimonisation of man and his world. The phenomenon of dictators and all the misery they have wrought springs from the fact that man has been robbed of transcendence by the shortsightedness of the super-intellectuals. Like them, he has fallen victim to unconsciousness. But man’s task is the exact opposite: to become conscious of the contents that press upwards from the unconscious. Neither should he persist in his unconsciousness, nor remain identical with the unconscious elements of his being, thus evading his destiny, which is to create more and more consciousness. As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being. It may even be assumed that just as the unconscious affects us, so the increase in our consciousness affects the unconscious.
Excerpt From: "Memories, Dreams, Reflections: An Autobiography" by Carl Jung. Scribd.
This material may be protected by copyright.
Read this book on Scribd: www.scribd.com/book/485222434
Physics posits many entities that are not observable. Do you feel the same about numbers?
Dark matter is un observable, so are the infinite universes coming into existence posited by some physicists
@@mrbwatson8081 The magic words (posited by physicists) exactly, it's all speculations no empirical evidence observed.
Why do i say this channel should not debate on Religious Beliefs? They are fundamentally incompatible for debate. A Belief is something deemed as fact. Science is different. A belief is a conclusion. Science is seeking the truth. ITS POINTLESS to discuss beliefs because its a concluded story