Religion

tridim

(45,358 posts)

51. Our brains can comprehend the Universe because our brains are part of the Universe.

Reply to rug (Original post)

Tue Feb 4, 2014, 12:00 PM

Feb 2014

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

95 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why is the Universe Comprehensible? [View all] rug Feb 2014 OP

The writer edhopper Feb 2014 #1

He is an MIT grad trained in computers. rug Feb 2014 #4

I reread it edhopper Feb 2014 #6

His blog is focused on rebutting Christian apologetics. rug Feb 2014 #7

Thanks edhopper Feb 2014 #10

He doesn't really address why the universe is comprehensible. Jim__ Feb 2014 #2

No he doesn't. rug Feb 2014 #3

Colorblind people are capable of discovering light frequencies. AtheistCrusader Feb 2014 #12

Got it in one WovenGems Feb 2014 #16

So, do you believe all will be comprehended by humans? rug Feb 2014 #20

Yep WovenGems Feb 2014 #24

That's a very hopeful belief. rug Feb 2014 #32

Touché! Jim__ Feb 2014 #52

Potentially. AtheistCrusader Feb 2014 #40

Can they see color? rug Feb 2014 #19

That's not the issue, we can't see the entire electromagnetic spectrum, only a small part of it... Humanist_Activist Feb 2014 #31

So, do you also believe all will be comprehended by humans? rug Feb 2014 #33

Depends on what you mean by "comprehended"... Humanist_Activist Feb 2014 #34

Gravity? n/t eomer Feb 2014 #35

Is a well understood phenomenon, we have been able to measure its strength... Humanist_Activist Feb 2014 #36

That's a pretty low bar. eomer Feb 2014 #37

If you are talking about dark matter, I did say there are unknowns, that doesn't mean its.. Humanist_Activist Feb 2014 #38

I don't think we've figured out what causes gravity, have we? eomer Feb 2014 #42

But if a mechanism for gravity was discovered edhopper Feb 2014 #44

I think we agree, except that I would emphasize that we comprehend "up to a point". eomer Feb 2014 #45

I am referring to the OP where it says edhopper Feb 2014 #46

Fair enough, but I think we're inherently incapable of comprehending. eomer Feb 2014 #47

As you said edhopper Feb 2014 #49

Gravity is a curvature of spacetime caused by the presence of mass in the Universe... Humanist_Activist Feb 2014 #55

If you ask me that explanation doesn't go very far, but what do I know. eomer Feb 2014 #57

because you are thinking 3 dimensionally edhopper Feb 2014 #58

I see, thanks. But I don't think top relativity scientists think they've explained gravity. eomer Feb 2014 #59

So because you don't understand it, no one does? Humanist_Activist Feb 2014 #60

No, that's the opposite of what I said. eomer Feb 2014 #65

Remains a mystery. AtheistCrusader Feb 2014 #70

Not completely edhopper Feb 2014 #62

We disagree, that's cool. eomer Feb 2014 #66

I don't know if we will be able to explain everything edhopper Feb 2014 #69

Yes, I do catch your drift. That's a great distinction. eomer Feb 2014 #73

I can't see xrays. AtheistCrusader Feb 2014 #39

Like visible light, you understand them only up to a point. eomer Feb 2014 #43

I disagree with your use of 'comprehend'. AtheistCrusader Feb 2014 #53

That's cool, not meaning to insist on that particular definition. eomer Feb 2014 #54

Can you give an example of what we don't understand about the... Humanist_Activist Feb 2014 #61

Was thinking, from memory, that the double-slit experiment wasn't fully explained. eomer Feb 2014 #64

But is that something we can never understand? You are placing limits, artificial ones at that... Humanist_Activist Feb 2014 #75

This message was self-deleted by its author Jim__ Feb 2014 #77

I think the distinction that edhopper made is really helpful. eomer Feb 2014 #79

This message was self-deleted by its author AtheistCrusader Feb 2014 #41

He wasn't making a point about differentiating light frequencies. Jim__ Feb 2014 #67

It isn't, true, but that is not required to AtheistCrusader Feb 2014 #68

You can give a person a meter that tells him a particular object is reflecting light ... Jim__ Feb 2014 #71

Butterflies can see more colors than we can, by the nature of their eyes. AtheistCrusader Feb 2014 #72

My example was of a conversation contrasting 2 colors. You didn't address the conversation at all. Jim__ Feb 2014 #74

But we CAN comprehend the conversation. AtheistCrusader Feb 2014 #80

You're confusing the reaction of sensory receptors with perception. Jim__ Feb 2014 #81

Not at all, I'm familiar with the tests. AtheistCrusader Feb 2014 #82

You say, "Not at all," but do you understand that knowing the information that goes into a ... Jim__ Feb 2014 #84

No, no no. AtheistCrusader Feb 2014 #86

Yes, yes, yes. Jim__ Feb 2014 #87

And that is why I called the claim *silly limiting drivel*. AtheistCrusader Feb 2014 #88

You can call it anything you want, what you're doing is demonstrating your ignorance. Jim__ Feb 2014 #89

He didn't just say 'perceive' he also said 'let alone understand'. AtheistCrusader Feb 2014 #90

Once again, either you don't understand or you're pretending not to understand. Jim__ Feb 2014 #91

There are humans with these implants in, right now. AtheistCrusader Feb 2014 #92

The device only exists *NOW* if people are willing to trade color blindness for legal blindness. Jim__ Feb 2014 #93

Good grief. AtheistCrusader Feb 2014 #94

I disagree edhopper Feb 2014 #5

The fact that you don't "see" it, is sort of the point he's making. Jim__ Feb 2014 #8

That is an interesting point edhopper Feb 2014 #9

No doubt our small brains cannot entirely comprehend the full, complex universe Brettongarcia Feb 2014 #14

The article is fairly straight forward, yet you seem confused. Jim__ Feb 2014 #18

The classic high-theological style, equivocates between belief and unbelief Brettongarcia Feb 2014 #21

There may well be a secret to understanding high theology, however ... Jim__ Feb 2014 #26

But one Christian DID apparently read it as SUPPORTING classic religion. Brettongarcia Feb 2014 #27

Yes, and that claim was answered in plain English. Jim__ Feb 2014 #29

Happy to hear that any initial, possible ambiguity, was subsequently disambiguated. Brettongarcia Feb 2014 #30

Yet there are indications that we very well can. AtheistCrusader Feb 2014 #83

See post #84. Jim__ Feb 2014 #85

"These particular skills couldn’t have been selected by evolution." AtheistCrusader Feb 2014 #11

"Seidensticker" is a techie, moonlighting in religion; his stuff seems pretty amateurish and quirky Brettongarcia Feb 2014 #13

The quote from Bill O'Reilly at the end is what is truly incomprehensible Fortinbras Armstrong Feb 2014 #15

That wasn't his point with that question. Goblinmonger Feb 2014 #17

Mostly the moon is responsible for the tides; it's closer. Brettongarcia Feb 2014 #22

He's not that stupid. Goblinmonger Feb 2014 #23

G: possibly you are partially right Brettongarcia Feb 2014 #48

I don't know a poem that is that literally Goblinmonger Feb 2014 #50

We report, you decide. Jim__ Feb 2014 #25

He defends it later; after having had time to second guess himself...? Brettongarcia Feb 2014 #28

Our brains can comprehend the Universe because our brains are part of the Universe. tridim Feb 2014 #51

So true. n/t WovenGems Feb 2014 #56

My dog is part of the universe. Jim__ Feb 2014 #63

True, but dogs also can't design or build computers and other mental tools... Humanist_Activist Feb 2014 #76

My response was to post #51. It had to do with what is entailed by being part of the universe. Jim__ Feb 2014 #78

I would say that a universe conducive to life evolving within it would have to be comprehensible... Humanist_Activist Feb 2014 #95