Scientism, Skepticism and the Philosophy of Science

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]kilpaba wrote:
I for one happen to feel like material determinism is highly likely. Just basically impossible to conclude, because of the calculation problem that is involved. I would think given perfect knowledge you might be able to accurately predict things. Obviously this is unlikely to ever occur. But unpredictability absolutely does not imply free will. I cannot predict the outcome of a coin toss, but I would hardly say the coin has free will.[/quote]

Your post reminds me of “The Last Question” by Asimov. A short story:

162

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

I thought we were talking about free will. If the decisions people make are the input values, you still have a deterministic universe driven by those decisions.

People advocating free will suffer from the same logical fallacy as people advocating a god: in both cases, they fail to explain what created the original input values. Unless you believe free will is created ex nihilo, then it really isn’t free, and is dependent on whatever created it.[/quote]

Oh? Where did determinism come from then? What are ‘it’s’ original input values?[/quote]

If no objects exist, does the law of gravity still exist, which describes how objects would interact if they did exist?[/quote]

It has been speculated that the input value, the constant G would actually vary depending upon the amount of matter present in the Universe. If there were no particles, then G might be zero, or infinite. Then again we still have a law, and can use different hypotheticals however, G only exists to the precision that can be probed within quantum limitations. All of our input values will always have some uncertainty-in the current model.

Also, how can we test the theory if there is no matter to make instruments from?[/quote]

I wasn’t asking about G, but about the law determining how G would vary depending on the amount of matter in the universe. Does that law exist, in the absence of a universe? What does it mean for a law to exist, anyway?[/quote]

Good question. Is GMm/r^2 a cause and effect relationship or just a description of reality? And if just a description of reality, well, we can take anything and perform mathematical procedures that transform it into another quantity.

But at any rate, the “law” is that the Force of gravity is approximately GMm/r^2

163

[quote]ephrem wrote:<<< What other thread? >>>[/quote]The one where you asked me what I was confessing exactly. [quote]ephrem wrote:<<< Anyway T, what frustrates me sometimes is not that your act high and mighty. I see that as a form of posturing indiginous to the religious mindset that has taken over the host-mind, and uses this form of posturing for self-defense. >>>[/quote]Vintage Eph (Hey, that can be your hip hop name =] ) [quote]ephrem wrote:<<< What irritates me sometimes is that it’s not quid-pro-quo with you in discussions. You dance around issues avoiding the difficult questions, all the while acting high and mighty. >>>[/quote]You’ll notice I go much harder on those claiming King Jesus as their own. This will be to you a prime example of what I’m sure you’re honestly referring to. What you call “dancing around” God calls proclaiming His incomparable majesty. We see reality differently. Yours begins and ends with you and mine begins and ends with Jesus. Not because I’m smarter, or cooler or holier than you are. I was just as dead and left to myself still would be. You’ve heard that before though. >>>[quote]ephrem wrote:<<< Then debating becomes a chore. Same thing with mertdawg. This is not a game to me, or at least; i’m not playing a game here. >>>[/quote]A game? My dear friend to me the eternal souls of fellow children of Adam are at stake. The highest and most precious creation of the most high God. In that regard I couldn’t care less what gender, race, nationality, religion, philosophical persuasion or sexual “orientation” they are. They are my fellow man and I love them. I want them as my brothers and sisters. (I know yer jist thrilled to death about that)
My measure of success is obedience only. If I am doing what God commands then I will look into that beautiful glorious face as He tells me well done my good and faithful servant. How anyone responds is up to Him. The mighty prophet Jeremiah (who I know am not) preached repentance to Israel for 40 YEARS and nobody listened. He was a raving success because he obeyed and did exactly what he was commanded.[quote]ephrem wrote:<<< Before this becomes too serious. Did you know it’s Christopher Hitchens’ birthday? Best wishes to him, eh?[/quote]There was nowhere to do it at his site so I’ll do it here. A very happy birthday to Christopher Hitchens who I would love to join hands with before the throne of grace and sing holy praises to the Lord of heaven and earth.

164

Tiribulus:

I believe that it’s this very thread i asked you what you were confessing.

What i call honesty is you adressing the simple question of why your faith is more true than the faith a devout muslim, jew or sikh has. Why do you deny the validity of their experiences as something less than yours?

Why, for that matter, is religious truth limited to your subset of christianity? Why does your god limit himself like that?

The chances of you joining hands with Hitchens before a throne praising the lord is as slim as your god revealing himself to the world like he supposedly did thousands of years ago.

165

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Hard science is a philosophical method based on observation. It only requires the existence of a falsifiable premise (hypothesis) and method of measurement that bears repeatable results. [/quote]

Falsifiability requires free will. If we did not have free will, our conclusions about the outcomes of experiments would be predetermined, therefore science requires free will.

Free will puts humans in a special place. Where does free will come from? [/quote]

unsupported assertions.

166

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Hard science is a philosophical method based on observation. It only requires the existence of a falsifiable premise (hypothesis) and method of measurement that bears repeatable results. [/quote]

Falsifiability requires free will. If we did not have free will, our conclusions about the outcomes of experiments would be predetermined, therefore science requires free will.

Free will puts humans in a special place. Where does free will come from? [/quote]

Free will transcends individual human action. That human beings act proves that free will exists. No human action could occur with out it.[/quote]

Why isn’t it that gravitational forces acting proves that free will exists? Humans are special and science cannot explain why.[/quote]

Humans special?

Please demonstrate that in a replicable experiment.

167

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:<<< God is nowhere to be found in reality. God is only found hidden in the wishes, fears and desires of those who believe. >>>[/quote]God is the ULTIMATE and only uncontingent reality and hence one cannot even discuss whether he is found or not without already assuming Him. The scorn of sinners praises His name.

I didn’t forget about your question from the previous page.
[/quote]

We can reliably induce the “experience of God” with properly place electro-stimulation. Less reliably with certain drugs.

Turned on and off like the light switch…

168

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

I thought we were talking about free will. If the decisions people make are the input values, you still have a deterministic universe driven by those decisions.

People advocating free will suffer from the same logical fallacy as people advocating a god: in both cases, they fail to explain what created the original input values. Unless you believe free will is created ex nihilo, then it really isn’t free, and is dependent on whatever created it.[/quote]

Oh? Where did determinism come from then? What are ‘it’s’ original input values?[/quote]

If no objects exist, does the law of gravity still exist, which describes how objects would interact if they did exist?[/quote]

Why are you answering my question with a question? Where did determinism come from, what is it’s original input value?

The answer is that the law would exists even if there were no boson-higgs, or what ever is the operator of gravity actually is. The law and objects are 2 things not 1.

169

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[/quote]

What other thread?

Anyway T, what frustrates me sometimes is not that your act high and mighty. I see that as a form of posturing indiginous to the religious mindset that has taken over the host-mind, and uses this form of posturing for self-defense.

What irritates me sometimes is that it’s not quid-pro-quo with you in discussions. You dance around issues avoiding the difficult questions, all the while acting high and mighty.

Then debating becomes a chore. Same thing with mertdawg. This is not a game to me, or at least; i’m not playing a game here.

Before this becomes too serious. Did you know it’s Christopher Hitchens’ birthday? Best wishes to him, eh?[/quote]

If I weren’t a Christian, this approach would turn me off too. Actually, I am a Christian and it turns me off. Don’t bother, he is not honest and will not discuss honestly. He only seeks to preach down, not engage in honest discussion.

You’ll post a page of logical counter arguments and he will extract part of a sentence. One thing I know, he won’t be able to out argue you :slight_smile:

170

[quote]Null wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Hard science is a philosophical method based on observation. It only requires the existence of a falsifiable premise (hypothesis) and method of measurement that bears repeatable results. [/quote]

Falsifiability requires free will. If we did not have free will, our conclusions about the outcomes of experiments would be predetermined, therefore science requires free will.

Free will puts humans in a special place. Where does free will come from? [/quote]

unsupported assertions.[/quote]

The first one may be an illogical construct, but it is not an assertion, it is a logical argument-that if human action is predetermined that scientific conclusions are predetermined even if they are wrong.

The second, as I said before is conjecture open for debate, but its also not really an assertion. The assertion part is that humans have free will. The arguement is that free would make humans different that deterministic particles.

171

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]Null wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Hard science is a philosophical method based on observation. It only requires the existence of a falsifiable premise (hypothesis) and method of measurement that bears repeatable results. [/quote]

Falsifiability requires free will. If we did not have free will, our conclusions about the outcomes of experiments would be predetermined, therefore science requires free will.

Free will puts humans in a special place. Where does free will come from? [/quote]

unsupported assertions.[/quote]

The first one may be an illogical construct, but it is not an assertion, it is a logical argument-that if human action is predetermined that scientific conclusions are predetermined even if they are wrong.

The second, as I said before is conjecture open for debate, but its also not really an assertion. The assertion part is that humans have free will. The arguement is that free would make humans different that deterministic particles. [/quote]

Which in and of itself would imply there is some magical “force” or spiritual particles distinct from every other known type of matter. Doesn’t it seem much more plausible that we are in fact materially determined, as is everything, but that the near infinite complexity keeps us from ever predicting anything ourselves? Sort of a “poor man’s” free will, if you will. Same effect on the human species, but philosophical implications are far different and more rational.

172

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:Pat, I agree that we can’t know anything with absolute certainty. >>>[/quote]And there we have it boys n girls. Aristotle and Aquinas hand in hand. [quote]pat wrote:<<< I don’t know how religion got in to the thread, >>>[/quote]Oh I know you don’t
[/quote]

See what I mean ephrem? I wrote and delightful counter argument, since he cannot argue back he relies on ad hominems as if they make a point…Like aligning me with two of the greatest philosophers in history is an insult, but tried to make it one…

Trib, you may be the most dishonest person on this forum. Your simply using it as a opportunity to evangelize, not discuss. You’re not doing the work of God here, this is forum, not a street corner. If you cannot discuss points and argue honestly with proper counter points, I’d suggest you head to a street corner and start yelling your little head off.

173

[quote]kilpaba wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]Null wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Hard science is a philosophical method based on observation. It only requires the existence of a falsifiable premise (hypothesis) and method of measurement that bears repeatable results. [/quote]

Falsifiability requires free will. If we did not have free will, our conclusions about the outcomes of experiments would be predetermined, therefore science requires free will.

Free will puts humans in a special place. Where does free will come from? [/quote]

unsupported assertions.[/quote]

The first one may be an illogical construct, but it is not an assertion, it is a logical argument-that if human action is predetermined that scientific conclusions are predetermined even if they are wrong.

The second, as I said before is conjecture open for debate, but its also not really an assertion. The assertion part is that humans have free will. The arguement is that free would make humans different that deterministic particles. [/quote]

Which in and of itself would imply there is some magical “force” or spiritual particles distinct from every other known type of matter. Doesn’t it seem much more plausible that we are in fact materially determined, as is everything, but that the near infinite complexity keeps us from ever predicting anything ourselves? [/quote]

Well there are three models I’ve come across.

The Copenhagen interpretation of QM is that this is not just a limitation on beings that try ot measure the universe, but a limitation on the universe itself. The universe behaves probabalistically and the reason why it does one thing instead of another of equal probability DOES not exist-is not a topic for science.

Another is that there is a reason but basically it is inaccessible-basically the idea that you can not measure something smaller than an “atom” with a ruler composed of atoms. You can not measure something smaller than the planck scale because that is the shortest wavelength of “information”.

A third is that we are limited (as the prior one says) but its not just factors below our measurement capacity, but that the universe really has infinite complexity (fractal nature) and so any time we round off a value to any decimal point we lose predictive information.

I have found it to be a real paradox that Quantum theory says we can not predict the future because the universe has a limit to detail or is quantized, while Chaos theory says that we can’t predict the future because the universe has infinite detail.

174

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

Another is that there is a reason but basically it is inaccessible-basically the idea that you can not measure something smaller than an “atom” with a ruler composed of atoms. You can not measure something smaller than the planck scale because that is the shortest wavelength of “information”.

[/quote]

My money is on the above. I’m in Einstein’s camp though I’m not sure he articulated it or understood it as above.

175

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]Null wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Hard science is a philosophical method based on observation. It only requires the existence of a falsifiable premise (hypothesis) and method of measurement that bears repeatable results. [/quote]

Falsifiability requires free will. If we did not have free will, our conclusions about the outcomes of experiments would be predetermined, therefore science requires free will.

Free will puts humans in a special place. Where does free will come from? [/quote]

unsupported assertions.[/quote]

The first one may be an illogical construct, but it is not an assertion, it is a logical argument-that if human action is predetermined that scientific conclusions are predetermined even if they are wrong.

The second, as I said before is conjecture open for debate, but its also not really an assertion. The assertion part is that humans have free will. The arguement is that free would make humans different that deterministic particles. [/quote]

Which in and of itself would imply there is some magical “force” or spiritual particles distinct from every other known type of matter. Doesn’t it seem much more plausible that we are in fact materially determined, as is everything, but that the near infinite complexity keeps us from ever predicting anything ourselves? [/quote]

Well there are three models I’ve come across.

The Copenhagen interpretation of QM is that this is not just a limitation on beings that try ot measure the universe, but a limitation on the universe itself. The universe behaves probabalistically and the reason why it does one thing instead of another of equal probability DOES not exist-is not a topic for science.

Another is that there is a reason but basically it is inaccessible-basically the idea that you can not measure something smaller than an “atom” with a ruler composed of atoms. You can not measure something smaller than the planck scale because that is the shortest wavelength of “information”.

A third is that we are limited (as the prior one says) but its not just factors below our measurement capacity, but that the universe really has infinite complexity (fractal nature) and so any time we round off a value to any decimal point we lose predictive information.

I have found it to be a real paradox that Quantum theory says we can not predict the future because the universe has a limit to detail or is quantized, while Chaos theory says that we can’t predict the future because the universe has infinite detail.[/quote]

I don’t believe any of those models is a rejoinder to my point though. All three models only state, in a nutshell, that there is a limit to what can be measured for a variety of reasons (inherent randomness, infinite complexity, equipment limitations, etc.). None of them implies a magical property or spiritual force or difference in mankind or even that there is a free will. Under all of those scenarios we could, and are most likely as I see it, materially determined but that determination is simply inherently unpredictable/unknowable. My point is simply unpredictability is not free will as many religious people (and many non-religious to be fair) view it. Seeing things as not materially determined implies there is some magical/spiritual force which seems like a bit of a rational jump to me.

176

[quote]ephrem wrote: Tiribulus: What i call honesty is you adressing the simple question of why your faith is more true than the faith a devout muslim, jew or sikh has. Why do you deny the validity of their experiences as something less than yours? >>>[/quote]Because to embrace my faith at all according the God who’s glory it proclaims IS by definition to forsake all others. If Christianity is true then already included in that affirmation is the rejection of all other Gods as false. Nobody can prove that (or ANYTHING else) in the intellectual vacuum of autonomous sinful reason which is why I don’t bother trying. The real questions are at the root of all thought and consciousness (yes, epistemology again) where knowledge itself lives or dies. Quibbling about “evidence” of ANYTHING without first establishing how ANYTHING is known at all is kinda like arguing about what’s on TV in the middle of the desert where there is no electricity. [quote]ephrem wrote: <<< Why, for that matter, is religious truth limited to your subset of christianity? Why does your god limit himself like that? >>>[/quote]Show me where I’ve ever said that no person adhering to my “subset” of Christianity can be saved. Define Christianity and subset for me please. I bet that’s where the problem lies. [quote]ephrem wrote:<<< The chances of you joining hands with Hitchens before a throne praising the lord is as slim as your god revealing himself to the world like he supposedly did thousands of years ago.[/quote]Then I’ll look forward to it. Far from some dusty old revelation, the God I worship is revealed in and through every last actual and possible object of knowledge from the sub-verse of the quantum world to the vast colossal cosmos and especially in YOU. Man. You are standing on His shoulders, tripping all over Him and staring right in His face every moment of your life while you rebelliously deny Him.

177

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

Because to embrace my faith at all according the God who’s glory it proclaims IS by definition to forsake all others. If Christianity is true then already included in that affirmation is the rejection of all other Gods as false. Nobody can prove that (or ANYTHING else) in the intellectual vacuum of autonomous sinful reason which is why I don’t bother trying. The real questions are at the root of all thought and consciousness (yes, epistemology again) where knowledge itself lives or dies. Quibbling about “evidence” of ANYTHING without first establishing how ANYTHING is known at all is kinda like arguing about what’s on TV in the middle of the desert where there is no electricity.

Show me where I’ve ever said that no person adhering to my “subset” of Christianity can be saved. Define Christianity and subset for me please. I bet that’s where the problem lies.

Then I’ll look forward to it. Far from some dusty old revelation, the God I worship is revealed in and through every last actual and possible object of knowledge from the sub-verse of the quantum world to the vast colossal cosmos and especially in YOU. Man. You are standing on His shoulders, tripping all over Him and staring right in His face every moment of your life while you rebelliously deny Him.[/quote]

  1. You are still not answering the question T.

  2. You follow a specific kind of christianity. It’s not Catholicism, is it? Baptists? Episcopalian? But no one is saved unless they’re saved by the standards you believe are the only standards good enough. Is that true?

  3. And again: i’m not denying him. I’m denying the religion that poisons this planet and the minds and hearts of it’s followers. God of Abraham be damned if this really is what he wants, but i don’t think that’s the case.

178

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

Because to embrace my faith at all according the God who’s glory it proclaims IS by definition to forsake all others. If Christianity is true then already included in that affirmation is the rejection of all other Gods as false. Nobody can prove that (or ANYTHING else) in the intellectual vacuum of autonomous sinful reason which is why I don’t bother trying. The real questions are at the root of all thought and consciousness (yes, epistemology again) where knowledge itself lives or dies. Quibbling about “evidence” of ANYTHING without first establishing how ANYTHING is known at all is kinda like arguing about what’s on TV in the middle of the desert where there is no electricity.

Show me where I’ve ever said that no person adhering to my “subset” of Christianity can be saved. Define Christianity and subset for me please. I bet that’s where the problem lies.

Then I’ll look forward to it. Far from some dusty old revelation, the God I worship is revealed in and through every last actual and possible object of knowledge from the sub-verse of the quantum world to the vast colossal cosmos and especially in YOU. Man. You are standing on His shoulders, tripping all over Him and staring right in His face every moment of your life while you rebelliously deny Him.[/quote]

  1. You are still not answering the question T.

  2. You follow a specific kind of christianity. It’s not Catholicism, is it? Baptists? Episcopalian? But no one is saved unless they’re saved by the standards you believe are the only standards good enough. Is that true?

  3. And again: i’m not denying him. I’m denying the religion that poisons this planet and the minds and hearts of it’s followers. God of Abraham be damned if this really is what he wants, but i don’t think that’s the case. [/quote]

Correct analysis my friend…You’ll die holding your breath for a proper answer. He is as positive and sure about his faith as any muslim, hindu, etc. The muslims use the same justifications he uses to say that he is following a false religion and is going strait to hell. That’s why you have to dig deeper.
Ignorance of truth is not a sin, refusal to search for truth is…
That’s why Jesus taught not to judge, or pretend to understand the mind of God. Your enemy may be partying in heaven, while you gnash your teeth in hell. Jesus taught that people you would not suspect are pleasing to God and people who think they are pleasing to God, are not. It’s in the bible…
If you think your faith is better because of the religion you practice then you don’t know shit.

179

[quote]kilpaba wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]Null wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Hard science is a philosophical method based on observation. It only requires the existence of a falsifiable premise (hypothesis) and method of measurement that bears repeatable results. [/quote]

Falsifiability requires free will. If we did not have free will, our conclusions about the outcomes of experiments would be predetermined, therefore science requires free will.

Free will puts humans in a special place. Where does free will come from? [/quote]

unsupported assertions.[/quote]

The first one may be an illogical construct, but it is not an assertion, it is a logical argument-that if human action is predetermined that scientific conclusions are predetermined even if they are wrong.

The second, as I said before is conjecture open for debate, but its also not really an assertion. The assertion part is that humans have free will. The arguement is that free would make humans different that deterministic particles. [/quote]

Which in and of itself would imply there is some magical “force” or spiritual particles distinct from every other known type of matter. Doesn’t it seem much more plausible that we are in fact materially determined, as is everything, but that the near infinite complexity keeps us from ever predicting anything ourselves? [/quote]

Well there are three models I’ve come across.

The Copenhagen interpretation of QM is that this is not just a limitation on beings that try ot measure the universe, but a limitation on the universe itself. The universe behaves probabalistically and the reason why it does one thing instead of another of equal probability DOES not exist-is not a topic for science.

Another is that there is a reason but basically it is inaccessible-basically the idea that you can not measure something smaller than an “atom” with a ruler composed of atoms. You can not measure something smaller than the planck scale because that is the shortest wavelength of “information”.

A third is that we are limited (as the prior one says) but its not just factors below our measurement capacity, but that the universe really has infinite complexity (fractal nature) and so any time we round off a value to any decimal point we lose predictive information.

I have found it to be a real paradox that Quantum theory says we can not predict the future because the universe has a limit to detail or is quantized, while Chaos theory says that we can’t predict the future because the universe has infinite detail.[/quote]

I don’t believe any of those models is a rejoinder to my point though. All three models only state, in a nutshell, that there is a limit to what can be measured for a variety of reasons (inherent randomness, infinite complexity, equipment limitations, etc.). None of them implies a magical property or spiritual force or difference in mankind or even that there is a free will. Under all of those scenarios we could, and are most likely as I see it, materially determined but that determination is simply inherently unpredictable/unknowable. My point is simply unpredictability is not free will as many religious people (and many non-religious to be fair) view it. Seeing things as not materially determined implies there is some magical/spiritual force which seems like a bit of a rational jump to me.[/quote]

As I’ve said several times before, I believe in free will. That is my starting assumption. If you don’t then ignore. If humans have an ability to exert free will on nature, then science can never be complete. If one believes in free will then one believes in SOMETHING that can not be explained by science and logic.

I guess what I am working through is that SUPERNATURAL or God or Supreme being or whatever is equivalent to “whatever can not be tested by science” or whatever is outside of the circumscription of science, so discounting it with the argument that it can never be tested is a tautology. Something unprovable is unproveable. I believe that if you believe in free will, you believe in the unproveable, because free will can only occur in a non-deterministic universe (it is contained in the definition of free will that there are more than one path ie non-determinstic) and in a non-deterministic universe there will always be something inaccessible by one of the mechanisms I mentioned.

180

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

Another is that there is a reason but basically it is inaccessible-basically the idea that you can not measure something smaller than an “atom” with a ruler composed of atoms. You can not measure something smaller than the planck scale because that is the shortest wavelength of “information”.

[/quote]

My money is on the above. I’m in Einstein’s camp though I’m not sure he articulated it or understood it as above. [/quote]

Some days I favor Einstein’s view, and others I like to think like the “orthodox” QMers. I think that its worth considering the implications of both.

What I have been told: and I had a roommate who was finishing his PhD in theoretical physics and worked at the German particle accelerator, and he told me this, that the problem with general relativity is that it requires that space and time are NOT quantized. I don’t know enough to evaluate that but he basically was saying that if GR could incorporate quantized space and time we would be on the verge of a unified theory without drastically changing QM or GR.