Based on physics, what insights do you make about reality?

Page 9 of 11 [ 160 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

Michael829
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 29 Aug 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 256
Location: United States

28 Sep 2017, 5:14 pm

mikeman7918 wrote:
You have just made an argument from semantics and you are trying to use it to tell me what I believe.


(The above box-quote is just for the purpose of identifying whom this reply is to. The full quote, and my reply will be shown below, as part of my overall reply.)

Length this reply: 20 pages, in 12-point type.

You said:
.
Quote:

.
You have just made an argument from semantics and you are trying to use it to tell me what I believe.
.
You said:
.

.
No, I’m just telling you what you said.
.
You said that “real” is synonymous with “observable”.
.
Sorry, but that makes you a Straw-Man Materialist.
.
You said:
.
Quote:

By the definitions I defined for the context of my argument "real" means observable

.
Exactly. And you’ve also said that only matter and energy are observable.
.
Therefore, you’re saying that only matter and energy are real.
.
I repeat:
.
Sorry, but that makes you a Straw-Man Materialist.
.
You’re saying that you believe in the metaphysics that you call Straw-Man Materialism.
.
…except when you contradict yourself by denying it :D
.
You said:
.
Quote:

…therefore meaning that "reality" refers to just observable reality

.
Oh, ok, so reality isn’t all of reality :D
.
You said:
.
Quote:

In this context I will refer to things that are not observable as being "beyond reality".

.
Ah yes, all those unreal things :D
.
“…beyond reality” is nonsense. Gibberish.
.
You said:
.
Quote:

I make absolutely no claims at all about what is beyond reality, I have no idea and neither does anyone else.

.
I have no idea what you mean by “beyond reality”. You don’t know either, do you.
.
Yes, I admit that I have no idea what you’re talking about, or what “beyond Reality” is supposed to mean.
.
You said:
.
Quote:

I am going to ignore the parts of your reply that make claims about me believing strawman materialism.

.
Ok.
.
When you deny Strawman Materialism, you seem to be saying nothing other than that you believe that anything that isn’t experimentally-observable is unknowable. Does that correctly state your alternative switch-position?
.
Well then the question is “How do you know that?”
.
How do you know that anything that isn’t experimentally-observable is unknowable. Do you realize that that your claim to know that without proof is a violation of your supposed Empiricism?
.
…aside from the fact that it’s a ridiculous claim:
.
Here are few examples of facts that are inevitable without experimental measurement:
.
Some logical syllogisms; mathematical theorems; and if-then statements whose conclusions are the values of certain physical-quantity, and whose premises include hypothetical physical laws and hypothetical values for certain other physical quantities.
.
Complex inter-referring systems of such facts are inevitable as well.
.
Among the infinity of such complex systems is one whose events and relations match those of our physical world. As I said, there’s no reason to believe that our physical world is more than that.
.
By the way, the belief that our own possibility-world is somehow more real or existent than the infinity of other possibility-worlds is pre-Copernican.
.
You said:
.
Quote:

I'm pretty sure that I understand what I believe better then you do

.
You got that right!
.
…because I must admit that I have no idea what you mean.
.
But that’s ok. Your beliefs are your business, and none of my business.
.
We can set aside the unprovable matter of whether you know what you mean.
.
Let’s leave the subject of what you believe. As I said, it’s none of my business.
.
You said:
.
Quote:

and when describing what I believe I can use whatever definitions I want to express it as long as I'm clear about what they are.

.
Yes. Clear
.
…and consistent. Not self-contradictory.
.
“…therefore meaning that “reality” refers to just observable reality” ?
.
You said:
.
Quote:

Michael829 wrote:
.
Quote:
Oops!! You forgot to say.
.
So, you need to be specific if you want to say that I’m sure of something that one can’t validly be sure of.

.
You're right, I did forget to say. I will be more specific:

.
Of those two possibilities the one that most closely resembles my argument is that "you’re very sure that there are no logical facts that one can validly be sure about". We can never be 100% sure about anything we deduce logically without being 100% sure of the premise, and since we can never be 100% sure about anything we can never be completely certain about anything deduced with logic.

.
You’re repeating the same confusion that I’ve just finished answering, in my previous post.
.
You’re confusing an if-then fact with its premise.
.
I didn’t claim that any premises are true. And of course if an if-then fact’s “if “ premise is false, then its “then” conclusion can’t be said to be true. But the falsity of an if-then fact’s premise and conclusion doesn’t falsify the if-then fact itself.
.
e.g. :
.
If all Slithytoves are brilig, and if all Jaberwockys are Slithytoves, then all Jaberwockys are brilig.
.
That logical statement is true, even if none of the Slithytoves are brilig.
.
That logical statement is true, even if none of the Jaberwockys are Slithytoves.
.
That logical statement is true even if there are no Slithytoves and no Jaberwockys.
.
We’re talking about if.
.
I often refer to possibility-worlds as worlds of “if “. …as opposed to worlds of “is”.
.
You said:
.
Quote:

I don't understand where you got the "except for some of them" from because we have no completely certain starting points for this type of thing.

.
See above. You’ve admitted that some logical facts are inevitably true, and then you contradict yourself by saying that nothing can be said for sure except for experimental observations.
.
I gave, directly above, a simple example, a very familiar form of undeniably true logical fact:
.
Some logical facts are certain.
.
You’re confusing an if-then fact with its premise and with its conclusion.
.
You know, you’re going to have a lot of trouble with this subject (or any subject) if you let your arrogance, and the Dunning-Kruger effect, convince you that you’re already right.
.
You can ignore that advice, and no doubt you will. And that’s none of my business either.
.
You said:
.
Quote:

Sure, you can be certain that in a hypothetical world where X is true then Y is also true but you can only be certain that it's true within that hypothetical world and not in reality.

.
And what “reality” would that be? :D
.
You think that reality consists of this physical world that is observable to us, and whose things we can measure. …the Stawman Materialist belief.
.
I’ve made it sufficiently clear that I’m talking about hypothetical worlds.
.
You say they aren’t “in reality”? They’re real in their own context. They’re real in their own subset of Reality.
.
They aren’t real in other subsets of Reality, outside of their own context, their own subset of Reality.
.
I’ll say it again:
.
I don’t claim that the complex logical systems that I speak of are true, real, existent, meaningful, or factual other than in their own inter-referring context.
.
In particular, I’m saying that each one of the infinitely-many inter-referring logical systems is locally valid and true, quite independent of any global context, independent of any sort of medium in which for it to exist or be real. As I said, it isn’t real, existent, meaningful, true or factual other than in its own local inter-referring context.
.
But, as I was saying above, Reality is usually or always metaphysically taken to mean all that is. So yes, by that super-broad accepted meaning of Reality, it can be said that every self-consistent hypothetical logical system is true (somewhere) in Reality.
.
…in its own subset of Reality. …its own local inter-referring context to which I’ve been referring.
.
…but (other than our own universe) not to us in our own little subset of Reality, our own possibility-world.
.
All of the possibility-worlds other than our own are not real to us, as seen from our possibility-world, from our own personal life-experience possibility-stories.
.
Our own observable-to-us physical universe, which you want to call reality, isn’t Reality. It’s a subset of Reality.
.
(Though I capitalize Reality when I use that word, but often not when I quote your uncapitalized use of it, I don’t mean to imply two different meanings.)
.
As I said, I accept the word “actual” to mean in, of, or referring to our own universe. But when you say that “real” is synonymous with “observable in our universe”, then you’re a Straw-Man Materialist.
.
Among the infinity of hypothetical possibility-worlds, there inevitably is one whose events and relations matches those of our physical universe. …i.e. our own universe is just one of those infinitely-many possibility-worlds.
.
There’s no evidence, empirical or otherwise, that our physical universe is more than one such possibility-world.
.
You said:
Quote:

.
.Michael829 wrote:
.
Quote:
Our experience is what we actually directly observe, Mr. Empiricist.
.
Anyway, Skepticism and MUH describe exactly the same possibility-world. The only difference is one of emphasis. Emphasis on the system-wide point-of-view (MUH), or on the individual experience point-of-view (Skepticism).
.
This possibility-world could be described from either point-of-view.
.
(Well, there’s also the difference that I call Skepticism an inevitability and a certainty, rather than a hypothesis.)
.
In a previous post here, I posted a numbered list of reasons why the individual-experience point-of-view makes more senses to me.

.
I believe that there is nothing fundamental about an individual's experience because I can observe countless other individuals existing within the same world who are all presumably experiencing things, to assume that my personal experiences are any more valid then anyone else's would be insane.

.
…certainly more directly empirically supported, from your point of view. Remember Empiricism?
.
As I said before, the same possibility-world can be spoken of from an individual experience point-of-view, or from a systemwide point-of-view. I repeat and emphasize that that distinction needn’t be an issue for argument or disagreement.
.
I’ve told why I, personally, prefer the individual-experience point of view. But I repeat that it needn’t be an issue.
.
But, just to explain how it can be said from the individual-experience point-of-view (but not to claim that you’re wrong if you prefer the systemwide point-of-view), I’ll say the following:
.
Obviously, in the possibility-world that is the setting for your life-experience possibility-story, there must be a species of which you’re a member. And there must be other members of that species in that world.
.
And, for any one of those other individuals, and among the infinity of life-experience possibility-stories, there must be one that is about that individual’s experience in this same possibility-world.
.
But don’t worry about other people’s experience as a philosophical matter. For you that’s all inference or second-hand information. Their own personal experience is more real and empirically direct for them than for you.
.
That doesn’t mean that you needn’t be considerate and ethical, because it’s also true that, in this common physical world, you and the other individuals are all individuals with the same existence-status and sentience, and they all have experience just as you do.
.
You said:
.
Quote:

That is why I have come to the (tentative, as always) conclusion that reality creates consciousness and not the other way around, because there seems to be a bunch of conscious beings in a single reality.

.
I’ve answered about the “Consciousness” issue. I agree with philosophy-of-mind Physicalism, or at least part of it. I don’t believe in “Consciousness” as something separate and different from the body. I don’t believe in the philosophical dissection of the animal into separate body and “Mind” or “Consciousness”.
.
You said:
.
Quote:

Michael829 wrote:
.
Quote:
Incorrect. I didn’t say that.
.
I said that this physical universe is based on logic. …is a logical possibility-world, a complex logical system of inter-referring if-then facts about hypotheticals.
.
That description is a metaphysics.
.
But I never said that Reality is based on metaphysics or logic, or that metaphysics or logic describes all of Reality.
.
~~~
.
Metaphysics is a verbal-discussion topic, as is physics. (Of course physics is also of material practical use, when it advises engineering.)
.
Metaphysics is the next verbal descriptive level above physics.
.
I’ve never claimed that those topics describe all of Reality.

.
So you are saying that metaphysics describes what's beyond reality but not that far beyond reality?

.
No. I’ve never said anything about “beyond Reality”, or “not that far beyond Reality”. :D
.
I said that neither physics nor metaphysics describes Reality.
.
You said:
.
Quote:

My objections still stand, you can never know anything beyond reality whether it be a little bit or a lot.

.
That’s ok, because I’ve said nothing about “beyond Reality”.
.
You said:
.
Quote:

Michael829 wrote:
.
Quote:
I was quite specific.
.
As I said, Skepticism predicts this physical universe from fundamental principles.

.
What predictions does it make though?

.
It predicts an infinity of possibility-worlds, and that, among the infinity of possibility-worlds, there is one whose events and relations match those of this physical world.
.
It predicts our physical universe , from fundamental principles.
.
It predicts this physical world, along with infinitely-many others, as a consequence of fundamental inevitable logical principles.
.
Your Straw-Man Materialism that you (sometimes evidently) believe in posits this physical world as a brute-fact. Skepticism predicts it from fundamental principles.
.
You said:
.
Quote:

That is not very specific at all. Does it predict that the universe must be exactly like it is with its exact force charges and particle types?

.
No. It doesn’t predict that there is only one universe, with certain characteristics.
.
Yes, it predicts this particular physical world, in all its detail. (…as one of infinitely many possibility-worlds.)
.
You said:
.
Quote:

From what I have gathered it predicts that everything [I assume you mean “all possibility-worlds”],should exist…

.
No. Not “…should exist”. “…do] exist” …each only in its own context.
.
You said:
.
Quote:

…including our universe which means that absolutely nothing that could ever be observed could ever disprove it. Correct me if I'm wrong.

.
No experiment could disprove Strawman Materialism or Skepticism or any of various other metaphysicses. Just so we get that straight.
.
There probably are some proposed metaphysicses that are experimentally-falsified. I don’t know of a metaphysics that’s experimentally falsifiable but not experimentally falsified.
.
Of course maybe what you’re (sometimes) saying is that you take no position whatsoever on metaphysics, because you personally regard it as “BS”, due to your empirically-unsupported, and demonstrably-false, belief that only what’s instrumentally-measurable can be reliably true.
.
That’s fine too, and is, as I said, entirely your business.
.
Skepticism is falsifiable in principle. …if you falsify its logical support.
.
Alright, let’s talk about experimental confirmation. And support.
.
Your Strawman-Materialism that you (at least sometimes) say you believe in is an unfalsifiable proposition, in principle unfalsifiable. Lacking any kind of support whatsoever.
.
Though Strawman-Materialism and Skepticism both have no physics experiment that could disprove (or verify) them, Skepticism is has inevitable logical support.
.
Let me illustrate it by an analogy:
.
Say you’re caught with a suitcase full of $100 bills. The police ask you where you got it. You say, “It’s my savings. I’ve been saving it under the floorboards.”
.
The detective says, “Yeah? I think you got it in the bank-robbery that took place a few minutes ago, right up the street, in this little one-street town. Can you confirm your explanation of how you have that suitcase of $100 bills?”
.
You say, “Certainly, officer. My explanation about the savings under the floorboards is confirmed by my possession of this suitcase full of $100 bills.”
.
But the problem, of course, is that the detective’s theory likewise is confirmed by that. Your possession of the suitcase full of $100 bills doesn’t adjudicate between those two theories.
.
Oh wait…There’s one more thing:
.
The amount of money in the suitcase is exactly the same as the amount that was robbed, and the serial numbers on your bills match those that were robbed, and there are photos of you, at the time of the robbery, leaving the bank with the suitcase.
.
So, though both theories are equally (weakly) confirmed by your possession of the suitcase full of $100 bills, the detective’s theory has other support. …and your theory doesn’t.
.
Likewise, your Strawman-Materialism and Skepticism are both consistent with the fact that we’re in this physical world, and consistent with all of our experimental observations in this universe. None of that adjudicates between those two metaphysicses.
.
But Skepticism is supported by inevitable logical facts.
.
Strawman-Materialism has no support. (…other than its non-adjudicative weak confirmation from the fact that we’re in a physical world).
.
You said:
.
Quote:

…metaphysics is unscientific BS. Thanks for proving my point.

.
Metaphysics and science are entirely different topics. Neither needs justification in terms of the other.
.
You’re still all confused about the difference between them.
.
mikeman believes that metaphysics is BS.
.
mikeman (at least sometimes) believes in a metaphysics.
.
mikeman believes in what he believes is BS.
.
You said:
.
Quote:

What part of "nothing is 100% certain under empiricism" don't you understand?

.
Answer: The part where you believe it.
.
As I said, you’re crudely and sloppily over-applying, mis-applying, science’s Empiricism.
.
Empiricism is a valuable standard for physics theories.
.
There are inevitable logical facts that don’t need any experimental verification.
.
Your sureness otherwise, without any evidence, and contrary to obvious counterexamples, is an obvious violation of Empiricism.
.
You said:
.
Quote:

Michael829 wrote:
Quote:
Logical consistency is a requirement for a life-experience possibility-story. This logical system that is our physical universe takes a mathematical form, but most basically it is and must be logically consistent.
.
Logical consistency among our personal experiential observations, and among the physical world’s logical system of “if-thens” is fundamental to a possibility-story.

.
But how do you know?

It’s impossible for something self-contradictory to be factual, even in its own context.
.
If one of two mutually-contradictory propositions is true, then the other must be false.
.
An impossibility-story isn’t a possibility-story.
.
You said:
.
Quote:

Have you seen every possibility world or are you just making this up?

.
It isn’t necessary to see every possibility world to say with assurance that a self-contradictory world is an impossibility-world, instead of a possibility-world.
.
You said:
.
Quote:

Who's to say you won't wake up tomorrow on Mars? How can you know for sure that nothing logically impossible has ever happened in all of [this universe’s?] space and time?

.
Do you know what “impossible” means?
.
You said:
.
Quote:

Reality is under no obligation to make sense to us. This is exactly the kind of false confidence in things you cannot know that I am talking about, granted in this case they are reasonable assumptions but you have taken them to the extreme.

.
If, for example, what if Mars suddenly changed course, left its orbit, in violation of known physical laws, and headed toward us; or if it didn’t rain Tuesday or Tuesday night, but on Wednesday morning everything was drenched and flooded as if by torrential rains on the previous day or night, would you say that was because our world is inconsistent and self-contradictory?
.
No, that seeming contradiction could just be a result of as-yet unknown physical laws.
.
Until all physical laws are known (They probably can never all be known), seeming contradictions could be due to unknown physical laws.
.
(…reminiscent of one of Arthur Clarke’s laws, stating that a sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.)
.
Say you drop a stone, and it falls up instead of down. Maybe that’s just due to something about physical laws that isn’t currently known.
.
In fact, didn’t that happen recently in astrophysics? It’s been determined that the rate at which the distant galaxies are receding from eachother is accelerating. Everyone was surprised. Even though space itself is expanding, people who know the subject better than you or I do, still expected gravity to decelerate the galaxies’ recession.
.
Do astrophysicists declare that as evidence that we live in a self-contradictory world? No. There’s more to physical laws than is currently known, and those unknown laws are assumed to somehow (in an as-yet unknown way) explain the accelerating recession.
.
By quantum-mechanics, a particle can appear on the other side of a barrier that the particle doesn’t have enough energy to cross. It happens all the time, and is made-use-of, in tunnel-diodes. If that effect were observed before quantum mechanics was heard of, that could have been called a contravention of physical law, and an impossibility.
.
The result of the Michaelson-Morely experiment was inexplicable, given the physical laws known when the experiment was done. A seeming contravention of physical laws. But it’s consistent with the theory of relativity.
.
The planet Mercury has been experiencing an amount of rotation-of-apsides that can’t be explained by Newton’s laws (of motion and gravity). A contravention of (at least previously) known physical laws. But the general theory of relativity neatly explains that phenomenon.
.
The energy vs frequency curve for black-body radiation contradicts what was predicted by classical physics. …a seeming contravention of physical law. But Max Planck pointed out that it can be explained if the radiation behaves as if energy is quantized.
.
(Later it was shown that the quantization is genuine. The photo-electric effect was a confirmation of that.)
.
Anyway, isn’t there something about a genuine contradiction, an impossibility, that makes it impossible in a meaningful sense? So, isn’t the “unknown physical law” interpretation of an apparent physical-law-contravention the only one that makes sense?
.
Another thing:
.
The suggestion that the individual-experience point of view is primary would make it easier to explain seemingly impossible experiment-reports, because the reports could be errors or hoaxes.
.
…and individual impossible observations could be explained by hallucination, false-memory, etc.
.
…moreso when we speak of events in terms of personal experience instead of system-wide fact, because then we can speak only of personal observations or 2nd-hand reports received by the individual. …both of which could be in error.
.
Regarding the simulation issue:
.
1. You speak of the simulations’s version of a possibility-world, as distinct from the real version.
.
But, when the simulation is displaying a possibility-world, there aren’t two versions of that possibility-world. There’s just that one possibility-world. By displaying it, the simulation isn’t creating anything. It’s still about only one possibility-world. …and it was already there. The simulation didn’t create it. It merely displayed it to its viewing-audience.
.
2. But suppose the programmer makes his simulation do something impossible, meaning that the overall story that he’s simulating isn’t a possibility-story.
.
No problem. Now he’s displaying an impossibility-story. That impossibility story was already there, as an impossibility-story, before your programmer displayed it by his simulation. The simulation didn’t create that impossibility-story. It merely displayed it to its viewing audience.
.
In other words, the answer #1, above, applies to an impossibility-story, just as well as it applies to a possibility-story.
.
As for impossible events, contraventions of physical law, see above where I discussed that at length, in terms of as-yet unknown physical-laws.
.
You said:
.
Quote:

Michael829 wrote:
.
Quote:
Alright, you’ve been vaguely hinting about a “special pleading fallacy” for some time now. So, specifically what is my special pleading fallacy?

.
Your special pleading fallacy is your claim that science should not be applied to metaphysics

.
Science describes the physical world. The physical world is science’s legitimate range of applicability.
.
A Science-Worshipper is someone who believes in Science (capitalized, as a religious object of worship) as as something that applies to all of Reality.
.
You are a True-Believer Science-Worshipper.
.
Science-Worship isn’t science. Science-Worship is pseudoscience.
.
…And Science-Worship is a religion.
.
You said:
.
Quote:

, basically that you can determine things to be true without evidence when you say so.

.
What kind of evidence do you want, for inevitable logical facts?
.
Instrumental experimental evidence? :D
.
You yourself have admitted that there are inevitably-true logical facts.
.
In fact, aside from that, you’ve also been claiming that a world, actual for its inhabitants, could be self-contradictory, and therefore untrue even in its own context.
.
You said:
.
Quote:

Michael829 wrote:
Quote:
I asked you what, in particular, is speculative about Skepticism.
.
Oops!! You forgot to say.

.
What isn't speculative about it? You assume that there are infinite universes without evidence, that's a pretty big assumption.

.
Nonsense. I’ve repeatedly said that none of them is real, existent, meaningful or factual outside its own local inter-referring context.
.
So no, I’m not saying that they’re existent for us, with respect to our own subset of Reality.
.
Our own universe is existent for us, because we’re part of it.
.
You said:
.
Quote:

Michael829 wrote:
Quote:
But the logical facts that constitute a complex possibility-world aren’t in doubt. Abstract logical facts, together in an inter-referring system, are an inevitability, though I don’t claim that they have existence, reality, meaning or factual-ness outside their own inter-referring context.
.
That last clause of that paragraph makes my statement a modest and uncontroversial one.

.
So you have determined a way of saying that something is logically inevitable in the real world without relying in potentially wrong observations and axioms?

.
Yes. But I don’t claim to be the inventor or discoverer of inevitable logical facts.
.
Mathematical theorems, which are if-then facts stating certain “then” conclusions to be conditional upon certain “if “ premises, including, but not limited to, a set of axioms, are among the logically-inevitable if-then facts.
.
And those theorems would be just as true even if the axioms in their “if “ premises were false.
.
(Distinguish between an if-then fact and its “then” conclusion.)
.
You said:
.
Quote:

Michael829 wrote:
.
Quote:
And metaphysics isn’t about experimental measurements, but a metaphysics still needs some kind of support.

.
Well what other type of support could there possibly be besides observation?

.
Logical inevitability.
.
You said:
.
Quote:

Even logic is limited by that [experimental measurement and observation].

.
Oh really.
.
I trust that you’re going to publish that new discovery.
.
Are you still confusing an if-then fact with its hypothetical premise and its conclusion that is conditional upon its premise?
.
You said:
.
Quote:

Michael829 wrote:
Quote:
.
So, by what criteria do I claim that Skepticism is true?
.
By the inevitability of the abstract logical facts on which its’s based.
.
…and thereby the inevitability of a complex inter-referring system of such facts.
.
…in fact, an infinity of such systems.
.
…and thereby the inevitability that one of those infinitely-many complex logical systems has events and relations that match those of our physical universe.
.
…making it experimentally indistinguishable from our universe.
.
…and giving us no reason to believe that our physical universe is more than such a complex logical system.
.
I admit that it’s difficult for people to regard our lives as hypothetical experience-stories set in a hypothetical logical possibility-world.
.
But there’s no reason to believe otherwise. …or to believe the added unparsimonious, empirically-unsupported entities that such a belief would entail.
.

.
...And those logical facts are based on axioms known only because they are observed in reality which makes your entire argument circular.

.
The validity of if-then facts doesn’t depend on the truth of their premises. Don’t forget that if-then facts contain the word “if “.
.
As I said, I’m talking about worlds of “if “.
.
I’m saying that our physical universe is one of infinitely many hypothetical worlds of “if “.
.
In particular, I’m saying that your life is one of infinitely-many hypothetical life-experience possibility-stories.
.
You said:
.
Quote:

.
You remind me of my mom when she told me that it's a fallacy to apply science to religion where it doesn't belong.

.
Tell her that I said that she’s right.
.
You said:
.
Quote:

As far as I'm concerned I don't ever have any excuse in believing in something that cannot be measured, I don't see the fallacy in that.

.
You can believe as you want, and there’s no fallacy in that. I won’t criticize you for your religious beliefs.
.
You can assure your mother that you’re religious. Tell her that your religion is the religion of Science-Worship.
.
Michael829


_________________
Michael829


Michael829
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 29 Aug 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 256
Location: United States

29 Sep 2017, 12:27 pm

mikeman7918 wrote:
"reality" refers to just observable reality.


What I meant to clarify was that you're using "reality" with two different meanings in one sentence.

You said:

Quote:


How can you know for sure that nothing logically impossible has ever happened in all of space and time?


I replied:

Quote:

Do you now what "impossible" means?


Of course my answer was unfair. Of course something could happen in a simulation that would be entirely impossible in a physical world.

But,...

1. Even if our world could be shown to be an impossibility-world, the impossibility-stories are already there. The transistor-switchings of someone's computer didn't make them. ...only displayed them for their viewing-audience.

You're attributing powers to transistor-switchings, for which there's no empirical support, and which there's no reason to believe.


2. Of course you're talking about impossible physical events. That would be violations of physical law. Any seeming violation of physical law could be merely the result of as-yet unknown physical laws.

And, when the world is viewed from the point of view of individual experience (the genuinely direct empirical point of view), any supposed impossible event could be explained by hallucination, lunacy, or hoaxed or erroneous reports.

...if something supposedly happened that couldn't be explained by unknown physical laws.

------------------------------------
I just wanted to improve and clarify those two things that I'd said in my main reply to your post.

Michael829


_________________
Michael829


BaalChatzaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,048
Location: Monroe Twp. NJ

29 Sep 2017, 4:23 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
shlaifu wrote:
If realty is a simulation, chances are so are we. So, that, for now, doesn't require immediate action from me, and for all intents and purposes, things are staying the same until someone figures out whether we are A) in a simulation, and B) exist outside of the simulation.
and then there's the question if it is a self-assembling simulation.

Yes, there is actually theories on that ...whether it is assembled from within ...

Does consciousness determine reality.


String Theory, so far, is untested and uncorroborated. In short, it is mathematically fancy speculation. At this stage it is not even wrong.


_________________
Socrates' Last Words: I drank what!! !?????


Michael829
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 29 Aug 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 256
Location: United States

01 Oct 2017, 9:21 pm

This post is about things that were discussed with mikeman:

I said:

Quote:

You're attributing powers to transistor-switchings, for which there's no empirical support, and which there's no reason to believe.


Well, disregard that argument, because neither position in this matter is experimentally-supported.

But here's the thing:

Whether the programmer is simulating a possible story, or whether he's simulating genuinely impossible events, and thereby simulating an impossible story--the fact remains that, either way, it's about one story. not two versions or two separate stories.

If he capriciously makes some change in his simulation (whether possible or impossible), then we can speak separately of the simulation before and after his change, in regards to their possibility or impossibility. And we can also speak of his overall simulation, including both parts--the whole thing, with the programmer's change, somewhere in the middle.

And, whichever part, or the whole, we're talking about, it's some possible or impossible story that was already there before he enacted, presented, displayed it with his simulation. He can keep changing his simulation on the wing, but, even with the totality of all his changes, there's some pre-existing story (possible or impossible) that he's simulating then.

You can do all the performances you want to, of Shakespeare's Hamlet, but it's still the same play. Don't confuse the enactment, presentation, the display, with the play, the script.

What, you say you changed the script, or that the actors departed from Shakespeare's script? Fine, then they acted out a different script. Maybe they didn't write that script down beforehand. Fine. Whatever they did onstage, there's a script for it. Written down or not, whether planned in advance by actors or director or not, there's a script corresponding to what the actors said and did onstage.

And your programmer's simulation doesn't count as a newly-created "version" of a story. For any story, whether he simulates it or not, it's only that one story. And it was there as a possibility-story before the programmer simulated it.

And he can't make a simulation that isn't such a story. That's why I say that his simulation doesn't and can't make a story that wasn't already there.

No programmer with a simulation created out world.

The notion of a simulation creating a world results from a confusion between a story, and a display of a story.

Notice that the question of whether or not we could find ourselves in an impossible world doesn't even enter into the above conclusion. But, just as a matter of fact, I've discussed, in my previous two postings, why I doubt that any world could be established to be an impossible world.

About realities:

When you say that "reality" is just a part of reality, using "reality" with two meanings, you're admitting that your "reality", by which you mean what's measurable in this universe, isn't necessarily really all of reality.

So, for that "reality" that isn't all of reality, why don't you give it a different name, so as to not use the same word with two meanings?

Howabout defining what's observable in this world as "local reality", or "actuality". When I say "actual", I'll mean "in, of, or referring to this physical universe".

For two different meanings, it would be better to use two different words.

Anyway, we don't really have any disagreement. We're just talking about different things. I'm talking about metaphysics. You don't "believe in" it, as a matter of personal belief. That's your right, and I have no argument with, or criticism of, your personal beliefs.

In fact, you aren't really discussing metaphysics. You're discussing your disbelief in it, and your adherence to what can be measured. That doesn't contradict metaphysics. It just disregards metaphysics, and that's your right.

No argument, see?

Study what can be measured. Study physics and engineering.

Michael829


_________________
Michael829


Michael829
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 29 Aug 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 256
Location: United States

04 Oct 2017, 9:23 pm


Some Comments About Quantum Mechanics:

.
Topics in this post:
.
1. Quantum mechanics and an objectively-existent physical world
.
2. Interpretation of quantum mechanics
.
3. Why is there quantum mechanics?
.
1. Quantum mechanics and an objectively-existent physical world:
.
A university physicist who is a recognized specialist in quantum mechanics said, in a book, that quantum mechanics lays to rest the notion of an objectively-existent physical world.
.
That’s one reason (but not the only reason) why you can kiss off Materialism.
.
(It’s also an exception to my saying that physics says nothing about metaphysics.)
.
I don’t remember the book’s title, or (for certain) the author’s name, but it seems to me that the author’s name was Mullen.
.
2. Interpretation of quantum mechanics:
.
One nice bonus that comes with Skepticism and MUH is that there is no longer any difference between the many-worlds interpretation and the probabilistic interpretation.
.
(…unless the many-worlds interpretation specifies a requirement that the many worlds ongoingly physically interact.)
.
3. Why is there quantum mechanics?
.
It’s the reason why there are stable atoms, and atoms of consistent kinds (elements). Without that, of course there’d be no life (at least of the kind that we have here).
.
The quantization of energy is why that is.
.
One way to get integer-quantization is via standing-waves. …in the same manner by which a trumpet can play (resonate at) any of various harmonically-related notes, via standing-waves.
.
These standing-waves are called “matter-waves”, and the quantity that is oscillating is, of course, called “wave-function”. Of course naming it doesn’t mean that anything is known about it. The nature or explanation of those matter waves, or wave-function, in terms of something more fundamental is unknown.
.
It might very well be that there’s a physical explanation for the matter-waves, in terms of more fundamental physics that has yet to be discovered. …but which might be unavailable to physicists, for one reason or another, such as prohibitively high energies needed to investigate it.
.
Not all matter consists of standing waves. An unconfined moving particle or object consists of a “wave group”, an interaction of several waves, moving at different speeds, if I remember correctly, resulting in a wave-function high that moves at its own subluminal speed.
.
Incidentally, though matter can only move at speeds lower than the speed of light, matter-waves always move at speeds greater than the speed of light.
.
For all anyone knows about it, matter-waves might be part of a world with more than three spatial dimensions, explaining why the physical basis and explanation for matter-waves isn’t visible or apparent.
.
Well, string-theory predicts a physical space with more than three spatial dimensions.
.
Obviously, the possibility-world that is the setting for your life-experience possibility-story must be a world that produces you and your physical surroundings. …hence the requirement for stable atoms of consistent kinds (elements).
.
Michael829


_________________
Michael829


mikeman7918
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Mar 2016
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,929
Location: Utah, USA

05 Oct 2017, 12:12 am

@Michael829

It takes too long to compose these responses but ignoring all the fallacious arguments in your last couple posts, I'm glad you seemed to drop your insistence that I believe in strawman materialism because that was just getting old.

Anyway, our biggest disagreement seems to be if metaphysics should be taken seriously. I for one consider it absurd that I should be expected to set aside empiricism and believe in something beyond observable reality just because you say so. Metaphysics is great as a form of speculation but that's all it is, speculation. It describes things that cannot be measured or known and anyone who considers any metaphysics concept more then just blind speculation is fooling themselves.

For there to be no disagreement between us either I would have to admit that your brand of metaphysics is somehow inevitable using logic (and logic is an invention of humans anyway so that makes no sense) or you would have to admit that metaphysics is blind speculation about things we can't know. I am fully prepared to debate until that happens because that's the point of a debate, assuming you are up for it.


_________________
Also known as MarsMatter.

Diagnosed with Asperger's, ADD, and Generalized Anxiety Disorder in 2004.
In denial that it was a problem until early 2016.

Deviant Art


aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,477

05 Oct 2017, 12:48 pm

Even 'Vaulted' Astro-Physicist Neil deGrasse Tyson readily
admits as far as folks who now do indeed have plenty of
expertise in this area of the Human experience; now, yes
that the observable Universe in which a Scientific Method
we currently employ is measurable to some empirical extent
while the Inner Universe of our Humanity fails to be measured
reliably by any Human so-named Scientific Tool, so far; and hehe;
that's still why psychotropic drugs that work for Mental Disorder or on
the other 'hands' don't work any better than the Placebo Power of Belief that some
can and do employ better than others in their every day life ways; yes, Scientists do
admit they have no empirical way to explain how psychotropic drugs work other than
observing behavioral changes that overall culture assesses as 'normal' these days as 'normal'
changes too.

So, in other words, sure; the Universe can be measured by Physics per observable empirically
measured phenomena by the Scientific Method but what we experience as emotions and senses
internally is open source in affect and eventual effect beyond any current tool of Science in method
to empirically measure now. In more Words, for all practical intents and purposes, surely as metaphor
the Inner UniVerse is most all metaphysics as far what we as Humans Feel and Sense in life; goes with the
Metaphor of Hell and Purgatory and Heaven as well; as these are all real metaphors for the experience of living
now that all Humans experience Differently as MultiUniverse Beings of life now. Visiting this place for a few years separated in physical illness from the Human Experience of Deep Feelings and Sensory Perceptions as many folks on the Autism Spectrum experience as opposed to those individuals who feel and sense less as an experience of life now and sure this speaks to even the New DSM5 Diagnosis of the Condition for some who are numb to the overall feeling and sensing environment as opposed to those who are more sensitive to the environment as the weak arm of the Scientific Method does its wear best as metaphor too, to get a handle more on the unlimited MultiUniverse Experiences of Being
Human; if one really thinks that one Multi-Verse of Human in Meta-Physical way of being
is a repeatable experiment that science understands well with a Scientific
Method truly that can be expected somewhat for those
lacking in feeling and sensing more in human
intuition what other folks experience
as feelings and senses now
as this too through
Mirror Neurons
for those who sense and
feel less or more of life is part
of the entire pie of being Human now too.

It's true 'Ripley Believe it or not' folks and 'Horatios' too;
Science is very important in sharing so-named facts about a
reality that we share as understood consensually but Science only understands
a relative speck of what the Inner Human Universe is in meta-physics for lack of a
better term to describe an experience beyond infinity as now within us is no distance
space or time that science can measure, at least, through the methods currently employed.

In even a few more words as far as the physics of reality now; if you are only looking outside
yourself at the stars in the sky chances
are you'll
miss the
star of
you within
that is beyond
any Scientific Measurable
way of the UniVerse beyond
within of Imagination and Creativity
in Moving and Connecting ways that literally
and metaphorically are relatively no limits and expectations now.

It's true, there are more things in Human Potential than one will ever read as a Cover of a Book.

It's true, there are more 'things' in feeling and sensing just a dance and song of life than one will ever read
as a Cover of a Book.

Alas there is Poetry;
And more for those who develop the eyes and ears to see more. Anyway, it takes 'time', for there is a Pyramid
of Maslow's Self Actualization/Transcendence and a Summit of Fowler's Faith in Capstone that is Agape Love for all and truly if
one
doesn't feel
And sense An
experience of A
Metaphor of an Evolving
Soul one likely is not yet
Pages of a Book still existing as a cover now.
But it's also true, according to 'those dudes', it's
normal not to arrive in this place until Middle Age or later.

Good Luck,
after one gets
tired of Science as
'those theories' Go; One often Grows
'Evolves' and actually realizes they are
Human Being Art Over Science and Do Just 'Dance' now.


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,477

05 Oct 2017, 12:59 pm

Yes; literally Art is 60 percent of Smart.
Perhaps, it's just Coincidence; but i Find
it self-evidently now true as Synchronicity too.


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


Michael829
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 29 Aug 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 256
Location: United States

05 Oct 2017, 6:35 pm

Mikeman says:

Quote:

…ignoring all the fallacious arguments in your last couple posts

.
You’ve continued recycling the very same arguments that you’ve been attempting from the start. So, in my most recent replies, I patiently took the time to say my answers more graphically for you, in more detail, with more explanation, with examples.
.
If you don’t have an answer, that’s fine. Nothing wrong with that. If you (for whatever reason) decline to defend your claims that I’ve answered, that’s fine. But of course it means that the discussion is concluded, has reached a conclusion.
.
Your objections have been answered. That’s enough, and there’s no need for more discussion.
.
…nothing more to be said.
.
Quote:

I'm glad you seemed to drop your insistence that I believe in strawman materialism

.
Yes, forgive me for believing that, just because you said that “real” is synonymous with “measurable” :D
.
But your use of “reality” with two different and mutually-contradictory meanings, in the same sentence, shows that what you say tells us nothing about what you believe. But that’s ok. It doesn’t matter, and anyway a continued conversation isn’t possible, for the reason stated above.
.
Quote:

Anyway, our biggest disagreement seems to be if metaphysics should be taken seriously.

.
Yes, and that’s why I said that if you aren’t interested in metaphysics, then maybe you shouldn’t post to a metaphysics thread.
.
You said:
.
Quote:

I for one consider it absurd that I should be expected to…

.
Nothing is expected of you, other than that you not post to a thread about a topic that you don’t like.
.
You said:
.
Quote:

…set aside empiricism…

.
Skepticism, in common with some other metaphysicses, doesn’t contradict experimental observations.
.
But we’ve already been over that--and, of course, your answer to it (so you needn’t post it again).
.
Metaphysicses aren’t about predicting measurements in a physical world. They’re about what can be said about questions like “Why is there something instead of nothing?” That doesn’t interest you. Fine. You’re only interested in what can be measured. Fine. Take up carpentry, engineering, or physics. …and don’t participate in a topic that you aren’t interested in. Which part of that don’t you understand?
.
Anyway, I’m not going to continue replying to the same already-answered claims.
.
You said:
.
Quote:

…and believe in something beyond observable reality

.
Oh, now we’re back to being a Strawman Materialist :D
.
I don’t care what you believe in. That’s your business only.
.
For example, I don’t care if you believe in the validity of logic..
.
As I said, we’ve been all over those subjects, and there’s no need or reason to keep on repeating this conversation.
.
You said:
.
Quote:

Metaphysics is great as a form of speculation but that's all it is, speculation.

.
I asked you to specify what, about Skepticism, is speculative. You gave two answers, and I explained what was wrong with your answers. In fact, I explained it again, when you repeated the same arguments. You’re just continuing to obliviously repeat your initial assertion.
.
You call that “debate” :D
.
You said:
.
Quote:

It describes things that cannot be measured

.
Measurements within our world aren’t what metaphysics is about. That’s within the province of physics, which studies and describes (as well as currently possible) this physical universe, and the interactions among its parts.
.
As I said, take up carpentry, engineering or physics. We get that you don’t like metaphysics.
.
You said:
.
Quote:

…or known

.
…according to your belief that logic is unknowable. I don’t criticize your beliefs. Keep them. If you don’t like metaphysics, then don’t post to a metaphysics thread. In fact, there’s a different sub-forum that mentions science in its sub-forum title.
.
You said:
.
Quote:

…and anyone who considers any metaphysics concept more then just blind speculation is fooling themselves.

.
See above. You’re continuing to repeat the same answered statements.
.
You said:
.
Quote:

(and logic is an invention of humans anyway…)

.
I’ve been emphasizing that metaphysics and logic don’t fully or accurately describe Reality. Like physics, metaphysics is valid in its range of applicability. It describes metaphysical, discussion-describable reality. Logic, a verbal subject, is valid in metaphysics.
.
You said:
.
Quote:

I am fully prepared to debate until that happens because that's the point of a debate

.
News-Flash:
.
Your perpetual repetition of the same already-answered claims isn’t debate. …or valid discussion.
.
I can’t believe that you think that, your most recent repetitions of the same unsupported, already-answered and refuted charges qualify for continuing reply.
.
“Discussion” concluded.
.
Last time, I was willing to resume replying to you, because you better clarified your confusions, and there were things that could be said to answer those newly-clarified confusions.
.
This time is different, because you’re doing nothing but re-cycling the same already-answered statements. …probably the most common behavior of the usual typical Internet-abuser.
.
I’m not going to waste time continuing to reply to that.
.
(My non-reply to mikeman’s subsequent posts doesn’t mean that he’s said something irrefutable. It just means that I’ve given up on a non-discussion.)
.
Michael829


_________________
Michael829


Michael829
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 29 Aug 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 256
Location: United States

07 Oct 2017, 4:44 pm

mikeman7918 wrote:
@Michael829


Maybe I should conclude that discussion on a more positive, or at least neutral, note, with better clarification and summary of it:
.
mikeman says:
.
Quote:

…ignoring all the fallacious arguments in your last couple posts…

.
…and of course that’s where “debate” and genuine discussion ended.
.
Let me briefly, and without criticism, summarize the discussion:
.
You repeatedly said that Skepticism is speculation.
.
I asked you how, in particular, it’s speculative.
.
You gave two or three answers. I answered them.
------------
1. You said that, in the real world, premises aren’t reliable.
.
I replied that no one’s saying that premises or the resulting conclusions are true.
------------
2. You said that I’m sure that the hypothetical stories I speak of are real.
.
I reminded you that I said such a hypothetical story isn’t real other than in its own local context.
------------
3. You said that logic and mathematics are made up by humans.
.
For one thing, that’s a bit of an exaggeration. If it’s all just made up, then it’s just as valid to say that 2+2=5, as to say that 2=2=4 :D …but, as I said some time ago, 2+2=4 can be proven, based on natural definitions of the counting-numbers, and based on the additive associative axiom of the real numbers (and of the rational numbers, and of the integers).
.
…and it would be just as valid to say that if all dogs are mammals, and if all mammals are animals, then all dogs are plants instead of animals. :D
----------------
3a) I replied that I never said that logic, mathematics, metaphysics or physics describe Reality.
.
They’re real and valid in their own overlapping subsets of Reality.
.
But, even combined, they don’t describe Reality.
----------------
3b) I pointed out that Skepticism is a Non-Realism, not a Realism.
.
…meaning that it’s a metaphysics from the point of view of individual experience, not from the systemwide 3rd-person objective point of view.
.
Your “manmade logic and math” criticism might be valid against MUH, but not against Septicism.
.
Tegmark and others have called MUH a Realism. Tegmark said that his starting principle was the “External Reality Hypothesis” (ERH).
.
You might, and likely do, therefore and thereby have a valid criticism against MUH. Tegmark said that his system would be fully real even if there were no observers or experiencers. I suggest that it would then also be quite meaningless, and probably meaningless to even speak of.
.
Skepticism is from the point of view of individual experience. Whatever you feel about a subjective nature of logic and mathematics isn’t a valid criticism of Skepticism.
.
Skepticism emphasizes the primarily subjective nature of your life-experience possibility-story.
.
In fact, MUH overemphasizes mathematics, as part of its (in my opinion) inappropriate objective point of view.
.
Skepticism describes a life-experience possibility-story from the experiencer’s point of view, the only genuinely empirical description. Whatever you know or think you know about science or physical reality comes to you via your experience. …your own physical perceptions, and things that you’ve heard from physicists about their experimental results and their mathematical interpretations of those experimental results.
.
The requirements for a life-experience possibility-story are 1) an experiencer, you the protagonist, the central and essential part of your experience-story; 2) self-consistency.
.
(We can pass-by the objection that this might turn out to be an impossibility-story. I’ve suggested that such would be impossible to prove, even were it so. Anyway, it isn’t a pertinent matter here.)
.
If you physically explore and investigate a bit, by your own experiments, or by finding out about the physicists’ experiments, then you soon encounter the if-thens about the “then” conclusions of the “if “ premises such as physical laws, physical quantity-values, and mathematical axioms, etc.
.
That’s what it comes to, if you investigate matter, its composition, its behavior, and the relations among physical quantities, directly or via physicists’ reports.
.
But of course that’s only part of your experience…a consequence of your experience-story’s consistency, if you investigate matter, its composition and behavior.
.
Obviously that wasn’t the nature of your experience the day you were born, or before that when you were a foetus, both early and late, or in your earliest infancy, etc.
.
But experience, and self-consistency in your experience, in some form, is encountered, from the start.
.
That’s key for a life-experience possibility-story. That’s what a life-experience possibility-story is.
---------------
So, anyway, in summary:
.
You said that Skepticism is speculative.
.
I asked how, in particular it’s speculative.
.
You gave 3 ways in which you think it’s speculative.
.
I answered each of those 3 arguments, and told why (summarized above) none of them is valid.
.
And that’s where it stands.
.
…and there’s nothing wrong with leaving it there. There’s no need for you to reply.
.
Now, for some inline reply:
.
mikeman says:
.
Quote:

Anyway, our biggest disagreement seems to be if metaphysics should be taken seriously.

.
There’s no disagreement. I say nothing about what should be taken seriously by you.
.
mikeman says:
.
Quote:

I for one consider it absurd that I should be expected to set aside empiricism and believe in something beyond observable reality just because you say so.

.
I have nothing to say about what you should believe. That’s none of my business.
.
mikeman says:
.
Quote:

Metaphysics is great as a form of speculation but that's all it is, speculation.

.
See above. We’ve been over that (again and again).
.
mikeman says:
.
Quote:

It describes things that cannot be measured

.
You like measurement. So study carpentry, engineering, or physics. (You’ll have to study some physics if you want to study engineering.)
.
mikeman says:
.
Quote:

For there to be no disagreement between us either I would have to admit that your brand of metaphysics is somehow inevitable using logic

.
No, you wouldn’t have to admit that. You’d only have to stop making statements that you can’t support. That would be easy.
.
mikeman says:
.
Quote:

(and logic is an invention of humans anyway so that makes no sense)

.
See above.
.
mikeman says:
.
Quote:

…or you would have to admit that metaphysics is blind speculation about things we can't know.

.
…and you’d first have to support what you say. :D
.
mikeman says:
.
Quote:

I am fully prepared to debate until that happens because that's the point of a debate, assuming you are up for it.

.
It isn’t debate unless you at least try to support what you say.
.
It isn’t successful debate on your part unless you successfully support what you say.
.
I posted a description of Skepticism. You chimed in with your criticisms and charges… and have failed to support them. No problem. Don’t worry about it.
.
That’s where it stands. There’s nothing wrong with leaving it there. There’s no need for you to say any more.
-------------------
By the way, here are 4 differences between Skepticism and MUH:
.
1. Skepticism is from the point of view of individual experience, while MUH is from the objective 3rd-person systemwide point of view.
.
2. I say that Skepticism is a certainty and an inevitability.
.
MUH is offered as a hypothesis.
.
3. I say neither logic, mathematics, metaphysics nor physics (nor all of them combined) describes Reality.
.
MUH is presented as the answer to and description of Reality.
.
4. I say that a computer-simulation can’t create a world.
.
Tegmark says that this world might be a world created by a computer-simulation.
.
Michael829


_________________
Michael829


mikeman7918
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Mar 2016
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,929
Location: Utah, USA

09 Oct 2017, 10:17 am

I'm gong to make a few closing statements as well. Here is how the argument happened from my perspective:


-You made the claim that your brand of metaphysics is inevitable.

-I responded by saying you can't know that.

-You responded by accusing me of abusing empiricism by applying it to things.

-I explained why I make no claims about what's beyond reality.

-You accused me of believing that there is for sure nothing beyond observable reality.

-I explained why I think that metaphysics shouldn't be taken seriously.

-You accused me of debating about something I have no interest in.

-I explained the difference between being interested in a topic and taking a topic seriously.

-As much as I have explained it you still have these accusations and have built a highly detailed strawman.

So yeah, I'm happy to put this discussion behind us because I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall here. I have explained many of my objections many times yet you still twist them to be something else and then argue against that. You may have responded to the misrepresented versions many times but I kept repeating myself because the thing you debunked was not my argument.


The definition of "speculation" is "the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence." and I can't think of a better word to describe metaphysics since as you admitted you have no evidence for your hypothesis. I'm still trying to figure out exactly how sure you are of septicism, there is no evidence and it's not real outside of it's own context yet it's inevitable and it's not speculative at all? Call me crazy but that sounds a lot like you are sure of something that you shouldn't be, which is my argument. Either you lied about having no evidence or it's speculative, take your pick.

I do not consider my position to be the inevitable truth, which is why I am debating it. I am prepared to accept an alternative position given enough evidence but you have admitted to having no evidence so that's not going to happen here. For all I know you could be right but the worst case scenario in a debate is exactly what is happening, where both people walk away with unchanged beliefs. Better outcomes would have been one of us becoming more right then we were.

You keep on saying that I am "uninterested in metaphysics" and that I should study science instead. First of all, I'm way ahead of you there and have been studying to get into an IT job, and secondly there is a difference between being uninterested in a topic and not taking a topic seriously. Take Greek mythology for an example, I find it rather fascinating even though I don't consider it a valid description of reality.

The same can be said of metaphysics, it can be very interesting to discuss what might be beyond reality but we should not get ahead of ourselves and start believing something without evidence. If I can accept one thing without evidence then what's to stop me from believing in something even more crazy like magic or a God? The last time I accepted a position without evidence and put aside empiricism just for one topic is when I was religious and I will not make that mistake again. I was hoping to prevent you from making it too.


_________________
Also known as MarsMatter.

Diagnosed with Asperger's, ADD, and Generalized Anxiety Disorder in 2004.
In denial that it was a problem until early 2016.

Deviant Art


Michael829
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 29 Aug 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 256
Location: United States

30 Oct 2017, 2:43 pm

mikeman7918 wrote:
I'm gong to make a few closing statements as well. Here is how the argument happened from my perspective:...


Forgive the delay in replying. This discussion is at the bottom of my reply-priority list.
.
Mikeman says:
.
Quote:

.
-You made the claim that your brand of metaphysics is inevitable.

.
-I responded by saying you can't know that.

.
So far so good.
.
\Mikeman says:
.
Quote:

-You responded by accusing me of abusing empiricism by applying it to things.

.
I responded by asking you what, in particular is was that I said that you think couldn’t be known. I asked what, in particular, about my metaphysics, is “speculative”.
.
You gave some answers. Each of your answers was incorrect, and I carefully explained to you what was wrong with each of your answers.
.
So what did you do? You just kept on repeating your claim that Skepticism is speculative. You’ve been continuing to repeat an already-answered claim. I pointed that out in my reply before this one, and you’re again repeating your already-answered claim again.
.
Mikeman says:
.
Quote:

-I explained why I make no claims about what's beyond reality.

.
“Beyone Reality” is nonsense.
.
…but it shows that you’re still implying that this physical world is all of Reality, like a true-believing Strawman-Materialist.
.
But let’s be clear about this: I don’t care what you meant or what you believe. Your beliefs, or your position (assuming that you even know what they are) are none of my business.
.
Mikeman says:
.
Quote:

-You accused me of believing that there is for sure nothing beyond observable reality.

.
I couldn’t care less what you believe or what you meant. So I retract anything I said about what you believe or believe in.
.
Mikeman says:
.
Quote:

-I explained why I think that metaphysics shouldn't be taken seriously.

.
What you take seriously is entirely your business. I couldn’t care less what you take seriously.
.
Mikeman says:
.
Quote:

-You accused me of debating about something I have no interest in.

.
-I explained the difference between being interested in a topic and taking a topic seriously.

.
Alright, you’re interested in metaphysics. You’re fascinated by metaphysics. But you don’t take it seriously.
.
Well, maybe your not taking a subject seriously could at least partly explain why you’re so sloppy about it.
.
Mikeman says:
.
Quote:

So yeah, I'm happy to put this discussion behind us because I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall here. I have explained many of my objections many times…

.
Yes, you’ve repeated your objections, the same ones, many, many times. …though they’ve already been answered.
.
Mikeman says:
.
Quote:

The definition of "speculation" is "the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence."

.
There are various dictionary definitions of “evidence”, but here are a few that are applicable and relevant here:
.
Houghton-Mifflin New College Dictionary:
.
The data on which a conclusion or judgment may be based.
.
Something that indicates.
.
[end of quoted definitions]
.
There’s no definition of “evidence” that requires it to have been gotten by measuring-instruments.
.
The metaphysics expressed by me (and previously by Arthur Schopenhauer (1818), Ludwig Wittgenstein (early 20th century), and by physicists Michael Faraday (1844), Frank Tippler (1970s or ‘80s), and Max Tegmark (more recently) ) is based on inevitable abstract logical facts. That’s evidence, by the above-quoted definitions.
.
You can say that you don’t believe that those abstract logical facts are “real”, in some sense. Feel free to! “Real” and “Existent” aren’t metaphysically-defined, and anyone is free to have their own opinion about what’s real &/or existent. I don’t question your right to believe as you wish.
.
I acknowledge that the physical world isn’t real as you interpret that word’s meaning.
.
I regard it as real, because it’s the context or our lives.
.
Mikeman says:
.
Quote:

and I can't think of a better word to describe metaphysics since as you admitted you have no evidence for your hypothesis.

.
It isn’t a hypothesis. It’s an inevitability. And I haven’t admitted that there’s no evidence for it. See above.
.
Mikeman says:
.
Quote:

I'm still trying to figure out exactly how sure you are of septicism, there is no evidence…

.
See above.
.
Mikeman says:
.
Quote:

…and it's not real outside of it's own context yet it's inevitable

.
Yes. The context of this particular possibility-world universe is the context of our lives.
.
And yes, inevitable, as a complex system of inter-referring inevitable if-then facts about hypotheticals.
.
“Inevitable”, and “real only in its own context” aren’t mutually contradictory. Something can be inevitable and real in its own context, without being real in other contexts.
.
Mikeman says:
.
Quote:

and it's not speculative at all?

.
You defined “speculative” as “without evidence”. See above for the evidence.
.
Mikeman says:
.
Quote:

Call me crazy…

.
No, I don’t call you “crazy” unless you think that you’re legitimately discussing this subject. …unless you think that you’re doing other than continually repeating the same already-answered objections.
.
Mikeman says:
.
Quote:

but that sounds a lot like you are sure of something that you shouldn't be

.
Yes, that’s what you’ve been continuing to repeat, though your claim, and its supporting claims, have been answered many times.
.
Mikeman says:
.
Quote:

, which is my argument. Either you lied about having no evidence or it's speculative, take your pick.

.
I didn’t say that Skepticism has no evidence.
.
I said that I can’t prove that beliefs, such as Materialism, or Cartesian Dualism, or some form of Spiritualism can’t be superfluously, unverifiably true, as an unfalsifiable proposition.
.
Mikeman says:
.
Quote:

I do not consider my position to be the inevitable truth

.
I don’t know what your position is. You probably don’t either. It doesn’t matter. I don’t care what your metaphysical position is. You don’t take metaphysics seriously, and so there’s no reason to expect you to have a position on it…which is entirely your own business.
.
Mikeman says:
.
Quote:

…, which is why I am debating it.

.
No, you aren’t. You’re endlessly repeating already-answered claims. Not quite the same thing.
.
Mikeman says:
.
Quote:

I am prepared to accept an alternative position given enough evidence but you have admitted to having no evidence…

.
No, I haven’t. See above.
.
Mikeman says:
.
Quote:

The last time I accepted a position without evidence and put aside empiricism just for one topic is when I was religious

.
Yes, that was less than a year ago. You’re still (over)reacting to, rebelling against, your religious upbringing.
.
As I said, there’s really no disagreement here.
.
You don’t deny that there are abstract logical facts. You’re free to say that you feel that, in some way, they aren’t “real”, because “Real” and “Existent” aren’t metaphysically-defined. You’re free to regard as real, unreal, existent, or nonexistent, anything that you want to.
.
But you don’t deny that there are abstract logical facts.
.
…and, therefore, complex inter-referring systems of them. …infinitely-many of them.
…including one that implies the same events and relations as those of this physical world.
.
I point out that there’s no reason to believe that this physical universe is other than that.
.
…but maybe not real as you mean that word. As I said, then maybe this physical world isn’t “real”, as you mean that word.
.
And, likewise, I don’t claim that the entities and things claimed by Materialism, Cartesian Dualism, Spiritualism, etc., don’t exist, superfluously, unverifiably, as the subject of unfalsifiable propositions.
.
So then, where’s the supposed disagreement?
.
Michael Ossipoff





_________________


_________________
Michael829


spoirier
Hummingbird
Hummingbird

Joined: 9 Dec 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 18
Location: Europe

10 Dec 2017, 4:11 pm

I just looked through this conversation and saw something quite odd with it : however interesting it might be, I only found there 2 messages that I could qualify as related to its title. By this I mean, the care for ideas and arguments to be Based On Physics.

The first on-topic message was the very first message, except point d. which does not refer to physics but to supersymmetry (which is a mathematical theory with the mere status of speculation for physics, without any beginning of an experimental confirmation at the moment); also I do not see clear how the proposed conclusion, that is the simulation hypothesis, would be actually anything tentatively based on physics. Following the link to the article referenced there, I see it putting forward the opinion of "Moderator Neil deGrasse Tyson". However, looking through his CV I see his scientific qualifications mainly focused on astronomy but I could not see any indication that he ever studied quantum physics to some sufficient level for his possible opinions on the nature of reality to be considered genuinely informed by modern physics. And while when looking at things from far away it may indeed look as if quantum mechanics could have something to do with the simulation hypothesis, namely that they are all about some kinds of information processing with fuzziness and possible randomness with unclear origin, I am not aware of any proper justification of how quantum theory and the simulation hypothesis could actually match when analyzed in more details. When I say more details, I refer to how quantum theory, as is currently known, is not just a fuzzy dream but a very precise theory with very precise predictions of many things which have been experimentally verified with amazing accuracy. The simulation hypothesis does not seem to fit in any reasonable list of candidate interpretations of quantum physics, by lack of a way for these to match mathematically.

The second on-topic message I found is the one from Michael829 on 04 Oct 2017.

Somewhere in the discussion was the phrase "metaphysics is by your definition unobservable and the moment it becomes observable it becomes regular physics"
hmm... the life of Jane Roberts has been quite well observable I think. Yet I'm not aware of it becoming regular physics.

Now I found something puzzling, I mean not something specific to this discussion but something seemingly quite usual among philosophers that keeps puzzling me every time I see it : the sort of discrepancy between the belief in the value of empiricism, which is quite widespread including among philosophers, and the practice of empiricism which, as I could see, most philosophers seem to often forget to actually come to: which sense is there in making a fuss about being an empiricist, and at the same time publicly pushing forward one's views that materialism seems the most plausible and verified view on the nature of reality... despite having visibly never done the work of well studying quantum physics, which seems to be the best currently available (logical synthesis of) empirical information on the observable structure of this physical stuff that is proposed as the core of reality, at least the deepest well-observed level of it ?

I did the work of studying the foundations of maths and physics, including general relativity and some basic concepts of quantum field theory. Then I found a way to write an introduction to quantum theory that is easier than usual courses on the topic, using the language of geometry as another view on what the definitions from Hilbert spaces (which are needed for more in-depth study) could give. The goal was to make it somewhat simpler but still mathematically accurate and insightful for its direct relevance to the measurement problem. Then I wrote a detailed analysis of its interpretations, which main troubles I see in most of them (the naturalistic ones), and explained the interpretation which appeared to me the most natural and well fitting with a clear ontology, that is a mind/mathematics dualism. For meaningful conversations I hope to find people actually familiar with those things. See my site settheory.net/physics for details.



techstepgenr8tion
SomeRandomGuy
SomeRandomGuy

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,023
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

10 Dec 2017, 7:07 pm

spoirier,

I actually think that would be an incredibly useful conversation if you could shed light on it.

Part of the problem we tend to run into on forums like these is that most ideas get bogged down on politics and identity standoffs. Admittedly the quality of materialists we have here has gone up quite a bit, ie. I'm glad discussions aren't still subject to 'if it sounds weird or abstract it must be crypto-religious woojoo' so we can have meaningful conversations about abstract and complex concepts.

Where I think philosophy gets bogged down is that I think there's a herding mechanism by which you're pushed to 'pick a team', then be intellectually vested in that team's outcome, and by the time that happens most of what will come out the other end - whether you really want it or not - is your way of selling yourself, which unfortunately means also being fully identified with your ideas. I think this can happen in the sciences as well and it's part of why almost any professional layer of society can get a bit rancid as human animals do what they do best which is use their knowledge and egotism to climb the human pyramid of status in their relative domain.

I got a kick of your mentioning my Jane Roberts comment. I might have had a typo in there in that I should have said 'the life work of', ie. meaning she's known for the whole Seth Speaks corpus. Also I don't necessarily think reductive materialism is 'true', it's more like we have a really tough time building intuitions that in some way don't include it and culturally speaking we have a very tough time trusting anything that hasn't been vetted by the scientific community because there is still such a thick layer of white noise. The point I might have been making is that ideas cut muster once they're checked against reality and pass all of the right falsifiability checks and I don't know that it would be a problem whether hypotheses came from a physicist brainstorming in a bathtub, channeled messages from Pleiadians, or Habib's cave chats with the archangel Gabriel. If the later two sources were continuously turning out accurate predictions that could have some very interesting implications but I don't think a hypothesis, if it turns out to be true, is necessarily in and of itself tainted by the nature of its origin - which is one of the big cognitive errors that I think a lot of people tend to make these days.


_________________
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privelege of owning yourself" - Rudyard Kipling


techstepgenr8tion
SomeRandomGuy
SomeRandomGuy

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,023
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

10 Dec 2017, 7:13 pm

The other thing is I can tell your sitting on top of a pretty big body of knowledge that you've put in great pains to accrue and sort out. One thing that might be helpful as you talk to people here - you may need to in some way consider how you'd index that information, discuss it at the 50,000 foot level, and when a particular topic comes up which a piece of that is particularly germaine to you'll be able to encapsulate that idea, what it means, and further contextualize it within the proofs that you've assembled.

I just say all of that because I've learned the hard way that if I can't dumb it down no one listens and it's a shame because a lot of times what gets ignored is of very high value but given to people undigested its very difficult for them to process or connect with. It'll probably be a similar exercise to what you might have employed when you wrote the book you mentioned - ie. figuring out how to wrap the deliverables and their implications, appendix the math so it's only a black box for those who don't have the education or know-how to check in with it, and your website might be a good appendix in that sense to the conversations you have here.

If I didn't say it before welcome and its always great to have new people on board who are thinking critically about the big issues.


_________________
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privelege of owning yourself" - Rudyard Kipling