|
On July 25 2010 17:57 ZapRoffo wrote:
There are enough puzzles that exist in modern science that I believe it's quite valid to say that every aspect of the universe being explainable eventually is a question and not something you can just assume. It's a belief, the same as a belief that there's something outside the natural world and things are not explainable.
We don't know that the supernatural doesn't have past successes, because it's outside what is knowable to us. Same as we don't know if science will always have future successes. The pure scientific world view is built on finding accurate predictions which will be true 100% of the time forever. That is faith, same as the faith leap to believe in something supernatural.
Treating it like a quantum uncertainty/wave-particle duality, that's my stance still. That's our precedent for unobservable states that do have defined possibilities.
I don't think that you're using "supernatural" to mean the same thing as most people would. If "supernatural" just means "not yet understood", then it's a useless label; you can't ever test whether something's supernatural or not, and you might as well just say "not yet understood." Few people would say that things change from supernatural to natural as we figure them out.
Most people say "supernatural" when they mean "can't be understood", and they have some oddball reason in mind about the limits of reason or God or miracles why they think it can't be understood.
You guys should cite references when you're talking about whether science is "a belief", because it's not a big mystery problem*; it's been dealt with extensively first by Hume in the 1700s and more recently by Karl Popper. I agree with Popper's conclusion that although science is not logically justifiable, it's rational to believe in the predictive power of science, since it consists of the most easily falsifiable propositions about the world.
*It's often referred to as the "problem of induction", i.e. is induction justified, which is equivalent to asking, should we believe that there are rules about the world that will continue to hold in the future? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
|
But that is essentially what Zap is saying, that there is a possibility, perhaps a distinct one, that the universe "can't be understood" which by your own admission is akin to "Supernatural"
|
On July 26 2010 07:12 XeliN wrote:
But that is essentially what Zap is saying, that there is a possibility, perhaps a distinct one, that the universe "can't be understood" which by your own admission is akin to "Supernatural"
OK, but he didn't offer any evidence for that. He just pointed out that we don't understand lots of it right now.
|
On July 26 2010 07:12 XeliN wrote:
But that is essentially what Zap is saying, that there is a possibility, perhaps a distinct one, that the universe "can't be understood" which by your own admission is akin to "Supernatural"
In objective terms there is no such possibility. There is a possibility that we cannot understand it, but merely by existing it is, in theory, understandable.
|
On July 26 2010 06:51 Hidden_MotiveS wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2010 14:33 Maji wrote:On July 24 2010 13:56 kzn wrote:On July 24 2010 13:06 Maji wrote:
humanitys asumption is the problem you presume physics is the same in all realms but it isnt hence to travel interdimensionally and across the density thresholds you have to be able to adjust your technology based on location, hence when humanity finally realizes that physics is a variable not a constant but that gravity is the only constant then you will unlock the doors which have remained closed all this time. Because gravity isn't a conjecture of physics. Are you ever going to make an actual argument? Gravity is the begining and the end of all things, all else is a expression create through gravity form through intelligent energy, question is what is designing the form answer is simply consciousness. Hence the physical laws you follow in physics are simply just ideas. So physics is varied between different realms of exsistance but is created in it construct through what is known to humanity as gravity but gravity is much more than humanity understand it and gravity is the key to entire universe. User was banned for this post. He's back isn't he? -_-
where???
|
On July 26 2010 04:50 treekiller wrote:
Religions have evolved as well, though they will not admit it. Religions are not static; they add beliefs based on the culture around them and may even respond to scientific discovery (such as Galileo and the Catholic church). Evolution doesn't mean "progressively getting better", it means "becoming more adapted to the environment". For example, religious beliefs that discourage rational thought can be said to be more evolved, as such beliefs are more likely to lead to the preservation of the religion as a whole. Many atheists have this intelligent design view of religion; that all religion was created in a top-down manner by some mysterious cabal to control humanity. While individuals have certainly used religion for there own ends, there are larger evolutionary forces at work outside the control of any individual or group (or God). This can also explain the similarity of religions that had no previous contacts. Properties will emerge as they are naturally selected. Beliefs that are not falsifiable, separation from outsiders, concentration in a clerical elite, etc. would tend to naturally come about.
It it true that both science and religion face uncertainty. Were they diverge is science seeks to find methods to quantify this uncertainty, make assumptions as simple and as self-apparent as possible when using deductive reasoning and to have a system for replication and minimizing errors when using inductive reasoning. So called "leap of faith" often denies and attempts to side-step this uncertainty. Both science and religion will hold beliefs of which no one can be certain. That is not where they converge; that is where they diverge.
This was well written but I disagree that most atheists believe all religion was created in a top down manner by the elite to control humanity. Of the 20% that don't believe in god I think most of them give little thought to how it was created. Of the 2.5% that would proclaim themselves atheists I think most of them would believe it was more of an evolutionary process. Also a lot of the similarity in major religions like the number 12 and virgin births seemed to have begun in Egypt. There is a movie Zeitgeist that while probably biased gave a large number of similarities major religions shared since the beginning that did not evolve.
|
LOL.
the purpose of life is to figure out how to balance terrans OP bio.
good is protoss. evil is zerg. obviously.
and wisdom is learning how to transfer from a 4 gate into robo seamlessly.
once you all realize this. you will prevail xD
|
On July 26 2010 06:57 catamorphist wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2010 17:57 ZapRoffo wrote:
There are enough puzzles that exist in modern science that I believe it's quite valid to say that every aspect of the universe being explainable eventually is a question and not something you can just assume. It's a belief, the same as a belief that there's something outside the natural world and things are not explainable.
We don't know that the supernatural doesn't have past successes, because it's outside what is knowable to us. Same as we don't know if science will always have future successes. The pure scientific world view is built on finding accurate predictions which will be true 100% of the time forever. That is faith, same as the faith leap to believe in something supernatural.
Treating it like a quantum uncertainty/wave-particle duality, that's my stance still. That's our precedent for unobservable states that do have defined possibilities. I don't think that you're using "supernatural" to mean the same thing as most people would. If "supernatural" just means "not yet understood", then it's a useless label; you can't ever test whether something's supernatural or not, and you might as well just say "not yet understood." Few people would say that things change from supernatural to natural as we figure them out. Most people say "supernatural" when they mean "can't be understood", and they have some oddball reason in mind about the limits of reason or God or miracles why they think it can't be understood. You guys should cite references when you're talking about whether science is "a belief", because it's not a big mystery problem*; it's been dealt with extensively first by Hume in the 1700s and more recently by Karl Popper. I agree with Popper's conclusion that although science is not logically justifiable, it's rational to believe in the predictive power of science, since it consists of the most easily falsifiable propositions about the world. *It's often referred to as the "problem of induction", i.e. is induction justified, which is equivalent to asking, should we believe that there are rules about the world that will continue to hold in the future? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
Hmm, time to go read http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/. But just from your characterization of Popper's response, it seems like I can agree that it's rational for any given scientific fact about the universe to believe in the validity of induction because it has been refined continuously through being falsifiable, but that just the fact that it is falsifiable doesn't say anything about the possibility that it holds true for every single fact about the universe.
But the fact that he says it's not logically justifiable is basically what I'm claiming isn't it?
Oh and by supernatural I did mean "not able to be explained ever."
Man I remember why I hated studying philosophy in school, I hate reading about theories people have come up with, the only time it's tolerable is if I thought of something similar and I want to see how what I thought of fits into established thinking.
|
On July 26 2010 22:33 ZapRoffo wrote:Hmm, time to go read http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/. But just from your characterization of Popper's response, it seems like I can agree that it's rational for any given scientific fact about the universe to believe in the validity of induction because it has been refined continuously through being falsifiable, but that just the fact that it is falsifiable doesn't say anything about the possibility that it holds true for every single fact about the universe. But the fact that he says it's not logically justifiable is basically what I'm claiming isn't it? Oh and by supernatural I did mean "not able to be explained ever." Man I remember why I hated studying philosophy in school, I hate reading about theories people have come up with, the only time it's tolerable is if I thought of something similar and I want to see how what I thought of fits into established thinking.
Well, what exactly do you mean by "scientific fact?" We're not usually discussing individual facts -- rather, we're discussing theories, which must be consistent with all past facts and claim to predict (in their domain) all future facts. When we're talking about physics, those theories are extremely broad; the standard-model-plus-general-relativity claims to explain more or less everything, everywhere, at every point in time, with few exceptions. Since our theory makes very precise predictions that are very carefully tested, and by Popper's thesis (which he justifies in great boring detail) that we should rationally prefer to believe the most predictive, most easily falsifiable theories, it's reasonable to believe in it until we know better; and that implies that we do think it holds true for every fact about the universe. It has so far.*
If we believe a theory but we don't think the theory will hold true for something we find tomorrow, then it's meaningless to say we believe it, unless you can say exactly what you think it does and doesn't apply to, and why. Do you have particular things that you would like to present as being supernatural?
I like philosophy because I have come to realize that there have been some folks in the past quite smarter than me who have worked for a long time thinking precisely about many interesting things, so I'm happy to start out by listening to them.
* Disregarding, for the moment, the few cases where the standard model breaks down, e.g. at the very beginning; I doubt these are relevant to what you have in mind as "supernatural."
|
On July 24 2010 14:33 Maji wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2010 13:56 kzn wrote:On July 24 2010 13:06 Maji wrote:
humanitys asumption is the problem you presume physics is the same in all realms but it isnt hence to travel interdimensionally and across the density thresholds you have to be able to adjust your technology based on location, hence when humanity finally realizes that physics is a variable not a constant but that gravity is the only constant then you will unlock the doors which have remained closed all this time. Because gravity isn't a conjecture of physics. Are you ever going to make an actual argument? Gravity is the begining and the end of all things, all else is a expression create through gravity form through intelligent energy, question is what is designing the form answer is simply consciousness. Hence the physical laws you follow in physics are simply just ideas. So physics is varied between different realms of exsistance but is created in it construct through what is known to humanity as gravity but gravity is much more than humanity understand it and gravity is the key to entire universe. User was banned for this post.
WTF???? Why???
|
On July 27 2010 00:10 GrazerRinge wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2010 14:33 Maji wrote:
Gravity is the begining and the end of all things, all else is a expression create through gravity form through intelligent energy, question is what is designing the form answer is simply consciousness.
Hence the physical laws you follow in physics are simply just ideas. So physics is varied between different realms of exsistance but is created in it construct through what is known to humanity as gravity but gravity is much more than humanity understand it and gravity is the key to entire universe.
User was banned for this post. WTF???? Why???
Flamebait, trolling? If you look at his post history, pretty much every post in a non-Starcraft thread is just nonsense.
|
nietzsche über alles ^^
The goal of life is to defeat the untermensch within thyself and thus attain attunement with the trancendental principles of power and being... or something along those lines 
Been studying theoretical philosophy at the uni for a year now, will probably take some more courses after doing literature next semester.
|
On July 26 2010 23:32 catamorphist wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 22:33 ZapRoffo wrote:Hmm, time to go read http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/. But just from your characterization of Popper's response, it seems like I can agree that it's rational for any given scientific fact about the universe to believe in the validity of induction because it has been refined continuously through being falsifiable, but that just the fact that it is falsifiable doesn't say anything about the possibility that it holds true for every single fact about the universe. But the fact that he says it's not logically justifiable is basically what I'm claiming isn't it? Oh and by supernatural I did mean "not able to be explained ever." Man I remember why I hated studying philosophy in school, I hate reading about theories people have come up with, the only time it's tolerable is if I thought of something similar and I want to see how what I thought of fits into established thinking. Well, what exactly do you mean by "scientific fact?" We're not usually discussing individual facts -- rather, we're discussing theories, which must be consistent with all past facts and claim to predict (in their domain) all future facts. When we're talking about physics, those theories are extremely broad; the standard-model-plus-general-relativity claims to explain more or less everything, everywhere, at every point in time, with few exceptions. Since our theory makes very precise predictions that are very carefully tested, and by Popper's thesis (which he justifies in great boring detail) that we should rationally prefer to believe the most predictive, most easily falsifiable theories, it's reasonable to believe in it until we know better; and that implies that we do think it holds true for every fact about the universe. It has so far.* If we believe a theory but we don't think the theory will hold true for something we find tomorrow, then it's meaningless to say we believe it, unless you can say exactly what you think it does and doesn't apply to, and why. Do you have particular things that you would like to present as being supernatural? I like philosophy because I have come to realize that there have been some folks in the past quite smarter than me who have worked for a long time thinking precisely about many interesting things, so I'm happy to start out by listening to them. * Disregarding, for the moment, the few cases where the standard model breaks down, e.g. at the very beginning; I doubt these are relevant to what you have in mind as "supernatural."
OK, I see, I see.
My challenge to that would be, what about the fact that our reach in terms of what we have observed is quite small (to the point of insignificance) compared to what exists in the universe? So our falsification has only accounted for a completely insignificant array of new discoveries. Statistically speaking, our sampling of observations is entirely locally biased as well (in time and space). So I would claim our ability to falsify that theory is to a completely insignificant extent.
I'm not sure what the implications are as to: would it be possible for us to eventually experience the universe to a significant extent, and how that would affect the discussion.
|
On July 27 2010 01:33 ZapRoffo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 23:32 catamorphist wrote:On July 26 2010 22:33 ZapRoffo wrote:Hmm, time to go read http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/. But just from your characterization of Popper's response, it seems like I can agree that it's rational for any given scientific fact about the universe to believe in the validity of induction because it has been refined continuously through being falsifiable, but that just the fact that it is falsifiable doesn't say anything about the possibility that it holds true for every single fact about the universe. But the fact that he says it's not logically justifiable is basically what I'm claiming isn't it? Oh and by supernatural I did mean "not able to be explained ever." Man I remember why I hated studying philosophy in school, I hate reading about theories people have come up with, the only time it's tolerable is if I thought of something similar and I want to see how what I thought of fits into established thinking. Well, what exactly do you mean by "scientific fact?" We're not usually discussing individual facts -- rather, we're discussing theories, which must be consistent with all past facts and claim to predict (in their domain) all future facts. When we're talking about physics, those theories are extremely broad; the standard-model-plus-general-relativity claims to explain more or less everything, everywhere, at every point in time, with few exceptions. Since our theory makes very precise predictions that are very carefully tested, and by Popper's thesis (which he justifies in great boring detail) that we should rationally prefer to believe the most predictive, most easily falsifiable theories, it's reasonable to believe in it until we know better; and that implies that we do think it holds true for every fact about the universe. It has so far.* If we believe a theory but we don't think the theory will hold true for something we find tomorrow, then it's meaningless to say we believe it, unless you can say exactly what you think it does and doesn't apply to, and why. Do you have particular things that you would like to present as being supernatural? I like philosophy because I have come to realize that there have been some folks in the past quite smarter than me who have worked for a long time thinking precisely about many interesting things, so I'm happy to start out by listening to them. * Disregarding, for the moment, the few cases where the standard model breaks down, e.g. at the very beginning; I doubt these are relevant to what you have in mind as "supernatural." OK, I see, I see. My challenge to that would be, what about the fact that our reach in terms of what we have observed is quite small (to the point of insignificance) compared to what exists in the universe? So our falsification has only accounted for a completely insignificant array of new discoveries. Statistically speaking, our sampling of observations is entirely locally biased as well (in time and space). So I would claim our ability to falsify that theory is to a completely insignificant extent. I'm not sure what the implications are as to: would it be possible for us to eventually experience the universe to a significant extent, and how that would affect the discussion.
That's a good question. I'll think about how to justify that and see if I can compose a satisfying response.
|
On July 27 2010 00:10 GrazerRinge wrote:Show nested quote +On July :33 Maji wrote:On July 24 2010 13:56 kzn wrote:On July 24 2010 13:06 Maji wrote:
humanitys asumption is the problem you presume physics is the same in all realms but it isnt hence to travel interdimensionally and across the density thresholds you have to be able to adjust your technology based on location, hence when humanity finally realizes that physics is a variable not a constant but that gravity is the only constant then you will unlock the doors which have remained closed all this time. Because gravity isn't a conjecture of physics. Are you ever going to make an actual argument? Gravity is the begining and the end of all things, all else is a expression create through gravity form through intelligent energy, question is what is designing the form answer is simply consciousness. Hence the physical laws you follow in physics are simply just ideas. So physics is varied between different realms of exsistance but is created in it construct through what is known to humanity as gravity but gravity is much more than humanity understand it and gravity is the key to entire universe. User was banned for this post. WTF???? Why???
Yeah, I don`t think he should be banned, thats too harsh imo. Maybe he didn`t know what he was talking about but still...
|
On July 27 2010 04:55 UFO wrote:
Yeah, I don`t think he should be banned, thats too harsh imo. Maybe he didn`t know what he was talking about but still...
Suppose that every time he posted, he just mashed the keyboard for two paragraphs and then hit post, without actually forming any words. Should you ban him then? Because that's exactly what he did, except instead of creating each word out of randomly selected, meaningless letters, he created every sentence out of randomly selected, meaningless words.
|
On July 27 2010 05:18 catamorphist wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2010 04:55 UFO wrote:
Yeah, I don`t think he should be banned, thats too harsh imo. Maybe he didn`t know what he was talking about but still... Suppose that every time he posted, he just mashed the keyboard for two paragraphs and then hit post, without actually forming any words. Should you ban him then? Because that's exactly what he did, except instead of creating each word out of randomly selected, meaningless letters, he created every sentence out of randomly selected, meaningless words.
maybe he has a harder time communicating cause hes an alien.
you ever think of that??
|
United States42573 Posts
On July 27 2010 00:10 GrazerRinge wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2010 14:33 Maji wrote:On July 24 2010 13:56 kzn wrote:On July 24 2010 13:06 Maji wrote:
humanitys asumption is the problem you presume physics is the same in all realms but it isnt hence to travel interdimensionally and across the density thresholds you have to be able to adjust your technology based on location, hence when humanity finally realizes that physics is a variable not a constant but that gravity is the only constant then you will unlock the doors which have remained closed all this time. Because gravity isn't a conjecture of physics. Are you ever going to make an actual argument? Gravity is the begining and the end of all things, all else is a expression create through gravity form through intelligent energy, question is what is designing the form answer is simply consciousness. Hence the physical laws you follow in physics are simply just ideas. So physics is varied between different realms of exsistance but is created in it construct through what is known to humanity as gravity but gravity is much more than humanity understand it and gravity is the key to entire universe. User was banned for this post. WTF???? Why???
Because he's a nutjob.
|
Here's a deep philosophical question.
If you have a Hotmail account, but fail to log into it for three months (or whatever period it is before it shuts down), then someone else registers that e-mail address - will they get all your old contacts from your account on their MSN next time they sign in ('cos obviously all your mates will have your e-mail address in their MSN)?
|
If a tree falls on a Geocities page, does it sign the guestbook?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
