Topic: Why do Atheists Hate Religion? - page 404. (Read 901520 times)
My grandfather was a atheist and he preached it all the way up to his death bed. That's where he had every religion he could get his hands on come to see him and now I have to worry that I will do the same on my death bed.
I wonder though when did the thread become a discussion of reality? I thought this was about atheists and religion?
The following is also a problem:
Religion is a tricky subject due to a lot of the things that are told are based on faith. You need to take the word of a book,prophet or god that there is a after life. You throw in history of religious groups killing one another and it gets even more murky.
Also a lot of it is not up for debate and that alone is a issue that makes it a little ugly.
Humans have had a need to group up for survival or believe in something forever,its nothing new and it most likely is deep in the dna.
I am not angry about it,just wish it would not override the way the world operates.
Correct. I guess it is one of those topics that causes opposing sides to heavily argue. However you can't really ever get "proof" that a "god" didn't exist, nor could you get proof that reality exists or doesn't.Also a lot of it is not up for debate and that alone is a issue that makes it a little ugly.
Humans have had a need to group up for survival or believe in something forever,its nothing new and it most likely is deep in the dna.
I am not angry about it,just wish it would not override the way the world operates.
The following is also a problem:
I wonder if humans are capable of peace,it seems like we are programed to divide into groups/tribes based on whatever we can come up with to achieve that goal.
Both sides have good and bad people in it. but I don't like either side trying to convert people into their way of thinking, I prefer leaving people in peace.
This doesn't prove that your "Reality" is either deterministic or random (let alone a "synthesis" of both)...
I wasn't trying to prove that reality is "either deterministic or random."
You evidently tried to prove your point by excluding (disproving) both options ("there is nothing external to reality which is real enough to determine it") as I got it. That is why I pointed out that they can be "enabled" from inside the world. Most likely, I should have used disprove instead of prove
Furthermore, asserting that Reality is instead "self-determinate," and that self-determination is an explanatory model synthesizing both determinism and indeterminism, does not amount to saying that Reality is both determinate and indeterminate. Rather, I'm asserting it is self-determinate, of which determinism and indeterminism are constituents.
How is "self-determinate" is different from just "determinate", given that both determinism and indeterminism would be inherent to the world (though still mutually exclusive)? I don't see any difference between "self-determinate" and just "determinate", "self-indeterminate" and just "indeterminate"
In fact, I don't understand what you're talking about (and what you wrote after I understand even less). You should prove that there is a "third option" (or provide strong arguments for claiming that), beyond just determinism and randomness being there. Correct exclusion of both would work as well (remember though, both options are "self-establishing")...
In short, make it readable
Religion is a tricky subject due to a lot of the things that are told are based on faith. You need to take the word of a book,prophet or god that there is a after life. You throw in history of religious groups killing one another and it gets even more murky.
Also a lot of it is not up for debate and that alone is a issue that makes it a little ugly.
Humans have had a need to group up for survival or believe in something forever,its nothing new and it most likely is deep in the dna.
I am not angry about it,just wish it would not override the way the world operates.
Also a lot of it is not up for debate and that alone is a issue that makes it a little ugly.
Humans have had a need to group up for survival or believe in something forever,its nothing new and it most likely is deep in the dna.
I am not angry about it,just wish it would not override the way the world operates.
This doesn't prove that your "Reality" is either deterministic or random (let alone a "synthesis" of both)...
I wasn't trying to prove that reality is "either deterministic or random." Furthermore, asserting that Reality is instead "self-determinate," and that self-determination is an explanatory model synthesizing both determinism and indeterminism, does not amount to saying that Reality is both determinate and indeterminate. Rather, I'm asserting it is self-determinate, of which determinism and indeterminism are constituents.
Quote
...since there is nothing that would forbid the "causes" for both determinacy and indeterminacy (whichever you choose to stick with) to be this Reality's attributes, i.e. inherent properties...
Correct, but this doesn't necessarily lead to an infinite regression. Where is the infinite regression, for example, in A --> B --> C --> A --> ...?
Quote
And, I guess, what is meant by "self-guidance" has nothing to do with that synthesis, which is not possible per se (since as soon as you allow some randomness, the world ultimately becomes indeterministic)
Incorrect, except at a topological level of understanding. Determinism and indeterminism are concepts formulated out of relevance to each other, similar to causality and randomness. Randomness is a product of a causal probability function of randomness.
http://individual.utoronto.ca/lpgerson/Plato_On_Identity_Sameness_And_Difference.pdf
Quote
The answer to the objection that we could specify identity and have nothing left
over for sameness is this. The attempt to identify, let alone re-identify, an existent with
divisible identity requires the inclusion of its divisible essence. That is, it is by using
divisible essence as a criterion that we identify something. For example, we determine
that this man has the same height today that he had yesterday. The divisible essence
cannot itself be constitutive of the existential identity. In the above frames (2) and (3), to
identify A1 or A2, we have to cognize it as something, as having some structure or other.
We have to cognize its divisible essence, regardless of our theory of what essence is
exactly or how we cognize it. The only way that the sameness of A1 and A2 could be
made impossible is by claiming that the identity of each is utterly uncognizable. Since
we do cognize divisible essence, the impossibility of sameness among different selfidentical
things is refuted, which is all Plato really needs to do. For the nominalist
objections do not amount to a quibble about this or that case of sameness; they typically
rest on the denial of the very possibility of sameness among self-identical things.36
over for sameness is this. The attempt to identify, let alone re-identify, an existent with
divisible identity requires the inclusion of its divisible essence. That is, it is by using
divisible essence as a criterion that we identify something. For example, we determine
that this man has the same height today that he had yesterday. The divisible essence
cannot itself be constitutive of the existential identity. In the above frames (2) and (3), to
identify A1 or A2, we have to cognize it as something, as having some structure or other.
We have to cognize its divisible essence, regardless of our theory of what essence is
exactly or how we cognize it. The only way that the sameness of A1 and A2 could be
made impossible is by claiming that the identity of each is utterly uncognizable. Since
we do cognize divisible essence, the impossibility of sameness among different selfidentical
things is refuted, which is all Plato really needs to do. For the nominalist
objections do not amount to a quibble about this or that case of sameness; they typically
rest on the denial of the very possibility of sameness among self-identical things.36
Quote
What we are saying in all these cases is,
basically, that two or more things that appear to be different in some way or another
really are identical or one.39 In Platonic terms, we are saying that a diversity of essence
rests upon an identity.
basically, that two or more things that appear to be different in some way or another
really are identical or one.39 In Platonic terms, we are saying that a diversity of essence
rests upon an identity.
Determinism and indeterminism, or causality and randomness, arise from a diversity of essence resting upon a common identity. Any event we deem to be "random" is variant with respect to external causality (e.g. a random result "x" from a RNG is caused by a chance probability function), and any event we deem to be "causal" is invariant with respect to internal acausality (e.g. an RNG is not dependent upon its mutually-exclusive products).
Self-determinism (in this case, of logic, which both describes and is described by itself), synthesizes these perspectives to unify our understanding of them, relatively in terms of each other, and absolutely in terms of self-determinism.
I live in India, the land of religions. Every other person believes on some weird deity and donates a little of his income and complete faith into worshipping them hoping that it changes their life.
The reason why I hate religions is that people blame their 'God' for all the bad things and mostly call it 'goodluck' when some good thing happens.
Gratitude. What happened to that? Anyway, Religion is like making a fat kid believe he is full of food and the food already exists in its stomach. All he needs to do is keep faith and believe in it.
The reason why I hate religions is that people blame their 'God' for all the bad things and mostly call it 'goodluck' when some good thing happens.
Gratitude. What happened to that? Anyway, Religion is like making a fat kid believe he is full of food and the food already exists in its stomach. All he needs to do is keep faith and believe in it.
I've always believed in Jesus Christ as my savior, and actually see Him doing things in my life depending on what I'm praying for (knowing it has to be God's will or He won't do it). I've never "hoped" that He would change my life. I just know He's there and working on things. It's amazing what can happen when you actually believe and ask for help (as long as it's God's will) and see things fall into place.
I know others will say that it's a self-fulfilling prophecy, but these things that are happening are not in my power to be happening because I want them to, they're happening all over the country to others. Then you'd say it would be happening anyway. People will believe what they will believe. I'm not going to try to push anyone.
God can work miracles, but people have free will. Bad things will happen, because there are sinful people out there who enjoy doing them. But the wicked will be found out. (Psalm 10)
I live in India, the land of religions. Every other person believes on some weird deity and donates a little of his income and complete faith into worshipping them hoping that it changes their life.
The reason why I hate religions is that people blame their 'God' for all the bad things and mostly call it 'goodluck' when some good thing happens.
Gratitude. What happened to that? Anyway, Religion is like making a fat kid believe he is full of food and the food already exists in its stomach. All he needs to do is keep faith and believe in it.
The reason why I hate religions is that people blame their 'God' for all the bad things and mostly call it 'goodluck' when some good thing happens.
Gratitude. What happened to that? Anyway, Religion is like making a fat kid believe he is full of food and the food already exists in its stomach. All he needs to do is keep faith and believe in it.
And if randomness happens all by itself, it could legitimately be a kind of back door for creative interference. Tinker a little in the right places, and you get a causal cascade. Or maybe I'm misinterpreting you and we're actually in agreement on this? People often seem to have this idea that randomness has some special property of being truly random. It doesn't have to "be" random at all, all we know is that we call something random if it looks random. There are plenty of examples where encoded messages have a white noise spectrum if you're not the intended recipient.
Thereby all "randomness" can potentially be reduced to just a pure lack of knowledge (or faith, for that matter), right? I mean that you (or scientists) cannot prove that there is "true" randomness at all, be it quantum randomness or whatever else sort of randomness (the hypothesis of the "hidden variables")...
Ultimately, you are still stuck with the Primary Cause (and the cause of that, wtf)
Determinancy vs. Indeterminancy is a false dichotomy. Self-determinancy or self-configuration is a 3rd option.
So things get even more complicated than that. Though, personally, I doubt that what you call "self-determinancy" (or "self-configuration") cannot be further reduced to either of the first two...
You should prove otherwise (for it to be a "3rd option")
The set of Reality contains that and only that which is real. If there were something 'real enough' outside of Reality so as to be able to affect it, then obviously it wouldn't be outside of Reality, but rather inside.
Accordingly, there is nothing external to reality which is real enough to determine it. There is no need to look for an infinite regression in a self-contained system. Reality must embody the rules of self-configuration because there is nothing external to it which is real enough to configure it.
This doesn't prove that your "Reality" is either deterministic or random (let alone a "synthesis" of both), since there is nothing that would forbid the "causes" for both determinacy and indeterminacy (whichever you choose to stick with) to be this Reality's attributes, i.e. inherent properties...
And, I guess, what is meant by "self-guidance" has nothing to do with that synthesis, which is not possible per se (since as soon as you allow some randomness, the world ultimately becomes indeterministic)
And if randomness happens all by itself, it could legitimately be a kind of back door for creative interference. Tinker a little in the right places, and you get a causal cascade. Or maybe I'm misinterpreting you and we're actually in agreement on this? People often seem to have this idea that randomness has some special property of being truly random. It doesn't have to "be" random at all, all we know is that we call something random if it looks random. There are plenty of examples where encoded messages have a white noise spectrum if you're not the intended recipient.
Thereby all "randomness" can potentially be reduced to just a pure lack of knowledge (or faith, for that matter), right? I mean that you (or scientists) cannot prove that there is "true" randomness at all, be it quantum randomness or whatever else sort of randomness (the hypothesis of the "hidden variables")...
Ultimately, you are still stuck with the Primary Cause (and the cause of that, wtf)
Determinancy vs. Indeterminancy is a false dichotomy. Self-determinancy or self-configuration is a 3rd option.
So things get even more complicated than that. Though, personally, I doubt that what you call "self-determinancy" (or "self-configuration") cannot be further reduced to either of the first two...
You should prove otherwise (for it to be a "3rd option")
The set of Reality contains that and only that which is real. If there were something 'real enough' outside of Reality so as to be able to affect it, then obviously it wouldn't be outside of Reality, but rather inside.
Accordingly, there is nothing external to reality which is real enough to determine it. There is no need to look for an infinite regression in a self-contained system. Reality must embody the rules of self-configuration because there is nothing external to it which is real enough to configure it.
Edit: Think of self-determinancy or self-configuration as a synthesis of determinancy and indeterminancy. Note that logic is self-determinant or self-configuring, i.e. "sound logic is soundly logical according to sound logic."
And if randomness happens all by itself, it could legitimately be a kind of back door for creative interference. Tinker a little in the right places, and you get a causal cascade. Or maybe I'm misinterpreting you and we're actually in agreement on this? People often seem to have this idea that randomness has some special property of being truly random. It doesn't have to "be" random at all, all we know is that we call something random if it looks random. There are plenty of examples where encoded messages have a white noise spectrum if you're not the intended recipient.
Thereby all "randomness" can potentially be reduced to just a pure lack of knowledge (or faith, for that matter), right? I mean that you (or scientists) cannot prove that there is "true" randomness at all, be it quantum randomness or whatever else sort of randomness (the hypothesis of the "hidden variables")...
Ultimately, you are still stuck with the Primary Cause (and the cause of that, wtf)
Determinancy vs. Indeterminancy is a false dichotomy. Self-determinancy or self-configuration is a 3rd option.
So things get even more complicated than that. Though, personally, I doubt that what you call "self-determinancy" (or "self-configuration") cannot be further reduced to either of the first two. You should prove otherwise (for it to be a "3rd option")...
Or, at least, make a strong case in favor of your assumption
But what if you've got it backwards?
"Cause and effect" are ideas in our minds, which we've somehow acquired in trying to explain the world. Our senses provide us with data about the world, and we use our reason to figure out what we're looking at.
And funnily enough, you might be unwittingly throwing away a huge piece of evidence which supports the possibility of a god. I.e.: randomness.
Take quantum randomness for example. Radioactive decay or photons mysteriously picking a definite but random-looking path, etc. This is actually hopeful for non-atheists because it's something atheists can't explain with a purely causal universe. As far as science can tell, nothing "causes" radioactive decay, it just happens all by itself.
And if randomness happens all by itself, it could legitimately be a kind of back door for creative interference. Tinker a little in the right places, and you get a causal cascade. Or maybe I'm misinterpreting you and we're actually in agreement on this? People often seem to have this idea that randomness has some special property of being truly random. It doesn't have to "be" random at all, all we know is that we call something random if it looks random. There are plenty of examples where encoded messages have a white noise spectrum if you're not the intended recipient.
"Cause and effect" are ideas in our minds, which we've somehow acquired in trying to explain the world. Our senses provide us with data about the world, and we use our reason to figure out what we're looking at.
And funnily enough, you might be unwittingly throwing away a huge piece of evidence which supports the possibility of a god. I.e.: randomness.
Take quantum randomness for example. Radioactive decay or photons mysteriously picking a definite but random-looking path, etc. This is actually hopeful for non-atheists because it's something atheists can't explain with a purely causal universe. As far as science can tell, nothing "causes" radioactive decay, it just happens all by itself.
And if randomness happens all by itself, it could legitimately be a kind of back door for creative interference. Tinker a little in the right places, and you get a causal cascade. Or maybe I'm misinterpreting you and we're actually in agreement on this? People often seem to have this idea that randomness has some special property of being truly random. It doesn't have to "be" random at all, all we know is that we call something random if it looks random. There are plenty of examples where encoded messages have a white noise spectrum if you're not the intended recipient.
Thereby all "randomness" can potentially be reduced to just a pure lack of knowledge (or faith, for that matter), right? I mean that you (or scientists) cannot prove that there is "true" randomness at all, be it quantum randomness or whatever else sort of randomness (the hypothesis of the "hidden variables")...
Ultimately, you are still stuck with the Primary Cause (and the cause of that, wtf)
Determinancy vs. Indeterminancy is a false dichotomy. Self-determinancy or self-configuration is a 3rd option.
But what if you've got it backwards?
"Cause and effect" are ideas in our minds, which we've somehow acquired in trying to explain the world. Our senses provide us with data about the world, and we use our reason to figure out what we're looking at.
And funnily enough, you might be unwittingly throwing away a huge piece of evidence which supports the possibility of a god. I.e.: randomness.
Take quantum randomness for example. Radioactive decay or photons mysteriously picking a definite but random-looking path, etc. This is actually hopeful for non-atheists because it's something atheists can't explain with a purely causal universe. As far as science can tell, nothing "causes" radioactive decay, it just happens all by itself.
And if randomness happens all by itself, it could legitimately be a kind of back door for creative interference. Tinker a little in the right places, and you get a causal cascade. Or maybe I'm misinterpreting you and we're actually in agreement on this? People often seem to have this idea that randomness has some special property of being truly random. It doesn't have to "be" random at all, all we know is that we call something random if it looks random. There are plenty of examples where encoded messages have a white noise spectrum if you're not the intended recipient.
"Cause and effect" are ideas in our minds, which we've somehow acquired in trying to explain the world. Our senses provide us with data about the world, and we use our reason to figure out what we're looking at.
And funnily enough, you might be unwittingly throwing away a huge piece of evidence which supports the possibility of a god. I.e.: randomness.
Take quantum randomness for example. Radioactive decay or photons mysteriously picking a definite but random-looking path, etc. This is actually hopeful for non-atheists because it's something atheists can't explain with a purely causal universe. As far as science can tell, nothing "causes" radioactive decay, it just happens all by itself.
And if randomness happens all by itself, it could legitimately be a kind of back door for creative interference. Tinker a little in the right places, and you get a causal cascade. Or maybe I'm misinterpreting you and we're actually in agreement on this? People often seem to have this idea that randomness has some special property of being truly random. It doesn't have to "be" random at all, all we know is that we call something random if it looks random. There are plenty of examples where encoded messages have a white noise spectrum if you're not the intended recipient.
Thereby all "randomness" can potentially be reduced to just a pure lack of knowledge (or faith, for that matter), right? I mean that you (or scientists) cannot prove that there is "true" randomness at all, be it quantum randomness or whatever else sort of randomness (the hypothesis of the "hidden variables")...
Ultimately, you are still stuck with the Primary Cause (and the cause of that, wtf)
Some of this is correct.
We don't know as fact where the universe came from.
We don't know as fact regarding how it came into being.
We also know that we are also tied to cause and effect in everything so that true random essentially doesn't exist.
We know that people's minds and thoughts are products of the causation of cause and effect.
We know by observation of how everything operates that everything is intelligently designed.
We know that stuff doesn't appear out of nowhere without a cause.
In other words, science knows very little about the basics. But what it DOES know suggests that there is an Intelligent Designer.
We don't know as fact where the universe came from.
We don't know as fact regarding how it came into being.
We also know that we are also tied to cause and effect in everything so that true random essentially doesn't exist.
We know that people's minds and thoughts are products of the causation of cause and effect.
We know by observation of how everything operates that everything is intelligently designed.
We know that stuff doesn't appear out of nowhere without a cause.
In other words, science knows very little about the basics. But what it DOES know suggests that there is an Intelligent Designer.
But what if you've got it backwards?
"Cause and effect" are ideas in our minds, which we've somehow acquired in trying to explain the world. Our senses provide us with data about the world, and we use our reason to figure out what we're looking at.
And funnily enough, you might be unwittingly throwing away a huge piece of evidence which supports the possibility of a god. I.e.: randomness.
Take quantum randomness for example. Radioactive decay or photons mysteriously picking a definite but random-looking path, etc. This is actually hopeful for non-atheists because it's something atheists can't explain with a purely causal universe. As far as science can tell, nothing "causes" radioactive decay, it just happens all by itself.
And if randomness happens all by itself, it could legitimately be a kind of back door for creative interference. Tinker a little in the right places, and you get a causal cascade. Or maybe I'm misinterpreting you and we're actually in agreement on this? People often seem to have this idea that randomness has some special property of being truly random. It doesn't have to "be" random at all, all we know is that we call something random if it looks random. There are plenty of examples where encoded messages have a white noise spectrum if you're not the intended recipient.
For the same reason some religious people hate other people who don't share their views
When you post garabage about your common law fantasy, you look even sillier than when you're trying to keep all your religious nonsense straight.
Is this related to that "Freeman on the Land" garbage I've seen when people make complete fools of themselves in court and post it on YouTube as a win?
Possibly. BADecker is on some thing about how all you have to do is challenge the jurisdiction of the court by telling them to define certain magic words and then you COMMON LAW VICTORY WIN or something wholly ridiculous. (While I am intentionally making it sound dumb, ask him for the official logic of it, and then you'll see my intentional misrepresentation isn't actually more absurd, and has the added benefit of humor, whereas the people who believe they have discovered a magic 'get out of jail free card' are entirely serious.)
There are many common law wins and defeats (obviously, if somebody wins, somebody else loses). Many small claims court "trials" are common law, because they are person to person. If a Judge makes the decision, then his decision is based on the evidences and facts that the people bring in their claims at the Small "CLAIMS" Court.
Wake up and see that the position of government official can't do anything without a man holding that position, or subordinate positions. Thus, if the government official position harms or injures you, it wasn't the position (governmental office) that harmed or injured you. It was the man who did it.
Now this guy who harmed you, does he put his pants on right leg or left leg first? That is, is he a man or a god? And if he is a god, you are a god just as much as he, because you have the right to put your pants on any way you want.
If the guy harms you, and if you don't deserve the harm he did to you, and especially if he does that harm in ways that his governmental position says he is not supposed to do, then honorably sue the biggest bucks out of him as you can.
I'm going to say this as plainly as possibly so maybe you can understand it: Common law does not mean person to person.
"Common law" refers to laws that come into effect through the judiciary rather than the legislature. That has nothing to do with any of the nonsense you post, because you're not using the term properly.
No problem, and good clarification. I think the problem that bugs me the most, is that this "margin-of-error" attached to conclusions derived from the Scientific Method is inherently impossible to calculate (as far as I can tell).
I agree that certain things can be proven absolutely, I suppose certain mathematical proofs would be examples of a priori knowledge, and could be proven logically with no need for inductive reasoning? When I said "nothing can ever be proven" I meant things based on inductive reasoning (lazy writing from me).
The margin-of-error can only be calculated based upon the number of trials. If I've been alive for 3,000 days and the sun hasn't exploded yet, then based upon 3,000 "trials" I can predict with very high statistical confidence that the sun will not explode tomorrow due to a very small margin-of-error. Of course, that confidence does no good if the sun goes nova tomorrow. The margin-of-error exists specifically because you always have access to a limited data set. The margin-of-error could be eliminated completely if you somehow had knowledge of all trials that ever were, are, and ever will be, but obviously we don't have this ability.
And correct, mathematical proofs are fully abstract, internally consistent, and (at least) to that extent, sound. Whether or not (and how) they actually apply to physical reality is another issue. But regardless, they constitute 'a priori' knowledge and are knowable at a 100% level of confidence, without any margin-of-error.
This is interesting stuff. I'd be lying if I said I understood it all, but I would like to question your final point.
I think I agree on everything up to that. If I'm understanding correctly, metrics are inherently abstract because they rely on perception to exist. Even if you had a perfect machine which used the binary metric to ask whether something existed or not, the result must be perceived by a "mind", so even this binary metric is abstract.
On to your last paragraph. Now, I agree that "metrics are self-descriptively invoked by an intelligent mind, and that all real definition is a product of these metrics", but why should that mean that "Intelligent Design is the necessary mechanism by which reality is created/defined."?
Why is it not possible that, for example, reality always existed, and the metrics that we use to define it are of our own making? Or in other words, why should our logical definition of reality have anything to do with how it was created? Just because we need metrics to understand reality, why does that mean that said reality has to have an Intelligent Designer using the same metrics?
(sorry, finding it hard to explain myself...
)
I think I agree on everything up to that. If I'm understanding correctly, metrics are inherently abstract because they rely on perception to exist. Even if you had a perfect machine which used the binary metric to ask whether something existed or not, the result must be perceived by a "mind", so even this binary metric is abstract.
On to your last paragraph. Now, I agree that "metrics are self-descriptively invoked by an intelligent mind, and that all real definition is a product of these metrics", but why should that mean that "Intelligent Design is the necessary mechanism by which reality is created/defined."?
Why is it not possible that, for example, reality always existed, and the metrics that we use to define it are of our own making? Or in other words, why should our logical definition of reality have anything to do with how it was created? Just because we need metrics to understand reality, why does that mean that said reality has to have an Intelligent Designer using the same metrics?
(sorry, finding it hard to explain myself...
)Yes, your understanding is basically correct, and also correct about the "perfect machine." Sensory technology seems to function as a 2nd-order observer. In the double-slit experiment of quantum mechanics, the suggestive collapse of the wave function occurred in the presence of both human and technological observers.
Your question about whether Intelligent Design is the "necessary" mechanism by which reality is created/defined is fantastic. You are correct to imply that conclusion didn't necessarily follow.
The best model one can theoretically come up with to explain something must meet a few criteria: It must 1) Be internally consistent, 2) Comprehensively and soundly explain all information it attempts to do so, and 3) Introduce the fewest number of assumptions, ideally zero. Falsification of the model can happen on two levels. At a lower level, the model can be rendered internally invalid if new information is introduced which should be explained by it, but isn't. At a higher level, the model can be rendered externally invalid if another model, which is broader in its scope, not only explains all information in the original model, but synthesizes this knowledge with other information unexplained by the original model (the result being a deeper understanding which predicates any topological understanding).
That being said, could reality have "always existed," independent of metrics? From an empirical perspective, maybe, but there's no possible way to know without introducing some unnecessary assumptions. This actually gets right back to the Positivistic Universe assumption, as your question yields to the same impossible means of empirical falsification, i.e. you would need to somehow collect metric data via observation in a Universe totally void of observers and metrics. What we do know, however, is that the data suggest that in 100% of cases where reality has been affirmed to exist, perception and metrics were present, and in exactly 0 cases has reality been affirmed to exist in the absence of perception and metrics. That's why the Positivistic Universe assumption exists in the first place; it's as practical to adhere to this assumption as it is to assume the sun won't go nova tomorrow.
From a philosophical perspective, no lol, reality could not have existed independent of metrics. One reason is we have the sameness-in-difference tautology of logic to turn to, which states that all relational entities must necessarily reduce to a common medium. Because what is real and unreal are relational entities, it follows they, too, reduce to a common medium. Metrics axiomatically create the distinction between real and unreal according to a simple difference metric (i.e. 1 vs. 0). No metric --> no distinction between what's real and unreal.
Just found your post, I'll try to reply as best I can.
Regarding the margin-of-error, we are on the same page here. I understand that more trials = higher statistical evidence. It's just that, as you say, we can never have complete knowledge. This means that it is possible, for example, that every single trial ever done was influenced by an alien race from a parallel universe and they "tweaked" the outcome of every trial to affect our understanding of reality. My point was that, if something like this had happened, we would have no way of knowing. We also don't have any way of measuring how likely this is because it would be beyond our empirical understanding of reality. Such a scenario is logically possible, but is totally impossible to provide evidence for, due to the faults in inductive reasoning. That's what bugs me.
Regarding the double-slit experiment, I suppose you're right in saying that observation is 2nd order. But the reason the experiment works, is that when observing anything on the quantum scale, we have to interact with it. Whether it is a human interacting, or a sensor, we have to measure photons that have bounced off the particles we are trying to measure, and these photons must have influenced the particles. In normal day-to-day life, we don't need to worry about these interactions because we humans are not sensitive to anything on the quantum level, and photons do not affect anything that we interact with in this way. So although all observation is inherently 2nd order and not 1st order, I think it makes more sense to falsely treat our own human-specific observations as 1st order.
So there is no "mystical" element of the result. (I'm not insinuating that you said this, it's just that it's a common misconception. Many people think that the experiment is evidence of magic or some shit...)
I totally agree with your definition of an optimum model, and with your point about it not being possible to know if reality "always existed", due to the limitations of inductive reasoning. You rightly say that, to know this "you would need to somehow collect metric data via observation in a Universe totally void of observers and metrics." (Great line, it pretty much sums up my feelings on philosophy and why I both love it and hate it
, kinda links back to my point about the interfering alien race)I have to admit, I'm finding your final paragraph hard to understand (when I google sameness-in-difference I get loads of obscure philosophical papers about feminism and racism). From what I do understand though, it seems to me that you're providing a valid and compelling case for agnosticism, but not for the existence of an intelligent designer.
Responding in to paragraphical order:
1) Regarding "we would have no way of knowing" whether evidence is manipulated by some superior alien race (or by some other empirically unknowable phenomenon), this may actually be of total irrelevance -- or, rather, it may be of total irrelevance depending on what it is we're exploring, or what questions we're looking to answer. Such a phenomenon may permanently inhibit us from knowing any number of things, e.g. the accuracy of perception, etc. However, it doesn't prohibit us from exploring the fundamental nature of reality in terms of the human mind and of the logic we use. That is, it is irrelevant to our use of logic whether some empirically unknowable phenomenon manipulates data collection or even our use of logic itself. The point is that the use of logic is our only means of reason, and cognitively we are totally limited to it and it alone. We just have to use the tools we are given to create the best models we possibly can. There seems to be no alternative when it comes to theorizing about reality.
2) To clarify, I was stating that "technological observation" is a 2nd-order means of perception whereas direct human observation is 1st-order. I would also add that a possible explanation for why the [suggestive] effects of observation on reality can be evidenced a quantum level, but not a macro one, is that the observer and what is observed are progressively homogenized at greater scales, up to total homogeny.
3) Agreed, no mysticism here.
4) Nothing to contend, here.
5) On sameness-in-difference:
https://books.google.com/books?id=N9IMz_YP5IkC&pg=PA44&lpg=PA44&dq=sameness+in+difference+greek&source=bl&ots=kcbtdCTyCw&sig=q0RbCGgoFm9gCjK2Y2UmFj0gOSY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9fZ1Vc-pBcjRsAWguoGgCQ&ved=0CDcQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=sameness%20in%20difference%20greek&f=false
Quote
"At the conclusion of [Plato's] proof that 'not-being is one kind of being among the rest..."
http://individual.utoronto.ca/lpgerson/Plato_On_Identity_Sameness_And_Difference.pdf
Quote
The answer to the objection that we could specify identity and have nothing left
over for sameness is this. The attempt to identify, let alone re-identify, an existent with
divisible identity requires the inclusion of its divisible essence. That is, it is by using
divisible essence as a criterion that we identify something. For example, we determine
that this man has the same height today that he had yesterday. The divisible essence
cannot itself be constitutive of the existential identity. In the above frames (2) and (3), to
identify A1 or A2, we have to cognize it as something, as having some structure or other.
We have to cognize its divisible essence, regardless of our theory of what essence is
exactly or how we cognize it. The only way that the sameness of A1 and A2 could be
made impossible is by claiming that the identity of each is utterly uncognizable. Since
we do cognize divisible essence, the impossibility of sameness among different selfidentical
things is refuted, which is all Plato really needs to do. For the nominalist
objections do not amount to a quibble about this or that case of sameness; they typically
rest on the denial of the very possibility of sameness among self-identical things.36
over for sameness is this. The attempt to identify, let alone re-identify, an existent with
divisible identity requires the inclusion of its divisible essence. That is, it is by using
divisible essence as a criterion that we identify something. For example, we determine
that this man has the same height today that he had yesterday. The divisible essence
cannot itself be constitutive of the existential identity. In the above frames (2) and (3), to
identify A1 or A2, we have to cognize it as something, as having some structure or other.
We have to cognize its divisible essence, regardless of our theory of what essence is
exactly or how we cognize it. The only way that the sameness of A1 and A2 could be
made impossible is by claiming that the identity of each is utterly uncognizable. Since
we do cognize divisible essence, the impossibility of sameness among different selfidentical
things is refuted, which is all Plato really needs to do. For the nominalist
objections do not amount to a quibble about this or that case of sameness; they typically
rest on the denial of the very possibility of sameness among self-identical things.36
Quote
What we are saying in all these cases is,
basically, that two or more things that appear to be different in some way or another
really are identical or one.39 In Platonic terms, we are saying that a diversity of essence
rests upon an identity.
basically, that two or more things that appear to be different in some way or another
really are identical or one.39 In Platonic terms, we are saying that a diversity of essence
rests upon an identity.
I introduce the sameness-in-difference principle as a rule to reduce mental and physical reality to a common medium, and to also imply that any Creator and its creation would also reduce similarly. It is implied through this rule that physical reality reduces to a common medium that embodies the rules of abstraction and mind.
Your link leads nowhere
-snip-
I guess you pretty much don't know. And by your arrogance it is easy to guess that you don't know much overall
It was just a 'let me google that for you' link that I've fixed. Notable genes.-snip-
I guess you pretty much don't know. And by your arrogance it is easy to guess that you don't know much overall
I pretty much know as much as you do. Our design is flawed; why use less "wires" (can't figure out a correct analogy to computers/scaling) that have more functions, when you can use more?
More is less right?
If I had been some sort of superior creature that was doing the designing, I would have done a better job that this. However you should stop going off topic. If you want to discuss DNA, start your own thread.
Now you are obviously trying to backpedal this matter, blaming me of going off topic. But I have to remind you that my post was not about DNA at all, I wasn't the one who raised this issue, and it was actually you who went wild with joy from it ("excellent example" and all that nonsense). Furthermore, you arrogantly asked me about my credentials (I guess the latter directly concerns the thread subject), but you evidently failed to realize that my credentials (whatever they might be) don't matter a thing here, since I didn't say anything new, extraordinary or out-of-the-way. In fact, what I referred to is actually a sort of a widely known "argument from ignorance", a fallacy which your "scientists" were allegedly making...
Though it was obvious right from the start that it had been nothing more than just your folly. Arrogance added to this made you a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger syndrome victim
Jump to: