201–210 of 338 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Science is a methodology for defining how the universe operates. It’s sole assumption is the univers has some form of order, and holds zero other beliefs. Seriously, people question if time exists or how many dimensions their are. Consensus is what allows medicine to operate and people to build computers etc, but it’s not accepted Truth.
That's not the definition. What is the methodology ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1) It’s hard to say “no” to this because it’s not clear what you mean. Do you mean to say that I’m painting religion in the guise of religion? 2) here are several definitions: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science
1. Him means the person you're replying to. Your argument is clearly to paint him in a religious light. You need something more substantial than "other theists say similar things". You need concrete proof to draw a conclusion. 2. The question is whether you can show that what the person you're replying to is arguing in favor of is not science. Pasting some definitions proves neither that you understand them nor that…
I think we found a point we can agree upon!
Could someone with better understanding explain compatibalism to me? I’m struggling to grasp how it can allow for both determinism and free will.
"You can do what you want, but you can't want what you want." - Lawrence of Arabia
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my experience when philosophers say something about those things, they say it in natural language (typically English), and that is not precise enough for measurement. All problems can be handwaved away with ad-hoc modification. The difference between philosophers 'doing' AI and what e.g. DeepMind do is that the latter are precise enough (indeed as precise as possible -- pace the Church-Turing thesis) about their r…
> The difference between philosophers 'doing' AI and what e.g. DeepMind do is that the latter are precise enough (indeed as precise as possible -- pace the Church-Turing thesis) about their research hypotheses that they can measure and confirm/refute their hypotheses, unlike the former. They still remain in a framework of axioms we made. This gains nothing, and what's more, many scientists used to know this. Everythi…
In game theory (such as prisoner's dilemma) there is a concept of cooperation and betrayal. When an agent interacts with another agent, she has to decide whether it is in her best interest to cooperate or exploit the other. Depending on the social environment and the existence or future interactions with the same agent, the choice can change. A noble human would be one who does not betray the larger good for its own limited gain. Thus nobility emerges from the cooperation/betrayal strategy in a multi-agent game.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Science" is just a collection of tools and processes. "Scientisits" use those processes to attempt to arrive at true conclusions. This can be very difficult. Over time, "science" (the nebulous institution) can build up enough accrued "truths" that it can make interesting conclusions with a decent degree of confidence. (Note: scientific studies that are reported by clickbait headlines are not what I'm talking about.)…
That's not the definition. There are many tools and processes that do not constitute science. If you want to define science as that which uncovers truth, then, for that to be true, you must be able to define truth without resorting to tautology (that is, there must be a way to verify 'truth'). Excluding a subset of what's false doesn't necessarily lead you to discovering or being able to accept (integrate) the truth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ill-defined notions of collapse Actually, the wavefunction collapse is a very well defined mathematical construct; so, if you are ignoring or trying to avoid it, you are literally "hiding the scary equations."
It's well-defined mathematically but ill-defined philosophically. There is no agreement on what an "observation" is -- that is what is ill-defined: > The Copenhagen interpretation is the oldest and probably still the most widely held interpretation of quantum mechanics. Most generally it posits something in the act of observation which results in the collapse of the wave function. According to the von Neumann–Wigner…
> Erich Joos and Heinz-Dieter Zeh claim that the phenomenon of quantum decoherence, which was put on firm ground in the 1980s, resolves the problem. The idea is that the environment causes the classical appearance of macroscopic objects.
Sounds like a clever, witty, and charming guy. Would be very interesting to talk to him; I like his style of talking. Curiously ironic that he cites a consensus in personal belief in atheism and agnostics among philosophers (at least, modern philosophers, most philosophers in history believed in God..) as a good reason for philosophy not accepting the existence of God, which appears to be a popularity contest (and ec…
I found this statement really fascinating: as you said "Of course" I take it that you presume that the belief in some number of gods to be innate? Do you think it an evolutionary advantage and manifestation?
The part I elided (many atheists exhibit an essentially credulous belief in "sience" without knowing what it is) I have observed too (though "many?" I don't know) but humans are, you know, humans.
And this is only about people who argue the issue -- what about those who simply don't care and never talk about it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's hard to actually address this comment since it's such a ramble, but I think you make some disingenuous rhetorical moves that deserve to be addressed. You employ a rhetorical move that some theists have used in the past -- namely, casting doubt on the veracity of scientific beliefs by painting them in the guise of religion. This is also a convenient move that lets you characterize huge swaths of academia that dis…
I initially wanted to downvote GP, for the reasons you cite and more, but it sparked such an interesting (if predictably heated) debate that I kind of like it.
Sounds like a clever, witty, and charming guy. Would be very interesting to talk to him; I like his style of talking. Curiously ironic that he cites a consensus in personal belief in atheism and agnostics among philosophers (at least, modern philosophers, most philosophers in history believed in God..) as a good reason for philosophy not accepting the existence of God, which appears to be a popularity contest (and ec…
> Of course, I've found that most atheists ... have some personal, emotional reason for not believing in God rather than a well-thought out chain of reasoning I found this statement really fascinating: as you said "Of course" I take it that you presume that the belief in some number of gods to be innate? Do you think it an evolutionary advantage and manifestation? The part I elided (many atheists exhibit an essential…
I think "Of course" is used because his beliefs, which follow, may be expected by the reader based on his previous statements.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't want to sound too snarky, but "moved on" sounds like we're talking about fashion... Has modus tollens moved on too? I haven't studied modern philosophy (or Popper), but if there is a concise explanation I'd like to hear it.
I mean the biggest thing was Kuhn coming along and saying "experimentally, it doesn't work that way." What I mean is, people don't find an experiment about nanostructures that doesn't work and start going "hey I think I have disproved quantum mechanics!". Even when the OPERA faster-than-light neutrino debacle was going on, physicists were largely saying "We are pretty sure that there is some mistake in either the mod…