Belief Vs. Knowledge

[JMS]

I didn't say you said it wasn't science.  I said you said it wasn't as well grounded in science as other scientific "laws".

 

Actually I didn't say that either.   I said Darwin's theory of Evolution was not as well understood as Scientific Laws which can be quantified and used in a predictive manor.    Scientific Laws being the highest level of scientific understanding.   Scientific Laws are provable.   Scientific theories are not.  Scientific theories are generally more complex and don't leave themselves open to quantifiable proofs.   Theories are much better than guesses, hypothesises.   They are hypothesises which have a consensus of scientists behind them, but they are still not prooveable;  nor do they necessarily fit all the critical data.    That to my mind is far from saying a theory is not "as well grounded in science".   I would not and have not said Evolution is not science.   It is as much science as any Law.  The entire scientific method is about catagorizing knowledge.

 

I have consistantly said over the years scientists know there are holes which are not addressed by Darwin's theory of Evolution.   Some evolutionists have subsequently hypothisized soluitons to some of these holes without consensus being reached among their scientific peers.  Some holes have been closed in favor of darwin's theories with new scientific understanding like DNA and Mendels studies on pea pods.  Still other holes scientists simply have no reasonable explaination for yet...     Regardless though Evolution remains the consensus explaination of scientists which best fits the observed data.

 

Which doesn't make evolution any less science.   It might make it more grounded in sciencee as the proof for evolution is more based upon a critical evaluation of a wide assortment of data;  not just dropping a ball down a ramp and being able to predict where it will land.

 

As for Darwin being the most influential scientist of the last 200 year or perhaps ever.   I think this has less to do with the accuracey of natural selection or the holes scientists have been able to poke in Evolution 160 years after Darwin first published origin of the species.

Rather it is how Darwin laid out his case for evolution and the effect the resulting international debate has had on the influence religion had on subsequent scientists.    If you look at the deathgrip religion had on science over the centuries... from creating the dark ages,  to styfulling scientific inovation in the 1500, 1600, 1700 and 1800's....   Darwin, and his bull dog Huxley; were the first scientists to really roll back the influence of religious dogmatists and thus most profoundly influenced science more than anybody else right up to today....

 

If Cucci  had won the governorship I may have had to revisit this personal belief.

[PeterMP]

Actually I didn't say that either.   I said Darwin's theory of Evolution was not as well understood as Scientific Laws which can be quantified and used in a predictive manor.    Scientific Laws being the highest level of scientific understanding.  That to my mind is far from saying a theory is not "as well grounded in science".   I would not and have not said Evolution is not science.   It is as much science as any Law.  The entire scientific method is about catagorizing knowledge.

 

Okay, I'm not going to argue with you and play word/phrase games.

 

I would make the point that Mendel's laws are wrong and predictions based on Mendel's laws are wrong in some cases wrong a lot, and even Mendel understood that.

 

http://arstechnica.com/science/2010/04/breaking-mendels-laws-the-value-of-informative-errors/

[alexey]

Yes, but science doesn't say that we should do what most people want.

And in some cases, we agree that we shouldn't do what most people want.

I believe the minority has rights, and the majority does not have the right or ability to eliminate those rights because they make up most of the people.

The majority can't decide to kill the minority because that's what most people want to do.

...

Do you see a difference between:

1) doing what most people want

2) creating a system based on what most people value

...

Again, the paper I linked last provided statistical evidence that this reality is a simulation.

...

Did you examine the premises of the paper?

...

If this is a simulation by beings that do not have infinite resources (they have to worry about things like entropy), they will make mistakes. Those mistakes will manifest as unexpected/unexplainable events. The prediction then if this reality is a simulation, then unexpected events will happen.

We see unexpected/unexplainable events happen. We made a prediction and the behavior of the system matches our prediction.

Our experiment failed to disprove that this is a simulation. That is evidence that it is a simulation.

...

How would you go about disproving that reality is a simulation?

Lets also explore the language game angle. Do you see a non-zero probability that some bachelors are married?

[JMS]

Okay, I'm not going to argue with you and play word/phrase games.

 

I would make the point that Mendel's laws are wrong and predictions based on Mendel's laws are wrong in some cases wrong a lot, and even Mendel understood that.

 

http://arstechnica.com/science/2010/04/breaking-mendels-laws-the-value-of-informative-errors/

I think that's a strong argument.   two scientists one coins a law another a theory;  both remain highly respected.  Both made significant contributions to their field of study.  Both ultimately had expressions of their work ( law or theory) which were subsequently termed to be incomplete.

 

I would argue this is more of an exception to the rule with Laws where as scientific theories by there very nature lend themselves better to be enhansed by subsquent study...   But I have no evidence to support that belief on hand.

[alexey]

Peter,

I looked at the paper you linked:

http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

It says:

This paper argues that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation. ...

Looks like it proves (or whatever you call it) one of 3 propositions. I am going with 2).

[PeterMP]

Do you see a difference between:

1) doing what most people want

2) creating a system based on what most people value

Did you examine the premises of the paper?

How would you go about disproving that reality is a simulation?

Lets also explore the language game angle. Do you see a non-zero probability that some bachelors are married?

 

1. I suspect I can see what you are driving at, and I suspect they are related.  People want what they value and don't value what they don't want.

 

2.  Yes, I examined the premise of the papers.

 

3.  I've given you one example in the last post, a paper that talked about it too from some people at Univ WI originally, and there are people at the University of Bonn working on it too: http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/science/121012/universe-computer-simulation-university-bonn-germany-matrix-beane

 

4.  How would you disprove that the universe is reproducable?

 

5.  I'm not really interested in playing word games, especially when you can't/won't answer questions like is there any reason to think that things won't change and what is the probability that you will wake up tomorrow and gravity will follow the equation g = m1*m2/r instead of m1*m2/r^2, how you came to that number, and how you took into the account the probability that this is a simulation into account when determining that number.

 

You've avoided these types of questions through out this thread.  Earlier, I repeatedly asked if this is a simulation and you spend your day studying how things collide, what have you learned.

 

You keep making assertions about "reality", using loaded words like reality and imaginary, but you refuse to answer the relevant questions.

 

Why?

[PeterMP]

Peter,

I looked at the paper you linked:

http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

It says:

This paper argues that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation. ...

Looks like it proves (or whatever you call it) one of 3 propositions. I am going with 2).

 

I've not used the word proven.

 

What evidence do you have that #2 is more likely to be true than #3?

 

(I'll also point out the that one of the things I don't like about this paper is the limitation to only 3 options.)

[alexey]

Maybe I can offer a new perspective on this.

In the past, the future has always resembled the past. We observed patterns continuing. We learned that "future resembles the past", on a macro level, by observation. Given similar conditions, it would be irrational to expect a different outcome. That is the very definition of irrationality.

So if, for whatever reason, things we consider rational flip with things we consider irrational and the future stops resembling the past, science may indeed become inferior to theology.

I my view beliefs are expectations based on models of reality, while knowledge or faith are the building blocks for those models.

[PeterMP]

Maybe I can offer a new perspective on this.

In the past, the future has always resembled the past. We observed patterns continuing. We learned that "future resembles the past", on a macro level, by observation. Given similar conditions, it would be irrational to expect a different outcome. That is the very definition of irrationality.

So if, for whatever reason, things we consider rational flip with things we consider irrational and the future stops resembling the past, science may indeed become inferior to theology.

I my view beliefs are expectations based on models of reality, while knowledge or faith are the building blocks for those models.

 

rational: not logical or reasonable.

 

I missed the part about the universe being natural in orgain and reproducible.

 

Two options:

1.  The universe is natural in orgin and reproducible

2.  The universe is not natural in orgin and there are simulators that control the reproducibility of the universe and if the past is a good predictor of the future is dependent on their will/whim

 

alexey's approach:

1.  Ignore the points that have been made in this thread and post "evidence" that doesn't actually distinguish between the two possibilities presented in this thread.

 

2.  define words that are somewhat subjective in a manner that allow him to criticize his opponents view points (i.e they are irrational and earlier in this thread they were absurd).

[gortiz]

Religion harms society: my recent speech at The Oxford Union

by MICHAEL NUGENT on NOVEMBER 20, 2013

 

We normally believe that claims are true or false by assessing the available evidence. And as claims become increasingly implausible, we proportionately raise the bar of the evidence that we require.

 

But with religion, we do the opposite. As the claims become increasingly implausible, we instead lower the bar of the evidence that we require.

 

Because religion encourages us to believe not only implausible claims, but literally untestable claims. And then it insists that we live our lives on the basis of these untestable claims.

 

Compare this with secular faiths that cause harm, such as faith in fascism, communism or the unregulated free market. Eventually these faiths bump into reality, and we realise they are not working. But religious faith hides its testability in an imaginary afterlife.

 

 

 

more here! http://www.michaelnugent.com/2013/11/20/religion-harms-society-my-recent-speech-at-the-oxford-union/

[alexey]

rational: not logical or reasonable.

 ...

ra·tion·al

ˈraSHənl,ˈraSHnəl/

adjective

adjective: rational

1.

based on or in accordance with reason or logic.

Claim: "we can use observed patterns to predict the future"

Do you think this is a rational, reasonable, logical conclusion based on the evidence that we have? All of these, any of these?

[PeterMP]

Claim: "we can use observed patterns to predict the future"

Do you think this is a rational, reasonable, logical conclusion based on the evidence that we have? All of these, any of these?

 

Problem is that I didn't say your post wasn't rational or irrational and that wasn't really what your post was about.

 

And as I've already agreed over two threads that there is some evidence and I actually believe the assumptios that underlie science are true so the answer to this question should be clear.

 

Your post was that other people are IRRATOINAL.

 

I've given you two papers in this this thread by two different people talking about the probability that this is a simulation.  What about those papers is irrational?

 

Can people look at the same evidence and draw different conclusions without one being irrational?

 

In the context of scientific disagreements can both parties be rational?

 

Here's the point again:

Two options:

1.  The universe is natural in orgin and reproducible

2.  The universe is not natural in orgin and there are simulators that control the reproducibility of the universe and if the past is a good predictor of the future is dependent on their will/whim

 

What about your previous post helps us distinguish between those two options.

[alexey]

I think this statement highlights where we differ:

I do things based on faith all of the time (and realistically so do you). Me and millions of other people in the world pray everyday, and you act like science and your senses absolutely give you true knowledge.

When burying nuts, does the squirrel have faith that the winter will come?

...

I've given you two papers in this this thread by two different people talking about the probability that this is a simulation. What about those papers is irrational?

Can people look at the same evidence and draw different conclusions without one being irrational?

In the context of scientific disagreements can both parties be rational?

Here's the point again:

Two options:

1. The universe is natural in orgin and reproducible

2. The universe is not natural in orgin and there are simulators that control the reproducibility of the universe and if the past is a good predictor of the future is dependent on their will/whim

What about your previous post helps us distinguish between those two options.

I do not know how to go about distinguishing between these two options. I do not even know how you get from "this may be a simulation" to "the future is dependent on their will/whim".

Continuity and repeatability is the basis of rationality itself. It seems you are attempting to rationally discuss a possibility of rationality becoming irrational.

So far we have observed continuity of natural laws. Do you have evidence that they may suddenly change?

[PeterMP]

I think this statement highlights where we differ:

When burying nuts, does the squirrel have faith that the winter will come?

I do not know how to go about distinguishing between these two options. I do not even know how you get from "this may be a simulation" to "the future is dependent on their will/whim".

Continuity and repeatability is the basis of rationality itself. It seems you are attempting to rationally discuss a possibility of rationality becoming irrational.

So far we have observed continuity of natural laws. Do you have evidence that they may suddenly change?

 

I don't know enough about the brain of a squirrel to know what squirrels believe.  Though I doubt that the word believe as used by humans applies to them.

 

(We've also been over this, if you want to tell me when you get on an aiplane that there isn't a high probability that it isn't going to crash, I'm not going to tell you that you are wrong about yourself.  But I suspect, you are pretty rare in that nature.)

 

I've already given evidence related to this being a simulation in this thread, and then I repeated it in the other thread.

 

Have you ever heard of a simulation where the simulators don't have control?

 

People report things changing rapidly all the time and other people just dismiss it because it isn't possible based on science. Scientists even observe this in the context of the science (for example, cold fusions claims).

 

Let's flip it around.  The human brain is good at finding patterns.  You see a pattern (the past predicts the future), do you have any evidence that the pattern is real?

[alexey]

I don't know enough about the brain of a squirrel to know what squirrels believe. Though I doubt that the word believe as used by humans applies to humans.

(We've also been over this, if you want to tell me when you get on an aiplane that there isn't a high probability that it isn't going to crash, I'm not going to tell you that you are wrong about yourself. But I suspect, you are pretty rare in that nature.)

Let's say set E{} contains probabilities that are based on empirical obervations, and set A{} contains absolute probabilities that are based on the true nature of reality.

We only have access to set E{}, and cannot say anything about set A{}.

Values for some events (e.g. discontiuation of natural laws) in set E{} have probabilities of 0, even though the same event may have other probabilities in set A{}.

You seem to be suggesting that by taking actions based on the set E{}, I am necessarily asserting something about the set A{}. I disagree because I consider set A{} to be entirely inaccessible.

I've already given evidence related to this being a simulation in this thread, and then I repeated it in the other thread.

Have you ever heard of a simulation where the simulators don't have control?

I know things about simulations that we do, but I do not know which properties of our simuations can be applied to simulations of the Universe.

I find "reality could be a simulation" to be insufficient evidence for "natural laws may stop working at any time"

People report things changing rapidly all the time and other people just dismiss it because it isn't possible based on science. Scientists even observe this in the context of the science (for example, cold fusions claims).

Let's flip it around. The human brain is good at finding patterns. You see a pattern (the past predicts the future), do you have any evidence that the pattern is real?

At a minimum it's as real as our other perceptions like colors, pain, etc. I would need more information to determine what (if any) aspects of the natural world were reflected by those mental events.

[PeterMP]

Let's say set E{} contains probabilities that are based on empirical obervations, and set A{} contains absolute probabilities that are based on the true nature of reality.

We only have access to set E{}, and cannot say anything about set A{}.

Values for some events (e.g. discontiuation of natural laws) in set E{} have probabilities of 0, even though the same event may have other probabilities in set A{}.

You seem to be suggesting that by taking actions based on the set E{}, I am necessarily asserting something about the set A{}. I disagree because I consider set A{} to be entirely inaccessible.

1. It isn't inaccessible. It is inaccessible based on what science can do at this time, but as I've already stated in multiple threads people have reasons for their non-scientific beliefs. You choose to define HOW things can be accessible and inaccessible in a manner that allows you to actually determine they are accessible. Through things like basic statistics and probability it is already accessible, which should be obvious based on the things I've already posted (as well as other methods).

2. You're falling into the same trap that you always do. You are asserting B is true, while forgetting that B is true only based on the assumption that A is true. Yes if science is true, then science is true.

The flip of that is if the Bible is true the Bible is true.

If I say things can ONLY be accessed through one method, then yes that method becomes the superior way of accessing things.

I know things about simulations that we do, but I do not know which properties of our simuations can be applied to simulations of the Universe.

I find "reality could be a simulation" to be insufficient evidence for "natural laws may stop working at any time"

I think here you are playing word games with what a simulation is. By definition, a simulation has simulators that would control it. Go back and read the papers I've already posted. The analogy they make is the Sims games in the one paper. The simulation has a something controlling it.

At a minimum it's as real as our other perceptions like colors, pain, etc. I would need more information to determine what (if any) aspects of the natural world were reflected by those mental events.

Why?

Why can't the universe be a completely random system without natural laws?

At an infinite level (universe size) and over very long periods of times what would the probability for a period of time getting a local area of space and time that seemed to behave like it had natural laws based on our senses, especially given the human brain's desire to find patterns and assign causes?

How much randomness could occur in the system before we recongized that there wasn't a pattern of the past predicting the future in a manner consistent with the universe having natural laws?

If I get an infinite number of people and have them starting flipping coins, one will get 200 heads in a row. She/he will think the past is a good predictor of the future in terms of the coin being heads (i.e. they will think there is a very large probability that they will only get head and can develop a whole bunch of "science" based on the coin having to come up heads. And on the 201st flip, they get tails, and even when they get tails they might even dismiss it as well something messed up like the instrumentation was wrong or their senses were wrong).

Why aren't we that person with respect to natural laws?

[alexey]

1. It isn't inaccessible. It is inaccessible based on what science can do at this time, but as I've already stated in multiple threads people have reasons for their non-scientific beliefs. You choose to define HOW things can be accessible and inaccessible in a manner that allows you to actually determine they are accessible. Through things like basic statistics and probability it is already accessible, which should be obvious based on the things I've already posted (as well as other methods).

Ultimate reality is inaccessible due to infinite regress - there can always be a next layer of simulation.

 

2. You're falling into the same trap that you always do. You are asserting B is true, while forgetting that B is true only based on the assumption that A is true. Yes if science is true, then science is true.

The flip of that is if the Bible is true the Bible is true.

If I say things can ONLY be accessed through one method, then yes that method becomes the superior way of accessing things.

I think here you are playing word games with what a simulation is. By definition, a simulation has simulators that would control it. Go back and read the papers I've already posted. The analogy they make is the Sims games in the one paper. The simulation has a something controlling it.

Why?

Why can't the universe be a completely random system without natural laws?

Yes knowledge based on observations is validated by observations and knowledge based on the Bible is validated by the Bible.

 

If I get an infinite number of people and have them starting flipping coins, one will get 200 heads in a row. She/he will think the past is a good predictor of the future in terms of the coin being heads (i.e. they will think there is a very large probability that they will only get head and can develop a whole bunch of "science" based on the coin having to come up heads. And on the 201st flip, they get tails, and even when they get tails they might even dismiss it as well something messed up like the instrumentation was wrong or their senses were wrong).

Why aren't we that person with respect to natural laws?

Because our knowledge of natural laws is being continuously validated by observations.

[PeterMP]

 Because our knowledge of natural laws is being continuously validated by observations.

 

1.  The 198th flip of the coin validated the previous 197 flip of the coins for the person that keeps flipping the coin and getting heads.

 

2.  I'd also say that our knowledge of natural laws is also being continually invalidated by observations.  People continue to observe things that at least don't make sense based on our current knowledge of natural laws- whether it is somebody that doesn't switch lanes because an angle told him not to and therefore avoiding an accident, scientists that observe excess energy being produced while electrolysis of heavy water with Pd, or evidence that comes up that something like the fine structure constant, which we thought was a constant doesn't actually appear to be a constant.

 

We've created a society with a believed in "observed pattern" (i.e. the past is a good predictor of the future) and a strong bias to explain things that don't fit that belief as "mistake", "errors" or something else so that the underling assumption is never really rigorously challenged, tested, or even examined

 

And you can see that in your response.

 

You can't answer with the truth- you don't know.

 

You have to try and explain it.  Your bias (which is partly a societal bias) prevents you from even seriously examing the question and point.

[alexey]

Peter, do you have evidence that challenges our current models of understanding the universe?

[AsburySkinsFan]

Peter, do you have evidence that challenges our current models of understanding the universe?

Surely you can do better than this, heck the current models of the universe are less than 20 years old. Which means that in our very lifetimes the model of our universe has changed. So pardon me if I call a foul on your demand for PeterMP to produce a new model.

All over there is the saying, "If you don't like the weather, wait five minutes it'll change." It seems that the same holds true for universe models, and just because Peter can't produce one for you doesn't mean that there isn't an astrophysicist working on another transition at this moment.

[alexey]

ASF - one is expected to produce a model that accounts for all available evidence if one is advancing a new model of the universe. Keep in mind that Peter is talking about discontinuity of natural laws.

[PeterMP]

Peter, do you have evidence that challenges our current models of understanding the universe?

 

Depending on what your model is and how you want to think about them, I think I gave you 3 in the above post.

 

Considering it is built on an untested assumption, do you have any evidence that it is correct?

[alexey]

Depending on what your model is and how you want to think about them, I think I gave you 3 in the above post.

Considering it is built on an untested assumption, do you have any evidence that it is correct?

I am talking about models that are built entirely on observations. Natural laws, future resembling the past, all are based on observations.

What untested assumption are you talking about?

[Kosher Ham]

Reading some of these posts makes me feel that my "belief" of no "absolute truth"...is real.  

 

For example...

 

Multiple Gods, languages, etc.

 

The grass can not be called green here and verde elsewhere...doesn't make sense.

[chipwhich]

Reading some of these posts makes me feel that my "belief" of no "absolute truth"...is real.  

 

For example...

 

Multiple Gods, languages, etc.

 

The grass can not be called green here and verde elsewhere...doesn't make sense.

 

How about some of us have had the "belief" and then realize the "absolute truth".