tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post3796746734387823387..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Plant's Epigenome as Varied as Their EnvironmentsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger462125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-90253659434096289332013-04-08T11:57:11.278-07:002013-04-08T11:57:11.278-07:00It looks to me like epigenetics may open the door ...It looks to me like epigenetics may open the door to Lamarckian processes as well as Darwinian processes. So, the future evolution theory may contain elements of both and yet be something newer. So yes, evolution is dead! Long live evolution!<br /><br />John Stockwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03496308585336775569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-91614633391114947652013-04-07T21:18:47.290-07:002013-04-07T21:18:47.290-07:00Hey Nic!
I'm doing well. You didn't miss...Hey Nic!<br /><br />I'm doing well. You didn't miss a thing in this thread, just 400+ pages of Jeff blithering the same philosophical nonsense.<br /><br />Sharks made a few semi-big trades (Ryane Clowe, Doug Murray) but I'm torn because they picked up Raffi Torres. I CAN'T STAND that cheap shot clown. He's a head-hunter, always been a head-hunter. I wanted to see him banned from the league but now I'm supposed to root for him??<br /><br />Looks like your Leafs missed out on the big goalie deal. Kipper didn't want to leave Calgary and Canucks wanted too much for Luongo. We'll see what the playoffs bring.<br /><br />Hope the business sale went well, I'll catch up with you again in the next thread or two, mook ;)Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-77395193794316568902013-04-07T19:46:37.974-07:002013-04-07T19:46:37.974-07:00Thorton,
Hey Buddy, how are you doing? I'm so...Thorton,<br /><br />Hey Buddy, how are you doing? I'm so far out of the loop on this thread I won't make a comment. I just thought I'd drop in to see how you're feeling about your Sharks these days. I see they lost today, after winning seven in a row, so you must be happy. <br /><br />My Leafs are doing OK, though I hope they get Lupul back soon. What a run he had eh? It bugs me they stuck in 5th with more points than Washington who get 3rd simply because they are tops in their division. How dumb is that. I hope one these years the NHL gets stuck with embarrassing situation where division leader is given a playoff spot while a team with more points is out. Maybe then they will change this asinine system.<br /><br />Hope you and your family are doing well. I'll jump back in in a while.<br /><br />No jokes about me always being out of the loop:)Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-75292258702610785032013-04-07T06:37:29.454-07:002013-04-07T06:37:29.454-07:00Sir Martin Rees sees where consensus physics has t...Sir Martin Rees sees where consensus physics has taken us (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyH2D4-tzfM). He has no problem with thinking he's in a matrix, etc. Why? Because consensus physics is THIS counter-intuitive in the first place. The idea of "plausibility," and therefore the traditional meaning of "evidence," has NO relevance to consensus science. Thus, when they talking about "overwhelming evidence," they're saying ABSOLUTELY nothing relevant to the traditional meaning of those words. Indeed, in an over-all context of total counter-intuitiveness, the word plausibility has no meaning whatsoever.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-87419958783856532382013-04-07T06:30:18.051-07:002013-04-07T06:30:18.051-07:00velikovskys: By the way Zach I believe Joe thinks ...<b>velikovskys</b>: <i>By the way Zach I believe Joe thinks you owe him $10,000 because he is not as big a moron as humanly possible. </i><br /> <br />Think that's Andy. <br /> <br /><b>velikovskys</b>: <i>Unless you like hitting the load more five times, there is a completely unused post previously to this one, maybe you could continue it there? </i><br /><br />Good idea. We'll continue the discussion here:<br />http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2013/03/sharks-have-incredible-voltage-sensor.html<br /> Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-42604463828491484092013-04-07T06:16:23.467-07:002013-04-07T06:16:23.467-07:00Nazaroo
Why don't you delete all Thorton'...<i>Nazaroo<br /><br />Why don't you delete all Thorton's posts,<br />and if necessary all the replies?</i><br /><br />Or you could try adding something of value instead of being one more ignorant screeching IDiot throwing rocks from the sidelines.<br /><br />But you won't.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-84069370530402696522013-04-07T06:02:14.012-07:002013-04-07T06:02:14.012-07:00We start off as infants, seemingly, with no learne...We start off as infants, seemingly, with no learned interpretive capacity to infer 3-dimensions. As the sense of touch is refined, the infant eventually acquires the ability to relate seemingly diverse locations of "touch" to aspects of what is "seen." And then the infant can start inferring what seems to be the 3-dimensionality of stuff. And, of course, the sense of hearing has location aspects, too, and so on.<br /><br />Anyway, we eventually find out that virtually everything we once inferred to be 3-D was really mostly free space. This means that the only way we can still distinguish solipsism from its alternatives, in terms of EMPIRICISM, is to hold to atomism so that SOMETHING can still be held to be 3-D. This means that there are still multiple beings (contra solipsism), regardless of whether the self is conceived of as 3-D or not. And as importantly, it means that the vast majority of beings are very small 3-D particles.<br /><br /> As I understand it, string theorists deny that anything is 3-D. If so, if they hold to empiricism at all, they mean by it something phenomenological only. At that point, it is hard to see how a string theorist is not a solipsist after all.<br /><br />Einsteinian Relativity (ER) is also a complete game-changer with respect to atomism. Before ER, all atomists could intuitively hold to the same principle of individuation for 3-D entities: no 3-D entity could occupy the same space as another 3-D entity. ER changed that. For ER posits that space is not the mere spatial frame of reference Westerners once conceived it to be. Rather, space is an entity extended in 3-D. Of course, something like the traditional spatial reference frame is still needed to conceive of what it means to "expand," "bend," "move," etc. But seemingly, there's no word for it in our vocabulary anymore now that "space" has been assigned a new meaning.<br /><br />But if space is a 3-D entity, there is no way we can hold to atomism using the traditional principle of individuation to distinguish 3-D entities. Physics, due to ER alone, is totally counter-intuitive. That means it has no plausibility in terms of atomism. QT just adds to that implausibility. Logically, one can not "predict" or "imply" an event is uncaused. That is a contradiction. Some QT'ists hold that the act of observation IS the cause. But that just creates the atheistic problem of what served as a cause for events prior to conscious beings.<br /><br />In short, modern physics is no longer atomistic. It is phenomenological. It is a joke to pretend that consensus physics is one iota more plausible than solipsism. But that doesn't mean that consensus physics isn't valuable for its usefulness. An atomist can realize that consensus physics is quite useful while thinking its axioms are self-evidently false. And as such, it has a scientific role. It's when scientists say that their theories are plausible that they're saying something absurd. Unless, that is, they want to ALSO say that solipsism is plausible so we can know how LITTLE is meant by the word "plausible" in the consensus "world."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-79756107320140801882013-04-07T01:09:20.169-07:002013-04-07T01:09:20.169-07:00I only have one thing to say here:
Why don't ...I only have one thing to say here:<br /><br />Why don't you delete all Thorton's posts, <br />and if necessary all the replies?<br />I find it tiring and tedious to have to <br />scroll through vitriolic garbage to find <br />sincere posters and questions on topic. <br /><br />Ouch.<br />Nazaroohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03584331774685466296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-5418064046020343342013-04-06T20:26:29.123-07:002013-04-06T20:26:29.123-07:00Unless you like hitting the load more five times, ...Unless you like hitting the load more five times, there is a completely unused post previously to this one, maybe you could continue it there?<br />Hate to see it end this way, kinda curious to see how it turns out<br /><br /><br />By the way Zach I believe Joe thinks you owe him <br />$10,000 because he is not as big a moron as humanly possible. velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01825529912160289226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-10352361973868231162013-04-06T19:42:23.326-07:002013-04-06T19:42:23.326-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-59883824304397488892013-04-06T19:32:14.360-07:002013-04-06T19:32:14.360-07:00Jeff: Are you saying that this is not a human limi...Jeff: Are you saying that this is not a human limitation? <br /><br />Z1: That's correct. It has nothing to do with observational limitations. This isn't a new discovery. It's been the foundation of physics for generations.<br /><br />Z2: All scientific claims are tentative...In any case, even if there were a more advanced theory that could salvage determinism for quantum phenomena,<br /><br />J: Do you honestly not see how you're contradicting yourself? The tentativeness of science is ALWAYS about human limitations. What else could it be ABOUT?<br /><br />Z: it doesn't change the essential point. Quantum theory, which entails indeterminacy, is a valid scientific theory, something you say can't be. <br /><br />J: No, I said science can be about usefulness as well as plausibility. Unless I've been lied to, QT is useful for some things. That doesn't mean it's true or even plausible, though.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-16743134970423519742013-04-06T18:58:25.945-07:002013-04-06T18:58:25.945-07:00Jeff: Are you saying that this is not a human limi...<b>Jeff</b>: <i>Are you saying that this is not a human limitation? </i><br /><br />That's correct. It has nothing to do with observational limitations. This isn't a new discovery. It's been the foundation of physics for generations. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>That these events aren't caused, and you really want to say that this claim is non-tentative? If so, then it's a not a scientific claim. </i><br /><br />All scientific claims are tentative, eppur si muove. <br /><br />In any case, even if there were a more advanced theory that could salvage determinism for quantum phenomena, it doesn't change the essential point. Quantum theory, which entails indeterminacy, is a valid scientific theory, something you say can't be. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>If the theory POSITS that future events will occur within some statistical range, it doesn't imply it. </i><br /><br />Seriously. Read a basic textbook on quantum theory or something. <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-68985539403484107742013-04-06T18:44:18.979-07:002013-04-06T18:44:18.979-07:00Moronton, define "fact," and then tell m...Moronton, define "fact," and then tell me how you recognize one?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-68474995724467327462013-04-06T17:42:36.078-07:002013-04-06T17:42:36.078-07:00Jeff: the inability to explain (i.e., imply or pre...Jeff: the inability to explain (i.e., imply or predict via any specific theory) is NOT the logical equivalent of knowing that an event is uncaused.<br /><br />Z: nevertheless, quantum indeterminacy is built into the structure of the universe.<br /><br />J: Are you saying that this is not a human limitation? That these events aren't caused, and you really want to say that this claim is non-tentative? If so, then it's a not a scientific claim.<br /><br />Jeff: ... with such ridiculous and mind-bogglingly arrogant claims.<br /><br />Z: Well, that would be physicists, such as those that recently discovered the Higgs boson.<br /><br />J: Amazingly enough, they thought they needed corroboration. They didn't think they were non-tentatively right. Or did they?<br /><br />Jeff: That has nothing to do with a theory EXPLAINING it.<br /><br />Z: Quantum theory explains many observations.<br /><br />J: Not if it posits that the events observed aren't caused. Explanation, by definition, is a causal accounting of something.<br /><br />Jeff: if the theory posits that events aren't caused, it can't, without positing a contradiction, turn around and say that it IMPLIES future events, or even that future events will occur within some statistical range.<br /><br />Z: Quantum theory does exactly that.<br /><br />J: If the theory POSITS that future events will occur within some statistical range, it doesn't imply it. The exact same expectation will follow from analogical extrapolation from sufficient enumeration. So if it implies it from a-plausible premises that are not otherwise corroborated with a high corroboration-to-assumption ratio, it is worthless as a prediction precisely because the same EXPECTATION occurs because of inductive intellectual impulse. And the natural analogical expectation trumps (in terms of inherent plausibility) a prediction from a-plausible premises that are not otherwise well-corroborated. So what are the premises that imply this implication, and how are they otherwise well-corroborated?<br /><br />Jeff: Would you also agree that the assumptions can't be contradictory?<br /><br />Z: Preferably. Theories should be self-consistent, but science is full of contradictions.<br /><br />J: And that's why falsifiability is not the criteria of science. Science has two aspects, plausibility and usefulness. A theory can be useful while false. And it can seem plausible while false. What is relevant to the ID-SA vs. naturalistic UCA debate is the relative plausibility issue. When scientists say, in the name of science, that there is overwhelming evidence for naturalistic UCA, they are saying something that is absolutely false. There is no discernable plausibility to any of its millions of assumptions that merely ACCUMULATIVELY EQUATE to naturalistic, bifurcated UCA. And it implies no bona-fide empirical observations about the paleontological record that can falsify the theory. All it does is imply a specific cause of the nested hierarchy. It is non-sense to say that there is "over-whelming" evidence for it.<br /><br />Jeff: but does it go further and claim dogmatically (thereby, denying the tentativeness of science) that no other theory could POSSIBLY predict what it can't?<br /><br />Z: Various tests, such as of Bell's Inequality imply that local realism doesn't apply to the quantum realm. Yet, given this, it still remains a powerful scientific theory. This directly contradicts your position.<br /><br />J: My position is that two logically contradictory statements can't both be true. A theory can be very useful and yet be simultaneously-believed to be false. Newton's theory is an example.<br /><br />My other position is that conclusions inherit only the plausibility (plausibilty has to do with truth, not usefulness) of their premises unless they can imply lots of potentially-corroborable implications and successfully pass the related tests with a high corroboration-to-assumption ratio. That's why naturalistic UCA can only be plausible as compared to something else, not in terms of evidence (there is none). But none of you have demonstrated that it is more plausible than SA by any rational criteria.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-42200436875029009742013-04-06T14:28:17.451-07:002013-04-06T14:28:17.451-07:00Jeff: And it's also very basic in logic (which...<b>Jeff</b>: <i>And it's also very basic in logic (which you are quite pathetic at) that the inability to explain (i.e., imply or predict via any specific theory) is NOT the logical equivalent of knowing that an event is uncaused. </i><br /><br />Sure, nevertheless, quantum indeterminacy is built into the structure of the universe. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>... with such ridiculous and mind-bogglingly arrogant claims. </i><br /><br />Well, that would be physicists, such as those that recently discovered the Higgs boson. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>That has nothing to do with a theory EXPLAINING it. </i><br /><br />Quantum theory explains many observations. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>But if the theory posits that events aren't caused, it can't, without positing a contradiction, turn around and say that it IMPLIES future events, or even that future events will occur within some statistical range. </i><br /><br />Quantum theory does exactly that. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>Would you also agree that the assumptions can't be contradictory? </i><br /><br />Preferably. Theories should be self-consistent, but science is full of contradictions. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>but does it go further and claim dogmatically (thereby, denying the tentativeness of science) that no other theory could POSSIBLY predict what it can't? </i><br /><br />Various tests, such as of Bell's Inequality imply that local realism doesn't apply to the quantum realm. Yet, given this, it still remains a powerful scientific theory. This directly contradicts your position. <br /><br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-72118912802896217042013-04-06T13:23:33.533-07:002013-04-06T13:23:33.533-07:00Thorton,
Hey Buddy, how are you doing? I'm wa...Thorton,<br /><br />Hey Buddy, how are you doing? I'm way out of the loop on this discussion, so I'm just dropping in to see if you're feeling better about your Sharks. <br /><br />Playoffs are getting close, everything is for real now.<br /><br />And no jokes about me always being out of the loop:)Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-73232247992476372922013-04-06T08:35:33.572-07:002013-04-06T08:35:33.572-07:00Z: It's very basic in quantum mechanics that w...Z: It's very basic in quantum mechanics that we can't predict when a particle will decay, <br /><br />J: And it's also very basic in logic (which you are quite pathetic at) that the inability to explain (i.e., imply or predict via any specific theory) is NOT the logical equivalent of knowing that an event is uncaused. You're denying the tentativeness of science with such ridiculous and mind-bogglingly arrogant claims.<br /><br />Z: but can give probabilities.<br /><br />J: I can make observations and then note that they fall into some statistical range. I can then, based on MERE inductive enumeration, analogically extrapolate and suppose that future observations will fall into that same statistical range. That has nothing to do with a theory EXPLAINING it. You're UTTERLY confused.<br /><br />Z: Nevertheless, very accurate predictions of quantum phenomena can be made, and it is considered a very successful scientific theory. <br /><br />J: I don't deny it. But if the theory posits that events aren't caused, it can't, without positing a contradiction, turn around and say that it IMPLIES future events, or even that future events will occur within some statistical range. It can only imply something if CAUSALITY is involved. Otherwise, any correlation is a mere fluke, by DEFINITION. <br /><br />You have proved that you, like all other atheists I've ever argued with, do NOT know what it means for science to be tentative. A theory that posits something about the fabric of the universe does NOT thereby RENDER the universe that way. Even 5-year-olds get this, dude. You, like Moronton, are a complete brain-dead fideist.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-27251874729304044882013-04-06T08:23:49.708-07:002013-04-06T08:23:49.708-07:00Jeff: A theory is a set of hypothetical assumption...Jeff: A theory is a set of hypothetical assumptions that imply things.<br /><br />Z: Sure,<br /><br />J: I'm glad you agree. Maybe we can move forward. Would you also agree that the assumptions can't be contradictory? If not, science is irrational, per your definition of it. If so, are the assumptions of QT non-contradictory?<br /><br />Z: but it doesn't necessarily mean being able to predict everything,<br /><br />J: Of course not. We've already agreed that gas theory doesn't predict the micro-level trajectories with specificity. It merely implies that they average out with respect to their effects upon the macro-observation. Otherwise, the macroscopic behavior would not be natural (i.e., repeatable given the same initial conditions).<br /><br />Z: In the case of quantum mechanics, there are strict limitations on what can be predicted.<br /><br />J: Fine, but does it go further and claim dogmatically (thereby, denying the tentativeness of science) that no other theory could POSSIBLY predict what it can't?<br /><br />Z: This has important implications for your notions of determinism, and the scientific method.<br /><br />J: Determinism is what implications require. Implications follow NECESSARILY from their premises. The only question is, does extra-ego reality function causally such that it can be modeled by human deduction at all?<br /><br />Apart from the existence of entities that are extended in at least 3 dimensions, "empiricism" has no meaning relevant to rendering solipsism less plausible than its competing hypotheses. But a 3-D-extended entity will necessarily have certain properties that are correlative. A 3-D extended entity can not have spin but no volume, e.g., or spin but no rate of spin. To say that because your theory predicts only a subset of correlative properties that the other correlative properties don't exist is to posit a contradiction. Is this what you're saying QT posits? Such a contradiction?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-38812319083404499792013-04-06T08:12:18.224-07:002013-04-06T08:12:18.224-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-47300551393576441942013-04-06T08:03:32.900-07:002013-04-06T08:03:32.900-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-52330280405239563132013-04-06T07:46:33.541-07:002013-04-06T07:46:33.541-07:00Sorry, Jeff. It's rather hard to make any prog...Sorry, Jeff. It's rather hard to make any progress in our discussion, as you have a very poor grasp of science. Now, even the vast majority of physicists have to be wrong about physics for you to be right. <br /><br />It's very basic in quantum mechanics that we can't predict when a particle will decay, but can give probabilities. Furthermore, that this lack of predictability is not due to human technical limitations, but is built into the fabric of the universe. Perhaps, it is demons controlling each photon, what you might call zillions of 'ad hoc' assumptions. Nevertheless, very accurate predictions of quantum phenomena can be made, and it is considered a very successful scientific theory. <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-21251640004753513892013-04-06T07:41:04.272-07:002013-04-06T07:41:04.272-07:00Z, Benton is right, and you are wrong. The conting...Z, Benton is right, and you are wrong. The contingencies of geology, taphonomy, ecology, and discovery are so beyond our ability to non-arbitrarily calculate relevant probabilities for whether fossil finds are corroborations or not.<br /><br />You can posit all the millions upon millions of a-plausible assumptions you must to imply that a particular tree is a the result of naturalistic UCA that proceeded by bifurcated descent. But that's the only implication you have. Because the minute you try to use the implied temporal ordering of those critters (based on their "location" in THAT tree) to deduce where, stratigraphically, intermediate traits might be, you have other logical problems relating to relative plausibility to SA and falsification:<br /><br />1) First, if you find the relevantly-intermediate traits, but not in the inferred stratigraphic range (as was the case for fishy-pod), you can only save that tree from falsification by showing that the reverse order does not fail a fixed, objectively-applicable criteria for determining when order violation (e.g., earlier tetrapod tracks) falsifies the tree. Where in the literature can I find such a fixed, objectively-applicable criteria agreed upon by the biological consensi? Short of that, you're playing the same game the 5-minute theory does.<br /><br />2) If you don't find a sufficient number of relevantly-intermediate traits in the range implied by a fixed, objective criteria, you either publicly accept that saltations did the rest of the bridging or you come up with another fixed, objectively-applicable criteria to determine when failure to find relevant intermediate traits falsifies the tree. For if there is NO such falsification criteria, SA'ists are likewise free to play the same unfalisfiable 5-minute-theory-style game with the contingencies of geology, taphonomy, ecology, discovery, etc to evade falsification. And even if you resort to saltations, they have to satisfy the bifurcate descent criteria to maintain the nested hierarchy interpreation.<br /><br />It ought to be obvious that continual stratigraphic range increases alone render it highly unlikely that the consensi will ever agree to any such falsification criteria. And that means there never IS an empirical prediction/implication from a given tree. That which can not be FALSIFIED empirically is not implied to BE empirical. You're a 5-minute theorist and don't have the sense to see it.<br /><br />And this means that SA is better than UCA. For an SA approach can explain the nested hierarchy teleologically on the same grounds that certain teleological approaches explain the non-incidental correspondence of human inductive inference to an extra-ego reality, thereby rendering the 5-minute-theory unacceptably implausible merely because it is counter-inductive. No millions upon millions of a-plausible assumptions are required to explain the nested hierarchy for such SA'ists.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-22591980453068680342013-04-06T07:14:42.557-07:002013-04-06T07:14:42.557-07:00Jeff: A theory is a set of hypothetical assumption...<b>Jeff</b>: <i>A theory is a set of hypothetical assumptions that imply things. </i><br /><br />Sure, but it doesn't necessarily mean being able to predict everything, or being able to predict your arbitrary strawmen. In the case of quantum mechanics, there are strict limitations on what can be predicted. This has important implications for your notions of determinism, and the scientific method. <br /><br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-11140899774385575522013-04-06T06:51:00.877-07:002013-04-06T06:51:00.877-07:00Z, do you believe that the hypothesis of naturalis...Z, do you believe that the hypothesis of naturalistic UCA is more plausible than solipsism or the 5-minute theory? If so, can you define "plausible" as it's used in that case and then explain WHY you think it's more plausible than those other two?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-92083622085024313272013-04-06T06:44:38.613-07:002013-04-06T06:44:38.613-07:00Z: From what we can gather, Von Flandern doesn'...Z: From what we can gather, Von Flandern doesn't know the difference between a field and a wave.<br /><br />J: What did he say that indicates that?<br /><br />Jeff: Any event that is not caused is not predicted/implied, by definition. Thus, there is no test if the events are posited to be uncaused.<br /><br />Z: There are no local hidden variables, if that is what you mean.<br /><br /><br />J: I didn't say a word about hidden variables. I merely stated what is true by definition. A theory is a set of hypothetical assumptions that imply things. But an uncaused event can not be implied. To say an event is predicted/implied by a theory is just another way of saying the event is caused.<br /><br />Z: We brought up physics as an example that doesn't fit your views of science.<br /><br />J: If "science" is about uncaused events, it's not about explanations or predictable (i.e., theoretically-implied) events. Explanations are causal accounts. If you want to define science that way, knock yourself out. Just be sure to tell Congress that when you're vying for funding.<br /><br />Z: Now, not only are biologists wrong, but geologists are wrong, paleontologists are wrong, but physicists are wrong too. <br /><br />J: You can't prove the 5-minute theorist or the solipsist is "wrong," either, by your approach. So what's your point?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com