Except His Religion
With his upcoming reprisal of Carl Sagan’s acclaimed Cosmos documentary just weeks away, astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson’s interview with Bill Moyers touches on science and religion as well. At the [16:50] mark Moyers wonders about religious people who are trying to find signs of the divine in all those cold, hard scientific findings. Like most journalists Moyers takes the mythical Warfare Thesis (religion fights the inexorable march of science when not in full retreat and must locate its god in the gaps not yet filled by science) for granted and asked unsurprising questions about the feeble-minded faithful for the Director of the Hayden Planetarium to reluctantly set straight. The exchange reaches peak banality at the [20:50] mark where Tyson finally cuts to the heart of the matter. Religion cannot be allowed in science:
Go think whatever you want. Go ahead. Think that there is one god, two gods, ten gods, or no gods. That is what it means to live in a free country. The problem arises, is if you have a religious philosophy, that is not based in objective realities, that you then want to put in the science classroom. Then I’m going to stand there and say “No, I’m not going to allow you into the science classroom.” I’m not telling you what to think, I’m just telling you the science classroom—you’re not doing science, this is not science, keep it out. That’s when I stand up.
This is, of course, standard evolutionary fare. Blame others for introducing religion into science after, yes, introducing religion into science. It is Tyson who insists the world spontaneously arose (Evolution is “not only an important concept in biology but an important concept in all of science.” [3:50 in this video]) in spite of having precisely, err, no idea of how that happened while, on the other hand, mandating the evolutionary metaphysics that this must be true because we all know this world could not have been designed:
Star formation is completely inefficient. Most places in the universe will kill life instantly—instantly! People say “Oh, the forces of nature are just right for life.” Excuse me. Just look at the volume of the universe where you can’t live. You will die instantly. That is not what I call the Garden of Eden, alright. … We’re on a collision course with the Andromeda galaxy—gone is this beautiful spiral that we have. And of course we’re on a one-way, expanding universe as we wind down to oblivion, as the temperature of the universe approaches absolute zero.
And that is only the beginning. You can see and hear Tyson’s religious concerns beginning at around 32:00 in this video. Yes you can find clever designs and beauty, but there is always evil and dysteleology lurking. For every Paley, there is a Hume:
And so, if I came upon a frozen waterfall, and it just struck me for all its beauty, I would then turn over the rock and try to find a millipede, or some kind of deadly newt, and put that in context, and realize, of course, the universe is not here for us.
Not here for us? And from where did Tyson gain this scientia? Which experiment informed him that these things demonstrate that the world “is not here for us”? Of course there is none, for this isn’t science.
This coming from the man who points the finger and says “you’re not doing science, this is not science, keep it out.”
How sad that DeGrasse and Moyers have chosen ignorance over truth.
ReplyDeleteI watched original Cosmos by Sagan and I was very impressed as a kid. It actually made me interested in astronomy and science in general.
ReplyDeleteBeing somewhat chunky and the way he talks De Grasse Tyson is not as charismatic, mystic looking as Sagan. He should stop babbling against religion. I'm religious and I love science. Why not, what's the problem? He's suspicious.,what's his agenda?
Maybe he wants to be new Dawkins and take over the torch with a black flame of atheism.
Eugen:
DeleteHe should stop babbling against religion. I'm religious and ....
So is Tyson, except more so. He is not "babbling against religion," he is babbling for religion--his religion. Imagine if you believed what he believes.
*he is babbling for religion--his religion*
DeleteGood point, I always miss that. You have been warning about that for a long time.
Evolutionary mysticism is an ancient religion.
DeleteCH: he is babbling for religion--his religion
DeleteEugine: Good point, I always miss that. You have been warning about that for a long time.
It wouldn’t be such a good criticism, if you, or even Cornelius, actually took his criticism seriously.
Given his argument, the idea that lighting is a natural phenomena is religious, so is the idea that gravity is a uniform law of nature, etc.
From an earlier comment…
Part of the world we observe includes objects pulling on each other based on their mass. How did God choose to bring this aspect about?
Being supposedly all knowing, God could know the mass of every object in the universe. Being supposedly all powerful, he could exert the amount of force necessary, regardless of how much mass. And, being supposedly infinite, he could keeping track of all of the objects in the universe without negatively effecting his ability to do anything else.
However, what would be the consequences of this?
If God were pulling on objects according to their mass, when someone falls off a cliff, slips in the bathtub or steps under a falling piano, God would be playing an direct, active role in their death. This is in contrast to creating a natural law that indirectly operates on objects in a way that is indifferent to the outcome. If I were concerned about God’s wisdom, sovereignty, etc., (which I’m not) a natural law that is impartial and acts the same everywhere in the universe would solve the problem quite neatly, wouldn’t it?
Does this mean the theory that gravity is a natural law that acts uniformly in the universe isn’t science, but a religious belief?
IOW, he’s arbitrarily applying it. Well, actually, it’s not arbitrary. He’s selectively applying it to a theory that conflicts with his theological commitments, unlike gravity as a natural force, which does not.
So, if it’s such a good criticism, then why doesn’t Cornelius apply it equally? Why would’t you apply it equally?
I enjoyed Cosmos too although I think Jacob Bronowski's The Ascent of Man was better.
DeleteYou can certainly extend the meaning of religion to encompass any belief, if you want, but only at the expense of making the word effectively meaningless if it is stretched to fit anything.
The other odd thing about the tactic of casting science as a religion is that it implies that science is - or, at least, is commonly regarded as - the superior source of knowledge, but one that must be downgraded to just another religion. The problem is that the tactic is a tacit admission hat religion is regarded as the inferior source of knowledge which I doubt is the purpose of the exercise.
Ian:
DeleteYou can certainly extend the meaning of religion to encompass any belief, if you want, but only at the expense of making the word effectively meaningless if it is stretched to fit anything. The other odd thing about the tactic of casting science as a religion is that ...
Sorry but claims about your god do not qualify as science. The fact that evolutionists present them as science does not mean they are science, it means evolutionists are in error.
CH: Sorry but claims about your god do not qualify as science.
DeleteMoyers specifically asked Tyson what he would say to people who find comfort in the idea that the universe was made for us. Those people are making claims that, if taken seriously, in that they were true in reality, would have have empirical implications for the current state of the system.
And if that same claim does not have empirical implications for the current state of the system, then in what sense is it meaningful to say God created the universe for us? This is what I mean when I ask, if God being sensible doesn’t have any implications as to what God would or would not do, then what does it mean to say God is sensible?
Is it meaningful in that it makes them feel good? Is it meaningful because it aligns with with their specific theological beliefs?
So, Tyson is not referring to his God, but but those of others. One doesn't need to actually think God exists to criticize other peoples claims about their God having created the universe for us.
Again, does someone have to believe that Superman exists to criticize someone else's claim that an individual that thwarted a bank robbery was Superman, but was a female who happened to get shot by standard rounds of ammunition in the process? No, we do not.
So, for your augment to have merit, there must be some reason why everyone must believe that your God exists to criticize the claims of others, but not Superman. What’s the difference? It seems you’re making some kind of assumption that you haven’t disclosed.
For example, perhaps you’re making the assumption that Biblical Apocalyptic theodicy is true, in that everyone believes that God exists, including Tyson. So, deep down inside Tyson does believe in God, but just denies it?
Did I get it wrong? If so, then what is the difference? Again, why is your God any different?
Scott:
DeleteSo, Tyson is not referring to his God, but but those of others. ... Did I get it wrong?
Yes, you got it wrong. Go to the 32:00 mark in this presentation:
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/01/neil-degrasse-tyson-no-engineer-would.html
And you'll learn all about Tyson's god.
Scott: Is it meaningful in that it makes them feel good? Is it meaningful because it aligns with with their specific theological beliefs?
DeleteJ: I've been thru this with you. So how is it meaningful to claim that one's own arbitrary beliefs are objective while another's (i.e., another who is arbitrarily posited to exist by the former; i.e., with ZERO positive evidence) arbitrary beliefs are not? What a hoot you are, Scott.
Scott: So, for your augment to have merit, there must be some reason why everyone must believe that your God exists to criticize the claims of others, but not Superman. What’s the difference? It seems you’re making some kind of assumption that you haven’t disclosed.
DeleteScott: For example, perhaps you’re making the assumption that Biblical Apocalyptic theodicy is true, in that everyone believes that God exists, including Tyson. So, deep down inside Tyson does believe in God, but just denies it?
Scott: Did I get it wrong? If so, then why is your God any different?
CH: Yes, you got it wrong.
Did I? Then please enlighten us. Why is your God any different?
CH: Go to the 32:00 mark in this presentation: […] And you'll learn all about Tyson's god.
Sorry, but the phrase “Tyson's god” is based on an assumption that you haven’t disclosed. Specifically, there is something different about God, which requires us to believe he exists to criticize the claims of others.
So, again, if I got it wrong, in that this assumption is not Biblical Apocalyptic theodicy, then what is the assumption?
Do you deny the Bible claims we all know God exists? Or perhaps you think this Biblical claim is just metaphorical, not literal?
IOW, without some reason why your God is different, your claim appears to be arbitrary. We must believe God exists merely because it suites your purpose.
Or are you suggesting I must also believe Superman exists to criticize other people’s claims about Superman? Is that what you’re suggesting?
If you won't even take your argument seriously, then why should we?
Cornelius Hunter February 1, 2014 at 8:38 AM
Delete[...]
Sorry but claims about your god do not qualify as science. The fact that evolutionists present them as science does not mean they are science, it means evolutionists are in error.
We are all imperfect beings so we are all in error to some extent. Science recognizes and even embraces error, it does not fear it. It finds we learn more from our mistakes and has effectively turned a bug into a feature. This is why constantly berating science for its errors only serves to strengthen the enterprise in the long term.
Confidence in the proven (in the older sense of 'tested') explanatory power of a theory is not the same as the worship of a god (although in some cases it might appear similar). A long-held theory can be replaced, albeit with difficulty, without requiring that we abandon science altogether. Christians, on the other hand, cannot give up belief in God without losing their faith completely.
The theory of evolution is not a religion. Those who believe in it do not worship it, certainly not in the sense that you mean. It cannot provide the benefits of a faith like Christianity: it offers no hope of life after death, it offers no hope that there is an ultimate purpose to what we see around us and it can provide no comfort to the afflicted. Religions survive and even flourish because they provide some or all these benefits.
Forcing religious beliefs on science will have the same effect as did the imposition of Marxist political doctrine on science in the Soviet Union. It will only lead to something akin to 'Lysenkoism'.
We find the prospect of a narrow set of Protestant beliefs being taught as science in schools to be as abhorrent as you - and we - would find Muslim or Hindu or Sikh beliefs being taught there. What each person chooses to believe is their business but the science classroom is not the place to teach it.
Jeff: So how is it meaningful to claim that one's own arbitrary beliefs are objective while another's (i.e., another who is arbitrarily posited to exist by the former; i.e., with ZERO positive evidence) arbitrary beliefs are not?
DeleteObjectivity isn't the province of a single person, but something developed through a process of communicating experience to minimize individual biases. In the modern world, it includes the extensive use of instrumentation.
What I find particularly amusing is how Cornelius completely refuses to even acknowledge specific questions, when asked directly. At best, he responds, but avoids the actual substance of the question.
DeleteAnd, in this case, he selectively quoted my comment to make it appear that the question was never actually asked in the first place!
On the other hand, in cases that Cornelius actually asks me a question, I actually respond to the question asked, as I did in this case. Specifically, the term "Tyson's God" ignores the fact that Moyer's asked Tyson directly what he would say to people that believe that God created the universe for us.
What exactly are we supposed to conclude from this sort of behavior other that he doesn't take is own arguments seriously?
Ian:
DeleteWe are all imperfect beings so we are all in error to some extent.
So evolutionists could be wrong in their claim that evolution is a fact beyond all reasonable doubt?
Science recognizes and even embraces error, it does not fear it. It finds we learn more from our mistakes and has effectively turned a bug into a feature. This is why constantly berating science for its errors only serves to strengthen the enterprise in the long term.
I’m delighted to hear that. So evolutionists will be correcting their false claim that evolution is a fact beyond all reasonable doubt?
The theory of evolution is not a religion.
Agreed. It is a religious theory, that’s slightly different.
Forcing religious beliefs on science will have the same effect as did the imposition of Marxist political doctrine on science in the Soviet Union. It will only lead to something akin to 'Lysenkoism'.
So will you cease?
What each person chooses to believe is their business but the science classroom is not the place to teach it.
That would rule out evolution then.
Cornelius Hunter: So evolutionists could be wrong in their claim that evolution is a fact beyond all reasonable doubt?
DeleteOf course.
Cornelius Hunter: So evolutionists will be correcting their false claim that evolution is a fact beyond all reasonable doubt?
It's not a false claim. It is beyond reasonable doubt.
Exquisitely darwinian logic.
DeleteBlas: Exquisitely darwinian logic.
DeleteThere's a distinction between reasonable doubt and no doubt.
I never can be sure if darwinist really believe what tney are saying or are just fooling me.
DeleteZachriel: There's a distinction between reasonable doubt and no doubt.
DeleteOnly when it suit Cornelius' purpose. Otherwise....
There’s a documentary coming out that shows how the scientific community is in panic-mode because of all the evidence coming in suggesting that the Earth is in a special place. Top cosmologists are interviewed:
ReplyDeleteThe Principle
http://www.theprinciplemovie.com/
As well, later this year, 2014, it is rumored that “The Privileged Species”, based (I think) primarily on Michael Denton’s work, is coming out. My expectations are high that it will be of exceptional quality since, I believe, it is being made by the very same people who made the documentary “The Privileged Planet’.
The Place of Life and Man in Nature: Defending the Anthropocentric Thesis – Michael J. Denton – February 25, 2013
Summary (page 11)
Many of the properties of the key members of Henderson’s vital ensemble —water, oxygen, CO2, HCO3 —are in several instances fit specifically for warm-blooded, air-breathing organisms such as ourselves. These include the thermal properties of water, its low viscosity, the gaseous nature of oxygen and CO2 at ambient temperatures, the inertness of oxygen at ambient temperatures, and the bicarbonate buffer, with its anomalous pKa value and the elegant means of acid-base regulation it provides for air-breathing organisms. Some of their properties are irrelevant to other classes of organisms or even maladaptive.
It is very hard to believe there could be a similar suite of fitness for advanced carbon-based life forms. If carbon-based life is all there is, as seems likely, then the design of any active complex terrestrial being would have to closely resemble our own. Indeed the suite of properties of water, oxygen, and CO2 together impose such severe constraints on the design and functioning of the respiratory and cardiovascular systems that their design, even down to the details of capillary and alveolar structure can be inferred from first principles. For complex beings of high metabolic rate, the designs actualized in complex Terran forms are all that can be. There are no alternative physiological designs in the domain of carbon-based life that can achieve the high metabolic activity manifest in man and other higher organisms.
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2013.1/BIO-C.2013.1
bornagain77 January 31, 2014 at 4:41 PM
DeleteThere’s a documentary coming out that shows how the scientific community is in panic-mode because of all the evidence coming in suggesting that the Earth is in a special place.
Documentaries like this suggest to me that it's the proponents of human exceptionalism who are worried, possibly by the growing catalogue of exoplanets which suggest otherwise.
Tyson: The problem arises, is if you have a religious philosophy, that is not based in objective realities
DeleteJ: Maybe Scott or Zachriel can tell us how to start without propostions that are either obviously true or discernibly more likely to be true than not and then non-arbitrarily distinguish between "objective realities" and "non-objective realities." Just kidding! LOL!
I: Documentaries like this suggest to me that it's the proponents of human exceptionalism who are worried, possibly by the growing catalogue of exoplanets which suggest otherwise.
DeleteJ: First, planets are not organisms, exceptional in some sense or no. Second, CH has made it clear that he is a Christian theist. As such, he most probably doesn't believe humans are exceptional given the biblical claim that humans are "lower" than angels. The bible claims that humans are the only terrestrial organism that is made in the image of God. So I'm not seeing how exceptionalism has anything to do with CH's arguments.
Jeff February 1, 2014 at 8:50 AM
Delete[...]
J: First, planets are not organisms, exceptional in some sense or no. Second, CH has made it clear that he is a Christian theist. As such, he most probably doesn't believe humans are exceptional given the biblical claim that humans are "lower" than angels. The bible claims that humans are the only terrestrial organism that is made in the image of God. So I'm not seeing how exceptionalism has anything to do with CH's arguments.
Christian belief is founded in part on the account in Genesis in which mankind was the final and ultimate act of Creation. It is quite clear from there that humanity is held to have a special and unique relationship with the Creator. Such a view was tenable when Earth was the only known inhabited planet in the Cosmos. It becomes less so with every new exoplanet found.
Jeff: Maybe Scott or Zachriel can tell us how to start without propostions that are either obviously true or discernibly more likely to be true than not ...
DeleteWhy would we do that? Some propositions are discernibly more likely than others, but even the most obvious propositions are subject to investigation and criticism.
I already have, Jeff.
DeleteKnowledge is useful information that tends to remain when embedded in a storage medium, such as books, brains and even genomes. It is knowledge because it plays a causal role in its preservation in said media or being copied as a means of being preserved.
This in in contrast to information being knowledge due to its source.
This is what Deutsch meant when he said, what we want is the content of theories, not their providence.
You might personally disagree with this definition, but that doesn't mean one hasn't been provided.
"but even the most obvious propositions are subject to investigation and criticism. "
DeleteThis statement is also subject to investigation and criticism?
Blas: This statement is also subject to investigation and criticism?
DeleteOf course.
Scott: Knowledge is useful information ...
DeleteJ: But when I asked you to define information you couldn't. The reason is obvious. Now, try to define "information" such that it doesn't render your definition of knowledge circular. Good luck.
Blas: This statement is also subject to investigation and criticism?
DeleteZachriel said
"Of course. "
Well let´s try. How we subject to criticism the statement:
Even the most obvious propositions are subject to investigation and criticism.
Scott: Some propositions are discernibly more likely than others,
DeleteJ: See, you're a foundationalist.
Scott: ... but even the most obvious propositions are subject to investigation and criticism.
J: How would you investigate or non-arbitrarily criticize the hypothesis that a particular event is caused? How would you investigate or non-arbitrarily criticize the hypothesis that apparent memories have occurred? You're utterly confused, Scott. UTTERLY.
Blas: Even the most obvious propositions are subject to investigation and criticism.
DeleteRead Jeff's comments criticizing the statement.
Scott: You might personally disagree with this definition, but that doesn't mean one hasn't been provided.
DeleteJeff: But when I asked you to define information you couldn't.
You mean define information in an exhaustive, reductionist way?
Jeff: The reason is obvious.
That would lead to an infinite regress, Jeff. Nor does information need to be defined in a reductionist way. I’m suggesting knowledge is emergent phenomena.
Knowledge has meaning because it plays a causal role in having remained once embedded in a physical system. It solves problems.
Jeff: Now, try to define "information" such that it doesn't render your definition of knowledge circular.
You mean, doesn’t render my definition circular *under your epistemology*? What you’re suggesting is that information doesn’t have meaning unless there is some consciousness around to interpret it. But Popper already addressed this in his book Objective Knowledge with two hypothetical scenarios.
However, we’ve been over this before. You didn’t have any genuine criticism of it then. And I’m guessing you still do not have any genuine criticism of it now, either.
See the following video on the Closer To Truth site.
http://www.closertotruth.com/video-profile/What-is-Ultimate-Reality-David-Deutsch-/2314
Scott: Some propositions are discernibly more likely than others,
DeleteJeff, you are UTTERLY confused as to who wrote the above comment you responded to.
Scott: What you’re suggesting is that information doesn’t have meaning unless there is some consciousness around to interpret it.
DeleteJ: No, I'm suggesting that you can't define both knowledge and information such that the definition of information doesn't include the concept of knowledge. Now, try it.
Scott: Jeff, you are UTTERLY confused as to who wrote the above comment you responded to.
J: I'm happy to know that. It's much easier to show your confusion when you consistently deny that anything is obviously true. I appreciate that you at least try to stay consistent about that, unlike Z.
Jeff: It's much easier to show your confusion when you consistently deny that anything is obviously true.
DeleteSomething may be obvious, yet untrue. That's why all claims about the world are tentative and subject to criticism.
Zachriel said:
Delete"That's why all claims about the world are tentative and subject to criticism. "
I suspect that by criticism you understand a process of some kind of revision.How do you perform that criticism?
Blas: I suspect that by criticism you understand a process of some kind of revision.How do you perform that criticism?
DeleteClaims about the world have empirical implications. You test those claims by testing for those implications. You modify or discard your claims as implied by the evidence.
Z: Something may be obvious, yet untrue.
DeleteJ: That's irrelevant. We can only communicate because we don't take that possibility seriously.
Z: That's why all claims about the world are tentative and subject to criticism.
J: Wrong. How would you non-circularly and consciously criticize the claims:
1) An apparent memory has occurred,
2) An event was caused,
3) Criticism per se is definable (i.e., distinguishable from non-criticism).
Foundationalism is unavoidable.
Zachriel said:
DeleteZachrielFebruary 6, 2014 at 1:12 PM
"Claims about the world have empirical implications."
Then which are the empirical implications of
"Even the most obvious propositions are subject to investigation and criticism."
"You test those claims by testing for those implications."
How do you test the empirical implications of
"Even the most obvious propositions are subject to investigation and criticism."
Jeff: We can only communicate because we don't take that possibility seriously.
DeleteOf course we take that possibility seriously. You may experience a memory, but we don't always take your recounting at face value. While people certainly do communicate, those communications are subject to skepticism and criticism.
Jeff: An apparent memory has occurred,
Experience of memory is subjective. It may be just a dream. It becomes a claim about the world when you say it is a meaningful reflection of the world.
Jeff: An event was caused,
Causation is certainly subject to criticism, and a constant subject of investigation.
Jeff: Criticism per se is definable
We argue from shared precepts, axioms. That doesn't mean those axioms are certain statements about the world, just shared. So people share induction, they implicitly agree to presume induction. But they could be wrong, and they can even turn their criticism to this shared precept, just like they can discard the parallel postulate, even if it is "obviously true".
Blas: Then which are the empirical implications of "Even the most obvious propositions are subject to investigation and criticism."
DeleteIt's not a claim about the world. Philosophical claims are also subject to criticism, though, such as for consistency.
Z: Of course we take that possibility seriously. You may experience a memory, but we don't always take your recounting at face value.
DeleteJ: You misunderstood my point. My point was that we can't take seriously the notion that ALL of what we find obvious is actually false. We have nothing with which to replace it all and still have what we call POSITIVE evidence.
Z: Experience of memory is subjective. It may be just a dream. It becomes a claim about the world when you say it is a meaningful reflection of the world.
J: So in your opinion we just create the notion of "memory" from the vacuum? Not from having CONSCIOUSLY experienced what we CALL an apparent memory?
Z: Causation is certainly subject to criticism, and a constant subject of investigation.
J: An uncaused event has no characteristics that are predictable. No such test is doable.
Z: But they could be wrong, and they can even turn their criticism to this shared precept,
J: What would be the criticism? I'm weary of abstract claims. Give me a concrete example.
Z: just like they can discard the parallel postulate, even if it is "obviously true".
J: What would be the point? Give an example of a PURPOSE for discarding the parallel postulate and its result so we can see if it has any discernible value to humans qua humans.
Jeff: My point was that we can't take seriously the notion that ALL of what we find obvious is actually false.
DeleteCertainly some people take it seriously ("Life's but a walking shadow"), but most people don't.
Jeff: So in your opinion we just create the notion of "memory" from the vacuum?
Of course not. The most plausible explanation is that memories are reflections of the past.
Jeff: An uncaused event has no characteristics that are predictable.
In fact, correlations are much easier to show than causation.
Jeff: What would be the criticism?
You might read what Jeff has said on this thread. Though not convincing, it is criticism.
Jeff: Give an example of a PURPOSE for discarding the parallel postulate and its result so we can see if it has any discernible value to humans qua humans.
You're making a utilitarian argument? If so, then sure. Accepting certain precepts, especially those that can be shared, is useful. That doesn't mean those precepts are beyond criticism, and people may modify those shared precepts over time. Indeed, they have.
In any case, non-Euclidean geometry is the basis of General Relativity, which is used in GPS systems.
Jeff: We can only communicate because we don't take that possibility seriously.
DeleteWe take that *possibility* seriously in the form of criticism. You're just not always aware of it.
For example, we *currently* do not have any good explanations as to what means or method by which anyone could give us false memories or why they would want to actually do so. And if there are memories of something, where did they come from if not from *someone's* experience of an external world, and therefore not false in that sense?
However, at some point in the future, we may good explanations as to how this could actually work, in practice. Computers exponentially more powerful than what exist today could generate virtual content that is consistent with a highly interactive, rich environment at a level we simply cannot today. At which point, we would take that into account when communicating with people.
This is what I mean when I said, we do not have a good criticisms that we have actual memories *at this time*. We're constantly applying criticism at a conscious and unconscious level when choosing what ideas we adopt.
Jeff: No, I'm suggesting that you can't define both knowledge and information such that the definition of information doesn't include the concept of knowledge. Now, try it.
DeleteEven if that were the case, so what? Exactly how is that relevant?
Jeff: No, I'm suggesting that you can't define both knowledge and information such that the definition of information doesn't include the concept of knowledge. Now, try it.
DeleteScott: Even if that were the case, so what? Exactly how is that relevant?
J: Wow. If you don't define knowledge and yet deny that the foundationalist definition of knowledge is true, you are not communicating how you're providing an alternative to foundationalism. Thus, since conventional language is pretty much defined by people who think foundationally (whether they admit it or not), your language necessarily seems to just BE foundationalist. Just like Z trying to create out of thin air a relevant (i.e., to the meaning of foundationalism) distinction between "OBVIOUS" and "self-evidently," when there isn't one.
Jeff: Just like Z trying to create out of thin air a relevant (i.e., to the meaning of foundationalism) distinction between "OBVIOUS" and "self-evidently," when there isn't one.
DeleteThe distinction we drew is between obvious and certainty. Things people take as obvious are not always true, and things people take as obvious can change.
Z: The distinction we drew is between obvious and certainty. Things people take as obvious are not always true, and things people take as obvious can change.
DeleteJ: Right. But assume EVERYTHING you think is obvious is false and see where you can get in terms of POSITIVE evidence. Can't be done. Induction means assuming as little as is necessary to explain our experience. So we're constantly (unless we're irrational) trying to find that most parsimonious set of criteria that explains our experience with sufficient satisfaction to be motivated to explain at all.
Zachriel said
Delete"It's not a claim about the world. Philosophical claims are also subject to criticism, though, such as for consistency. "
Well, then can you explain how do you criticize that statement for consistency?
Jeff: But assume EVERYTHING you think is obvious is false and see where you can get in terms of POSITIVE evidence.
DeletePeople do make assumptions, such as the parallel postulate. That doesn't mean those assumptions are certain or not subject to criticism.
Blas: Well, then can you explain how do you criticize that statement for consistency?
Delete"Even the most obvious propositions are subject to investigation and criticism."
You could try to find an example of a proposition that is not subject to investigation and criticism. Or you could try to deduce the validity of the statement from other principles, such as rules of logic, or the properties of the categories involved.
Zachriel said
Delete"You could try to find an example of a proposition that is not subject to investigation and criticism."
And how I can know that other statement is not subject to investigations and criticism? May be
""Even the most obvious propositions are subject to investigation and criticism." is an example of propositions that are not subjecto to investigation and criticism.
" Or you could try to deduce the validity of the statement from other principles, such as rules of logic"
Which other principles may I use to criticize :
"Even the most obvious propositions are subject to investigation and criticism." ?
Which rules of logic may I use to criticize "Even the most obvious propositions are subject to investigation and criticism." ?
Blas: And how I can know that other statement is not subject to investigations and criticism?
DeleteBy examining the terms and their relationship in the statement.
Z: People do make assumptions, such as the parallel postulate. That doesn't mean those assumptions are certain or not subject to criticism.
DeleteJ: No, they don't make that assumption. That is a natural belief. One can then ASSUME it's NOT true. But then there's none of what most people call "plausibility" to that assumption if you're still talking about the same notion of "space" and "spatial relations." Einstein's space is an expanding entity. As such, a hyper-spatial reference frame is required to imagine it bending, contracting, and growing. In that sense, Newton's space and Einstein's space are not two distinct geometries. They're two distinct MEANINGS of the word "space." The Lorentzian interpretation allows for euclidean, Newtonian space and a different conception of material behavior. There's no way to EMPIRICALLY prove if Einstein's entity-space exists or if a Lorentzian approach is true. But Newton's space is required for human conceptions of spatial relationships PER SE.
Zachriel, as is very common for darwinists, you are only changing the words not answering wich is the difference between "criticizing" and "examining"? You are saying I criticize examining.
DeleteCan you explain how ? If you say applying the rules of logic, which rules do you apply?
Blas: you are only changing the words not answering wich is the difference between "criticizing" and "examining"?
Deleteexamine, to look at closely and carefully in order to learn more about it
criticize, to consider the merits and demerits of and judge accordingly
You examine in order to criticize.
Jeff: No, they don't make that assumption. That is a natural belief.
DeleteGeometry is an abstraction. People are taught the parallel postulate as an axiom of Euclidean geometry.
Jeff: Einstein's space is an expanding entity.
Einstein's space was static.
Jeff: As such, a hyper-spatial reference frame is required to imagine it bending, contracting, and growing.
The bending is due to the presence of masses.
Jeff: There's no way to EMPIRICALLY prove if Einstein's entity-space exists or if a Lorentzian approach is true.
Lorentz equations concern Special Relativity, not General Relativity. The evidence strongly supports General Relativity. Without it, your GPS would not work.
Jeff: But Newton's space is required for human conceptions of spatial relationships PER SE.
Turns out that the universe is not Newtonian.
Zachriel:
Delete"examine, to look at closely and carefully in order to learn more about it
criticize, to consider the merits and demerits of and judge accordingly
You examine in order to criticize."
Ok, you go for the dictionary meaning of the word but then you didn´t answered the question because "examning" the terms it is not criticize. You have to look at closely in order to learn more and then "criticize", looking for the merits snd demerits and judging.
How do you criticize Zachriel? How do you define a merit? How do you judge? Which are the merits or demerits of "Even the most obvious propositions are subject to investigation and criticism."?
Blas: Which are the merits or demerits of "Even the most obvious propositions are subject to investigation and criticism."?
DeleteYou could look at a variety of obvious propositions and see if they are subject to investigation and criticism. "The Earth is flat." "Given any straight line and a point not on it, there exists one and only one straight line which passes through that point and never intersects the first line, no matter how far they are extended."
Zachriel said:
Delete"You could look at a variety of obvious propositions and see if they are subject to investigation and criticism."
And how do you know if the proposition is subject to investigation and criticism?
How I can know that the proposition:
"Even the most obvious propositions are subject to investigation and criticism."
is subject to investigation and criticism?
Blas: And how do you know if the proposition is subject to investigation and criticism?
DeleteWe just discussed this. By inspection. Examine a proposition. See if you can criticize it. If you can, then it you have answered your question. This doesn't prove that all propositions are subject to criticism, but should give you some confidence.
To determine the general case, consider that all propositions include categorizations and relationships between categories, both of which are subject to criticism.
Zachriel said
Delete"We just discussed this."
Yes and you avoid the description of the process of critizicing.
" By inspection. Examine a proposition. See if you can criticize it. If you can, then it you have answered your question.
Inspection, esamination , answered questons.
That is criticizing for you? Or have I to go to the dictionary to see what do you mean with that words.
"This doesn't prove that all propositions are subject to criticism, but should give you some confidence."
Irrelevant to what is in discussion,
"To determine the general case, consider that all propositions include categorizations and relationships between categories,"
Ok, let try with the statement we are talking.
"Even the most obvious propositions are subject to investigation and criticism."
Which categoris have we here?
Propositions
obviousness
Subject
Investigation
Criticism
Relation between categories
Attribution to the all the members of the categorie propositions the attribute of be subject of investigation and criticism.
Then?
"both of which are subject to criticism."
This is what we are trying to criticize.
Blas: Irrelevant to what is in discussion
DeleteWhat exactly do you think is in discussion?
Blas: This is what we are trying to criticize.
Go for it!
Ok, you do not have any idea of how criticize
Delete""Even the most obvious propositions are subject to investigation and criticism."
But still say that it should be criticized.
Exquisite darwinian logic!
Blas: Ok, you do not have any idea of how criticize "Even the most obvious propositions are subject to investigation and criticism."
DeleteSure it's subject to criticism, as we already showed. You can criticize it by taking a variety of statements and categorize them by whether or not they themselves can be criticized. You can criticize it based on whether the terms (e.g. "most" or "proposition") are properly delineated.More generally, you can show how it might be deduced from more basic principles, because every category and relationship in a statement can be subject to scrutiny.
Your problem is that you seem to think that to criticize means to find fault.
Jeff: No, they don't make that assumption. That is a natural belief.
DeleteZ: Geometry is an abstraction. People are taught the parallel postulate as an axiom of Euclidean geometry.
J: They readily learn it precisely because it's as intuitive to other people as it was to Euclid.
Jeff: Einstein's space is an expanding entity.
Z: Einstein's space was static.
J: When? Recently? How do Big-Bangers putatively account for the red-shift of star light by the stretching of Einstein's space if it's static?
Jeff: As such, a hyper-spatial reference frame is required to imagine it bending, contracting, and growing.
Z: The bending is due to the presence of masses.
J: First of all, I'm not talking about the cause of bending (is bending consistent with static?), but the fact that all motion, PER physics texts (and human intuition), requires a REFERENCE frame to even CONCEIVE of it.
Jeff: But Newton's space is required for human conceptions of spatial relationships PER SE.
Z: Turns out that the universe is not Newtonian.
Jeff: That's not empirically demonstrable. Science is tentative. And there is NO mainstream gravitational theory that accounts for observations. Apparently you're ignorant of both of these facts.
Jeff: They readily learn it precisely because it's as intuitive to other people as it was to Euclid.
DeleteSome people learn it better than others. In any case, some aspects of Euclidean geometry are familiar due to the human perspective.
Jeff: When?
Einstein's space was static due to his cosmological constant. Your point was that General Relativity requires an expanding space. That is not correct.
Jeff: How do Big-Bangers putatively account for the red-shift of star light by the stretching of Einstein's space if it's static?
By modifying or dispensing with the cosmological constant.
Jeff: First of all, I'm not talking about the cause of bending (is bending consistent with static?)
A mass resides in a deformed non-Euclidean space.
Jeff: all motion, PER physics texts (and human intuition), requires a REFERENCE frame to even CONCEIVE of it.
General Relativity certainly includes a reference frame in a 4-dimensional Riemannian manifold.
Jeff: That's not empirically demonstrable.
The evidence contradicts a Newtonian universe.
Jeff: Science is tentative.
Of course.
Jeff: And there is NO mainstream gravitational theory that accounts for observations.
General Relativity has been very successful at accounting for a wide variety of observations.
Jeff: How do Big-Bangers putatively account for the red-shift of star light by the stretching of Einstein's space if it's static?
DeleteZ: By modifying or dispensing with the cosmological constant.
J: Is the red-shift due to a static space or a stretching space? Or does "static" MEAN "stretching" per physicists?
Jeff: First of all, I'm not talking about the cause of bending (is bending consistent with static?)
Z: A mass resides in a deformed non-Euclidean space.
J: Is a "mass" a quantity assigned to a point in space or a property of a positive-volumed entity?
Z: General Relativity certainly includes a reference frame in a 4-dimensional Riemannian manifold.
J: And how would we test for the existence of a 4th spatial dimension? Or a fifth, etc?
Z: The evidence contradicts a Newtonian universe.
J: Define "evidence" such that your conclusion follows. Remember, we're not talking about a Newtonian view of gravitation, we're talking about an infinite, 3-dimensional spatial reference frame Newton called "space." Relativistic equations for gravity don't rule out Newton's view of space.
Z: General Relativity has been very successful at accounting for a wide variety of observations.
J: Indeed. But you said, "Turns out that the universe is not Newtonian." If you mean that what we call gravitational motion can't be exhaustively predicted by Newton's equations, then of course. But that is quite independent of whether Newton's view of space is correct or not. And Newton's view of space is just a natural way of thinking spatially.
Jeff: Is the red-shift due to a static space or a stretching space?
DeleteThe red-shift is due to stretching of space. It is explained by General Relativity, but is not required by General Relativity, nor was it part of Einstein's original theory.
Or does "static" MEAN "stretching" per physicists?
Jeff: (is bending consistent with static?)
We're referring to the overall structure of the cosmos. It's now known that the universe is expanding. Scientists of the day thought the universe as a whole was neither expanding nor contracting. To "fix" this, Einstein included a cosmological constant.
Jeff: Is a "mass" a quantity assigned to a point in space or a property of a positive-volumed entity?
Mass is a property of matter. Gravity has extension in space. Exactly what happens in a singularity isn't known with current physics, but quantum effects probably predominate.
Jeff: And how would we test for the existence of a 4th spatial dimension?
The 4th dimension is time.
Jeff: Define "evidence" such that your conclusion follows.
Sure. Newtonian physics is incorrect about gravitational lensing.
Jeff: And Newton's view of space is just a natural way of thinking spatially.
If it was so natural, you wouldn't have had to have a Newton to invent it.
Jeff: Is the red-shift due to a static space or a stretching space?
DeleteZ: The red-shift is due to stretching of space. It is explained by General Relativity,
J: How, after positing a growing space-entity do you distinguish between a non-zero-volume'd particle and a subset of the space-entity?
Z: but is not required by General Relativity,
J: Does GR rule out euclidean space?
Z: nor was it part of Einstein's original theory.
J: That's irrelevant to the nature or space.
Jeff: Or does "static" MEAN "stretching" per physicists?
Jeff: (is bending consistent with static?)
Z: It's now known that the universe is expanding.
J: You said earlier, "The red-shift is due to stretching of space." Why the change?
Jeff: Is a "mass" a quantity assigned to a point in space or a property of a positive-volumed entity?
Z: Mass is a property of matter.
J: Is matter positive-volume'd?
Z: Gravity has extension in space.
J: So it's positive volume'd?
Z: Exactly what happens in a singularity isn't known with current physics, but quantum effects probably predominate.
Jeff: And how would we test for the existence of a 4th spatial dimension?
Z: The 4th dimension is time.
J: People had always believed there was a temporal frame of reference we call time. I'm talking about a 4th, 5th, or nth dimension of space?
Jeff: Define "evidence" such that your conclusion follows.
Z: Sure. Newtonian physics is incorrect about gravitational lensing.
J: That doesn't imply space isn't Euclidean.
Jeff: And Newton's view of space is just a natural way of thinking spatially.
Z: If it was so natural, you wouldn't have had to have a Newton to invent it.
J: Newton didn't invent the notion of space. If you think so, you're utterly confused.
Jeff: How, after positing a growing space-entity do you distinguish between a non-zero-volume'd particle and a subset of the space-entity?
DeleteBy observing its boundaries. Not even sure why you consider that a conundrum.
Jeff: Does GR rule out euclidean space?
The evidence rules out Euclidean space, just like the spherical Earth rules out the geometry of the Euclidean plane.
Jeff: That's irrelevant to the nature or space.
You had said that "Einstein's space is an expanding entity". Einstein's space was space.
Jeff: Why the change?
There's been no change. General Relativity is consistent with an expanding, contracting, or static space. The data supports an expanding space.
Jeff: Is matter positive-volume'd?
Yes, but remember that volume is not simply defined at the quantum level.
Jeff: So it's positive volume'd?
Gravity has extension in space.
Jeff: And how would we test for the existence of a 4th spatial dimension?
One such test is gravitational lensing providing strong confirmation of General Relativity.
Jeff: That doesn't imply space isn't Euclidean.
It's strong confirmation of General Relativity, which is non-Euclidean.
Jeff: How, after positing a growing space-entity do you distinguish between a non-zero-volume'd particle and a subset of the space-entity?
DeleteZ: By observing its boundaries. Not even sure why you consider that a conundrum.
J: First of all, it's an interpretation of subjective mental states that there even IS stuff "out there." Second, there's nothing new about the notion that two or more positive volume'd entities can't simultaneously occupy the same points of space. And since Einstein's space is considered to be a finite entity, it IS a positive volume'd entity whose motion is only conceivable in terms of a frame of reference larger than itself (non-Einsteinian space):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impenetrability-
"In metaphysics, impenetrability is the name given to that quality of matter whereby two bodies cannot occupy the same space at the same time.The philosopher John Toland argued that impenetrability and extension were sufficient to define matter, a contention strongly disputed by Gottfried Wilhelm Von Leibnez.
Locke considered impenetrability to be 'more a consequence of solidity, than solidity itself.'"
Z: The evidence rules out Euclidean space, just like the spherical Earth rules out the geometry of the Euclidean plane.
J: What evidence? And what are you meaning by "evidence?"
Jeff: That's irrelevant to the nature or space.
Z: You had said that "Einstein's space is an expanding entity". Einstein's space was space.
J: Today, it's conceived of as a finite entity. Otherwise saying it expands by stretching has no intelligible meaning.
Jeff: Why the change?
Z: There's been no change.
J: My bad. I misread your original comment.
Z: General Relativity is consistent with an expanding, contracting, or static space.
J: That's the point. It doesn't rule out euclidean space.
Z: The data supports an expanding space.
J: No, it doesn't. That's an interpretation. In what SENSE does the data SUPPORT that interpretation over a euclidean space? Relativistic math is consistent with a lorentzian-type interpretation of material behavior and a Euclidean, infinite space.
Jeff: Is matter positive-volume'd?
Z: Yes, but remember that volume is not simply defined at the quantum level.
J: What is definable at the "quantum level?"
Z: Gravity has extension in space.
J: Jeff: So it's positive volume'd?
Jeff: And how would we test for the existence of a 4th spatial dimension?
Z: One such test is gravitational lensing providing strong confirmation of General Relativity.
J: You said above, "General Relativity is consistent with ... static space." So you're saying that gravitational lensing implies a 4-dimensional, static space? How so?
Jeff: That doesn't imply space isn't Euclidean.
Z: It's strong confirmation of General Relativity, which is non-Euclidean.
J: You said above, "General Relativity is consistent with ... static space. So a static space is non-Euclidean? Why so?
Jeff: "Locke considered impenetrability to be 'more a consequence of solidity, than solidity itself.'"
DeleteTurns out that solidity is not an absolute.
Jeff: What evidence?
As we said, gravitational lensing.
Jeff: And what are you meaning by "evidence?"
Scientific evidence.
Jeff: Today, it's conceived of as a finite entity.
Yes, today, the cosmos is considered finite and expanding.
Jeff: That's the point. It doesn't rule out euclidean space.
No. While the overall structure of the cosmos may be 'flat', it is deformed in the presence of mass.
Jeff: Relativistic math is consistent with a lorentzian-type interpretation of material behavior and a Euclidean, infinite space.
Lorenzian transforms have to do with Special Relativity, not General Relativity.
Jeff: What is definable at the "quantum level?"
Complementary properties and the uncertainty principle.
Jeff: So a static space is non-Euclidean?
Yes, because of the presence of masses.
Jeff: "Locke considered impenetrability to be 'more a consequence of solidity, than solidity itself.'"
DeleteZ: Turns out that solidity is not an absolute.
J: Then what's your definition of matter?
Jeff: What evidence?
Z: As we said, gravitational lensing.
J: Gravitational lensing doesn't imply a non-Euclidean space. So what INDICATES it?
Jeff: And what are you meaning by "evidence?"
Z: Scientific evidence.
J: What other kind is there? That's not an answer.
Jeff: Today, it's conceived of as a finite entity.
Z: Yes, today, the cosmos is considered finite and expanding.
J: Which is all that needs to be debated. Because you insist, seemingly, that there is evidence for the current view, contra the older Einsteinian view.
Jeff: That's the point. It doesn't rule out euclidean space.
Z: No. While the overall structure of the cosmos may be 'flat', it is deformed in the presence of mass.
J: That can't be EMPIRICALLY observed. Indeed, no can empirically OBSERVE that there's stuff OUT there. All inferences to stuff out there are just that: INFERENCES. There are other ways to interpret things. Inductive criteria is what renders one view "better" than another. You're arguing as if science isn't tentative because there aren't other possible interpretations. That's just flat wrong.
Jeff: Relativistic math is consistent with a lorentzian-type interpretation of material behavior and a Euclidean, infinite space.
Z: Lorenzian transforms have to do with Special Relativity, not General Relativity.
J: That's why I said Lorentzian "type" approaches. Those approaches assume matter behaves differently to account for the relativistic math, not that space is non-static and finite.
Jeff: What is definable at the "quantum level?"
Z: Complementary properties and the uncertainty principle.
J: The uncertainty principle, if valid, rules out the validity of the law of non-contradiction/law of identity. Do you "adopt" the LNC or not? If you don't, I have no idea what you're saying in any sentence you type.
Jeff: So a static space is non-Euclidean?
Z: Yes, because of the presence of masses.
J: The presence of masses is irrelevant to whether space is Euclidean if space is static. Mass accounts for MOTION of the space entity per ER.
Jeff: Then what's your definition of matter?
DeleteThe issue was solidity. We can show that solid objects are actually a maelstrom of quantum activity.
Matter has several definitions, but something with rest mass is a common definition.
Jeff: Gravitational lensing doesn't imply a non-Euclidean space.
That's like saying the curvature of light through a lens doesn't tell us anything about the lens. You can wave your hands, but General Relativity accurately predicts gravitational lensing.
Jeff: That's not an answer.
Sure it is. We propose hypotheses, deduce empirical implications, test those implications, retest those implications by independent observers and differing methodologies, modify the hypothesis accordingly, then do it again.
Jeff: You're arguing as if science isn't tentative because there aren't other possible interpretations.
Of course science is tentative. Of course there are always other possibilities, indeed, infinite explanations. However, the best explanation, strongly supported by the evidence, is that space is distorted in the presence of mass.
Jeff: The uncertainty principle, if valid, rules out the validity of the law of non-contradiction/law of identity.
It rules out either locality or counterfactual definiteness. More specifically, the notion of position and momentum may not be distinct properties at the quantum level.
Jeff: Do you "adopt" the LNC or not?
When appropriate, that is, when dichotomies are well-defined.
Jeff: The presence of masses is irrelevant to whether space is Euclidean if space is static.
When we say space could be static, per Einstein's original configuration, we're referring to the overall structure of the cosmos, not the motions of individual bodies. Static space, in this view, is still non-Euclidean as long as it contains masses, a nearly flat sheet with dimples in space-time. Turns out that the universe is expanding, but the overall structure is nearly flat.
Meanwhile, you can't even explain the orbit of Mercury, much less pulsars, without accounting for the non-Euclidean curvatures of space.
Z: The issue was solidity. We can show that solid objects are actually a maelstrom of quantum activity.
DeleteJ: You can't show any such thing. We can't SHOW that there's anything OUT there. We INFER it. And ALL inferences are tentative when there are other conceivable options. So the question is, WHICH criteria are you using to SIDE with one historical interpretation over another?
Z: Matter has several definitions, but something with rest mass is a common definition.
J: So what is a "rest mass" and what is a "something?" Is a "something" a being? A place? A time? What? If you can't define your terms, you're not even communicating anything intelligible yet.
Z: That's like saying the curvature of light through a lens doesn't tell us anything about the lens.
J: It doesn't, per se. THAT there is a material composite called a "lens" that mediates knowledge of itself to us by reflecting something to our nervous system is an INFERENCE. You are truly confused.
Z: You can wave your hands, but General Relativity accurately predicts gravitational lensing.
J: Only if you can define matter such that Einstein's space is finite and NON-material. Now do that, please. Otherwise, you're not communicating anything intelligible yet. You keep confusing math models, which don't rule out metaphysical phenomenalism (i.e., the idea that there is nothing actually "out there"), with MATERIAL explanation (i.e., explaning in terms of properties of STUFF OUT THERE IN SPACE).
Z: We propose hypotheses, deduce empirical implications, test those implications, retest those implications by independent observers and differing methodologies, modify the hypothesis accordingly, then do it again.
J: See above. You have to define matter such that Einstein's space is NOT matter and such that actual matter can conceivably move "in it." You have to explain in terms of properties of stuff OUT THERE if you want to say you have EVIDENCE of stuff out there. But this is precisely what mere mathematical models that don't explain in terms of properties of 3-D-extended entities can't do. And the standard model, which attempts to do just that, does NOT account for most motion we would normally consider gravitationally caused.
Z: Of course science is tentative. Of course there are always other possibilities, indeed, infinite explanations. However, the best explanation, strongly supported by the evidence, is that space is distorted in the presence of mass.
J: How is it best when it doesn't account for tons of observations? Best in terms of utility, for sure. Because we only concern ourselves with extremely local matters with respect to utility. But that's it. It seems to be flatly false unless we want to say there are many laws of gravity throughout the universe. A scientist motivated by a grander theory can assume it obviously false and seek further, using what we have for localized utility in the meanwhile.
Z: It rules out either locality or counterfactual definiteness. More specifically, the notion of position and momentum may not be distinct properties at the quantum level.
J: Did you read what Bell said in that book by Davies I told you about? He explains why the "or" in your statement is the relevant point. He takes the other route precisely so bona-fide explanation in terms of "stuff out there" can be a actual goal. By your view, the LNC is dead and you have yet to explain what criteria tells us WHEN it is inapplicable. It's certainly not empirical tests, because we can't even prove there is a world "out there" in the first place. Metaphysical phenomenalism IS a logically conceivable history.
Z: When appropriate, that is, when dichotomies are well-defined.
DeleteJ: YOu're confused. The LNC only applies to propositions that have intelligible meaning--i.e., propositions whose form is correct and whose terms have DEFINITION. But you're saying something non-sensical--that a positive volumed entity is conceivable apart from having a particular location. Something that is nowhere in particular is nowhere period. And that's just another way of saying it has no volume. You're utterly dense if you can't see that science could NEVER prove the invalidity of the principle of the LNC. Because metaphysical phenomenalism can't be EMPIRICALLY falsified. And the non-metaphysical-phenomenalistic approach that Bell admits is consistent with an non-Einsteinian world is also not EMPIRICALLY falsifiable.
Z: Static space, in this view, is still non-Euclidean as long as it contains masses, a nearly flat sheet with dimples in space-time.
J: It doesn't matter what shape it is. It's FINITE in extent. Thus, Euclid's geometry can describe it's various shapes and sizes (as it contorts) in terms of Newton's spatial reference frame as such.
Z: Turns out that the universe is expanding, but the overall structure is nearly flat.
J: That's only conceivable if you can define Einstein's space such that it is neither matter nor Newton's space (the intuitive version). Now, define matter and Einstein's space.
Z: Meanwhile, you can't even explain the orbit of Mercury, much less pulsars, without accounting for the non-Euclidean curvatures of space.
J: But you can't explain it in terms of stuff "out there," EITHER. That's the point. That math is a mere heurisitc model. It's CONSISTENT with metpahysical phenomenalism. THAT'S THE POINT! If all you mean by "empirical" is something that doen't imply there's stuff out there, then SAY THAT! Because then I want to know what the EVIDENCE for stuff out there is, per you, if it doesn't have anything to do with EMPIRICAL observation.
Jeff: The LNC only applies to propositions that have intelligible meaning--i.e., propositions whose form is correct and whose terms have DEFINITION.
DeleteZ: Well-defined
J: Definition
Jeff: But you're saying something non-sensical--that a positive volumed entity is conceivable apart from having a particular location.
Of course we can conceive of a positive volume entity without a particular location. Perhaps you can't.
Jeff: science could NEVER prove the invalidity of the principle of the LNC.
Of course not. The Law of Non-Contradiction is a principle of classical logic, not an empirical finding.
Jeff: But you can't explain it in terms of stuff "out there," EITHER.
Yes, it's explained as the distortion of space-time by the Sun's mass "out there".
Jeff: That math is a mere heurisitc model.
Of course it's a model. So is the heliocentric model. The best available scientific explanation is that space-time is curved by mass as evidenced by gravitational lensing.
Jeff: We can't SHOW that there's anything OUT there.
DeleteSHOW is a perfectly fine word here. I'll SHOW you the book on the table. Of course we have to assume that our senses provide some knowledge of the world. Meanwhile, you can pretend the book isn't there.
Jeff: And ALL inferences are tentative when there are other conceivable options.
Of course they are. The book is on the table. We can SHOW it to you, but we can't make you SEE.
Jeff: So the question is, WHICH criteria are you using to SIDE with one historical interpretation over another?
The scientific method.
Zachriel: You can wave your hands, but General Relativity accurately predicts gravitational lensing.
Jeff: Only if you can define matter such that Einstein's space is finite and NON-material.
No. It doesn't require that at all. Indeed, that's where you should be arguing phenomenalism. It doesn't matter what you think it MEANS, only that it gives the right result, which it does.
Jeff: You have to explain in terms of properties of stuff OUT THERE if you want to say you have EVIDENCE of stuff out there.
That's what General Relativity does.
Jeff: How is it best when it doesn't account for tons of observations?
Not sure what observations you mean, but that's the nature of science; we can reach some reasonable conclusions even though most of the universe remains shrouded in mystery. No theory accounts for all observations.
Jeff: He explains why the "or" in your statement is the relevant point.
Of course. That's why we used the word "or".
Jeff: By your view, the LNC is dead and you have yet to explain what criteria tells us WHEN it is inapplicable.
You keep making stuff up. The Law of Non-Contradiction is a principle of classical logic.
Jeff: The LNC only applies to propositions that have intelligible meaning--i.e., propositions whose form is correct and whose terms have DEFINITION.
DeleteZ: Well-defined
J: Give an example of a term that is defined, but not well-defined. Then give me the definition. Then use it in a proposition. Unless you're a complete idiot, you will see immediately that if the proposition is actually meaningful (intelligible), it can be meaingfully negated because of the LNC.
Jeff: But you're saying something non-sensical--that a positive volumed entity is conceivable apart from having a particular location.
Z: Of course we can conceive of a positive volume entity without a particular location. Perhaps you can't.
J: You're confused. The class concept of a positive-volumed entity does not specify a particular location, only the notion THAT a positive-volumed entity has a particular location (i.e., that it occupies some particular set of continguous points in space). But a particular INSTANCE of that class most certainly does, by definition, have a specific location.
Jeff: science could NEVER prove the invalidity of the principle of the LNC.
DeleteZ: Of course not. The Law of Non-Contradiction is a principle of classical logic, not an empirical finding.
J: Scientists haven't found evidence that reality is non-classical, in that sense. They use mathematical heuristics that are consistent with metaphysical phenomenalism when material explanations aren't forthcoming. There is no standard model of stuff "out there" that explains much, yet. And the lack of such a humanly-conceived explanation is neither the logical equivalent of the proof of its absence nor evidence of its absence. Inductive criteria apply ONLY to EXTANT explanations, NOT speculations or CHOSEN axioms.
Jeff: But you can't explain it in terms of stuff "out there," EITHER.
Z: Yes, it's explained as the distortion of space-time by the Sun's mass "out there".
J: No, because:
1) You have yet to define space such that it is neither matter nor infinite in 3-D extent.
2) There is not standard model that works for more than a smidgen of the astronomical observations. So unless you want to say that matter has properties locally it doesn't have non-locally (and I welcome such an admission, if that's all you're saying), you have nothing in terms of an explanation in terms of stuff "out there."
Please don't waste our time any more. Answer 1), please.
Jeff: That math is a mere heurisitc model.
Z: Of course it's a model. So is the heliocentric model.
J: There is no evidence, is there, that those who originally hypothesized the heliocentric model assumed that metaphysical phenomenalism was a real option. They were TRUE inductivists. They inferred stuff "out there" INDUCTIVELY. They didn't ASSUME it arbitrarily.
Z: SHOW is a perfectly fine word here. I'll SHOW you the book on the table. Of course we have to assume that our senses provide some knowledge of the world. Meanwhile, you can pretend the book isn't there.
J: On the contrary. It is you who is pretending that there is stuff "out there" since you don't infer it inductively, but merely arbitrarily assume it.
Jeff: So the question is, WHICH criteria are you using to SIDE with one historical interpretation over another?
Z: The scientific method.
J: Which is? And please be specific about axioms that you don't select inductively, but merely select arbitrarily. Inductivist foundationalists winnow axioms to the smallest, conceivable, seemingly-naturally-produced set to explain the correspondence theory of "truth-apprehension" most parsimoniously. I don't hear you saying that's consistent with a scientific approach.
Zachriel: You can wave your hands, but General Relativity accurately predicts gravitational lensing.
DeleteJ: You can pontificate like a mad man, but your pontifications are vacuous until you define BOTH matter and space such that matter is not a point in space and space NEITHER matter NOR infinite in 3-D extent.
Jeff: Only if you can define matter such that Einstein's space is finite and NON-material.
Z: No. It doesn't require that at all. Indeed, that's where you should be arguing phenomenalism. It doesn't matter what you think it MEANS, only that it gives the right result, which it does.
J: On the contrary. You talked earlier of theoretical IMPLICATIONS. You don't HAVE implications UNTIL you define your terms. This is where you're totally missing the role of deduction in explanation. Not "SCIENTIFIC" explanation, but EXPLANATION per se!!!!! Science doesn't have a special kind of deduction, Z. It's that same deduction talked about in logic books that is used in math, law, etc. It requires definitions to generate implications.
Jeff: How is it best when it doesn't account for tons of observations?
Z: Not sure what observations you mean, but that's the nature of science; we can reach some reasonable conclusions even though most of the universe remains shrouded in mystery.
J: Yes, but "reasonable" for utility? Or reasonable for "truth"? This answers the SENSE in which a theory is "best." A theory can be "best" in the sense of utility and seem false because it is merely heuristic and therefore consistent with metaphysical phenomenalism. People inductively INFER that 3-D-extended entities are necessary conditions of much of their subjective experience. This means that REAL inductively-selected explanations for things are INCONSISTENT with metaphysical phenomenalism. You don't posit stuff "out there" if it doesn't EXPLAIN anything to DO so. That's counter-inductive and, hence, irrational.
You're effectively saying that science must be non-inductive or that the belief in stuff "out there" is of no value to science. But then the standard model is just another heuristic that has no implications about metaphysical phenomenalism. Average folk do NOT assume that's what scientists are saying. If they are saying that, fine, let me know. And I'll tell all the science-fideists (who are as brain-dead as religious fideists) who misunderstand "scientists" what they are to ACTUALLY believe to be on board with their priests.
Jeff: By your view, the LNC is dead and you have yet to explain what criteria tells us WHEN it is inapplicable.
DeleteZ: You keep making stuff up. The Law of Non-Contradiction is a principle of classical logic.
J: Which isn't contradictable (by definition of the LNC) by anything. Now, you can ARBITRARILY assume that contradictions can be true. But then you must make a dogmatic denial of the tentativeness of at least SOME inferences or claim that you have a foundationalist intuition for the cases of the invalidity of the LNC. Because all beliefs are either premises or inferences discursively-derived FROM premises. You're REALLY confused.
Jeff: Give an example of a term that is defined, but not well-defined.
DeleteHot. Tall. Coastline. Much of what passes for human communication. Not to mention the location of a quantum particle.
Jeff: But a particular INSTANCE of that class most certainly does, by definition, have a specific location.
You said we couldn't conceive of an a positive volumed entity without having a particular location.
Jeff: But a particular INSTANCE of that class {positive-volumed entities} most certainly does, by definition, have a specific location.
As for instances, well, it turns out that location is not well-defined for atoms. While they have positive volume, that's not well-defined either. Your inability to conceptualize such a possibility is not binding on the universe, though.
Jeff: You have yet to define space such that it is neither matter nor infinite in 3-D extent.
Yes, we have. It's defined as a space-time manifold. As for 3-D, Euclidean geometry posits an infinite space.
Jeff: There is not standard model that works for more than a smidgen of the astronomical observations.
General Relativity works for nearly all astronomical observations.
Jeff: It is you who is pretending that there is stuff "out there" since you don't infer it inductively, but merely arbitrarily assume it.
No. We're quite comfortable inferring a universe out there. Not only we have sense experience of the universe, but we can communicate with others who seem to share those experiences. We grant there is no deductive proof, so it could all be an illusion, but that is not the most parsimonious explanation.
Jeff: Which is?
Hypothesis-testing.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/scientific-method.html
Jeff: And please be specific about axioms that you don't select inductively, but merely select arbitrarily.
Why would we select axioms arbitrarily? Scientific methodology is utilitarian.
Jeff: You talked earlier of theoretical IMPLICATIONS. You don't HAVE implications UNTIL you define your terms.
We have, repeatedly.
Jeff: Science doesn't have a special kind of deduction, Z. It's that same deduction talked about in logic books that is used in math, law, etc. It requires definitions to generate implications.
Sure. Newton proposed basic axioms to derive his mechanics. From that, he deduced empirical implications. Those implications were tested, and confirmed. Einstein did the same with his Relativity.
Jeff: Yes, but "reasonable" for utility? Or reasonable for "truth"?
You seem to tangle yourself up in knots over gnats.
Jeff: A theory can be "best" in the sense of utility and seem false because it is merely heuristic and therefore consistent with metaphysical phenomenalism.
Sure. However, nearly all physical theories propose specific tests that they correctly represent the world. This is done by testing the implications in different ways.
Jeff: You're effectively saying that science must be non-inductive or that the belief in stuff "out there" is of no value to science.
That's contrary to our views.
Jeff: Which isn't contradictable (by definition of the LNC) by anything.
Of course not. It's an axiom. Whether it is useful is another matter.
Jeff: Now, you can ARBITRARILY assume that contradictions can be true.
The typical non-classical logic assumes that truth is fuzzy. It the soup hot? Hot, but not too hot?
Z: The typical non-classical logic assumes that truth is fuzzy. It the soup hot? Hot, but not too hot?
DeleteJ: That's why those propositions are not communally falsifiable. Do you think science concerns itself with such hypotheses/propositions? And if so, just who do they have utility for?
Jeff: Which isn't contradictable (by definition of the LNC) by anything.
Z: Of course not. It's an axiom. Whether it is useful is another matter.
J: Humans are diverse. What has utility for one is not necessarily what has utility for others. But even that has to be testable to be scientific. You can't just arbitrarily claim something has utility for a minority of humans without showing how you tested THAT.
Jeff: A theory can be "best" in the sense of utility and seem false because it is merely heuristic and therefore consistent with metaphysical phenomenalism.
Z: Sure. However, nearly all physical theories propose specific tests that they correctly represent the world. This is done by testing the implications in different ways.
J: How do you test that your theory of gravitation is valid for the "world" without INDUCTIVE evidence of missing mass? To assume that the mass is "out there" is turning the method on its head. It's like supposing the world is 5 minutes old and then assuming that all apparent memories to the contrary are false memories. Where's the utility in that approach?
Z: Jeff: Yes, but "reasonable" for utility? Or reasonable for "truth"?
Z: You seem to tangle yourself up in knots over gnats.
J: Not at all. It's scientists who can't define what evidence means when they say there is overwhelming evidence for naturalistic UCA. There is no inductive evidence for UCA, naturalistic or otherwise, because no one can enumerate the number of axioms that imply such a history.
This is what this blog is all about. It's about calling out scientists when they misuse words to garner respect for hypotheses that have no utility (yet, at least).
Z: Sure. Newton proposed basic axioms to derive his mechanics. From that, he deduced empirical implications. Those implications were tested, and confirmed. Einstein did the same with his Relativity.
J: No. There is a difference. Newton's view was consistent with metaphysical phenomenalism for the reasons we have claimed heretofore. Einstein insisted that space is an extended entity in Newton's infinite spatial reference frame that has matter within it. But did he ever DEFINE matter and space such that the deductions are intelligible? You have yet to provide them. I think the reason why is obvious. It can't be done. And that's why Bell recognized that experiments can't rule out other interpretations using only Newtonian space with matter moving in IT.
Thus, ER wasn't confirmed empirically. It may have been preferred for reasons you have yet to articulate. And I'm all ears.
Z: Not only we have sense experience of the universe, but we can communicate with others who seem to share those experiences.
J: Those are theory laden beliefs. They either require induction or they don't. You have to explain HOW you arrive at those beliefs. Do you just arbitrarily ASSUME you remember? Do you just arbitrarily ASSUME there's stuff out there?
Z: We grant there is no deductive proof, so it could all be an illusion, but that is not the most parsimonious explanation.
J: How did you determine it's more parsimonious than metaphysical phenomenalism? I'm tired of the pontifications.
Jeff: Do you think science concerns itself with such hypotheses/propositions?
DeleteUh, science depends on independent verification.
Jeff: How do you test that your theory of gravitation is valid for the "world" without INDUCTIVE evidence of missing mass?
Can't find the house key! Newton has been falsified!!
Jeff: To assume that the mass is "out there" is turning the method on its head.
Uh, no. It's a hypothesis, a tentative claim. And it turns out there is support for the existence of dark matter not dependent on theories of gravity. Amazing how science works!
Jeff: It's like supposing the world is 5 minutes old and then assuming that all apparent memories to the contrary are false memories. Where's the utility in that approach?
Think about it for a minute. You compare hypothesis of dark matter to Last Five Minuteism to the scientific hypothesis of dark matter. The latter is based on the strong support for General Relativity, curves in space and whatnot; while the latter is based on your navel. The former develops evidence, such as the possible detection of WIMPS, gamma rays from the galactic center, and X-Rays from a cluster merger that can't be explained by varying the gravity law. We'd be happy to provide citations, but what would be the point?
So think about it. The hypothesis of Dark Matter has empirical implications, while Last Five Minuteism does not. Curves in space-time have empirical implications, navel-gazing does not.
Jeff: There is no inductive evidence for UCA, naturalistic or otherwise, because no one can enumerate the number of axioms that imply such a history.
It's called the Theory of Evolution.
Jeff: But did he ever DEFINE matter and space such that the deductions are intelligible?
Obviously.
Jeff: They either require induction or they don't.
Of course they require induction.
Jeff: To assume that the mass is "out there" is turning the method on its head.
DeleteZ: Uh, no. It's a hypothesis, a tentative claim.
J: Indeed.
Z: And it turns out there is support for the existence of dark matter not dependent on theories of gravity.
J: What is the evidence of that dark matter, and what is the evidence that it's quantities and locations explain observed galactic motions?
Z: Amazing how science works!
J: No, it's not amazing at all. The world is an intelligent order made by a designer in whose image we are. It would indeed be amazing if our inductive modes of inference coincidentally corresponded to an extra-self reality.
Jeff: But did he ever DEFINE matter and space such that the deductions are intelligible?
Z: Obviously.
J: You've yet to do it.
Jeff: How do you test that your theory of gravitation is valid for the "world" without INDUCTIVE evidence of missing mass?
Z: Can't find the house key! Newton has been falsified!!
J: What a moron. There's an infinite set of "theories" that can't be falsified. We're talking about evidence. Naive falsificationism is logically IMPOSSIBLE!
Jeff: What is the evidence of that dark matter, and what is the evidence that it's quantities and locations explain observed galactic motions?
DeleteWe have its gravitational effect. There's also evidence from the galactic center. See Abazajian & Kaplinghat, Detection of a Gamma-Ray Source in the Galactic Center Consistent with Extended Emission from Dark Matter Annihilation and Concentrated Astrophysical Emission, Physics Review D 2013. There's evidence independent of gravitational theory. See Clowe et al., A Direct Empirical Proof of the Existence of Dark Matter, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 2006.
There's no confirmed direct detection of dark matter, but because of the theoretical support, most physicists believe direct detection should be possible in the next few years.
http://www.science.tamu.edu/news/story.php?story_ID=1052
Jeff: No, it's not amazing at all.
There must be something wrong with your sense of amazement.
Jeff: But did he ever DEFINE matter and space such that the deductions are intelligible?
Yes. Turns out Einstein was known for his deductions.
Jeff: There's an infinite set of "theories" that can't be falsified.
They aren't much of a theory if they can't be falsified, at least in principle.
Jeff: We're talking about evidence.
That's right. Newton's Law of Gravity (within its domain) is strongly supported and probably applies even on the dark side of the Moon.
Jeff: What is the evidence of that dark matter, and what is the evidence that it's quantities and locations explain observed galactic motions?
DeleteZ: We have its gravitational effect.
J: That's not observationally demonstrable. I'm asking you WHAT is the evidence that "dark" matter exists in the right locations with the right quantities of mass to RENDER Einstein's equations CONFIRMED?
Z: There's no confirmed direct detection of dark matter, but because of the theoretical support,
J: If you don't know where it is and how much mass it has, what theoretical support are you talking about? You're certainly not talking about inductive support.
Jeff: No, it's not amazing at all.
Z: There must be something wrong with your sense of amazement.
J: You're confused. Because by your view, everything you believe is grounded in absolutely arbitrary axioms. Foundationalists see nothing remarkable about their most fundamental, natural intuitions "working" since one of their fundamental intuitions is that they're natural modes of inference are DESIGNED to WORK.
Jeff: But did he ever DEFINE matter and space such that the deductions are intelligible?
Z: Yes. Turns out Einstein was known for his deductions.
J: No, he didn't. Or would you would have put up by now.
Jeff: There's an infinite set of "theories" that can't be falsified.
Z: They aren't much of a theory if they can't be falsified, at least in principle.
J: UCA is not falsifiable, and you have yet to even define how Einstein's space can utterly replace the Newtonian (i.e., intuitive) conception of space. So you're just spewing obfuscation thus far. I have specifically asked multiple times what observation would falsify UCA, and no one can answer it. Because it's used as a PRINCIPLE or a corollary of a principle by consensus "scientists." It's not an INFERENCE derived by them from religiously-neutral premises.
Jeff: We're talking about evidence.
Z: That's right. Newton's Law of Gravity (within its domain) is strongly supported and probably applies even on the dark side of the Moon.
J: Math models. It doesn't explain ontologically in terms of attributes of "stuff out there" if positive volumes of such stuff are not necessary conditions of effects. Once positive volumes are irrelevant to explanation, you're merely modelling phenomenal experience. And that's consistent with metaphysical phenomenalism. And if you're content with that, then it's non-parsimonious (counter-inductive) to posit positive-volume'd stuff out there--including Einstein's space--until it can positive volumes are shown to be capable of explaining observations. If you're not content with metaphysical phenomenalism and the impossibility of explanation/prediction that can be corroborated (i.e., the assumption that events may very well be uncaused), you should fully understand why Einstein and Bell opposed QT as an ONTOLOGICAL theory, as opposed to a mere modeling aid that has utility despite its failure at explaining in terms of positive-volumed stuff "out there."
Jeff: That's not observationally demonstrable.
DeleteIt's consistent with the hypothesis and gravitational theory.
Jeff: I'm asking you WHAT is the evidence that "dark" matter exists in the right locations with the right quantities of mass to RENDER Einstein's equations CONFIRMED?
Einstein's equations have been confirmed by many different tests.
Jeff: If you don't know where it is and how much mass it has, what theoretical support are you talking about? You're certainly not talking about inductive support.
Inductive support is exactly what it is. A lot of evidence supports gravitational theory, so it is more plausible to hypothesize missing matter than to hypothesize that gravitational theory is wrong.
And there are independent tests, as we pointed out.
Jeff: UCA is not falsifiable
Of course it's falsifiable.
Jeff: and you have yet to even define how Einstein's space can utterly replace the Newtonian (i.e., intuitive) conception of space.
We have. You're just not listening. Einstein replaced Newtonian space with a four-dimensional manifold.
Jeff: I have specifically asked multiple times what observation would falsify UCA, and no one can answer it.
Show the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Show that mammals existed in the Precambrian. Show the existence of centaurs or griffins.
Jeff: Once positive volumes are irrelevant to explanation, you're merely modelling phenomenal experience.
It's not a logical necessity, as you have claimed. Indeed, quantum particles are point-like in many respects.
Jeff: That's not observationally demonstrable.
DeleteZ: It's consistent with the hypothesis and gravitational theory.
J: You haven't even defined Einstein's space distinguishably from matter and Newton's space. So you've made no argument yet. You're still just pontificating wildly.
Jeff: I'm asking you WHAT is the evidence that "dark" matter exists in the right locations with the right quantities of mass to RENDER Einstein's equations CONFIRMED?
Z: Einstein's equations have been confirmed by many different tests.
J: The equations are consistent with Lorentzian-like explanations as far as we know. Equations per se don't explain in terms of stuff OUT THERE unless the variables or constants in the equations are interpreted to MEAN particular VOLUMES of particular causal entities.
Jeff: If you don't know where it is and how much mass it has, what theoretical support are you talking about? You're certainly not talking about inductive support.
Z: Inductive support is exactly what it is. A lot of evidence supports gravitational theory, so it is more plausible to hypothesize missing matter than to hypothesize that gravitational theory is wrong.
J: Wrong. Gravitational "theory" is mere modelling of the seeming times and locations of conscious experience. As such, it is consistent with metaphysical phenomenalism. Thus, it provides ZERO inductive evidence of dark matter. Inductive criteria apply ONLY to explanations, NOT speculations.
Z: And there are independent tests, as we pointed out.
J: No. You're just confused about the difference between modelling (in terms of times and locations) of conscious experience and explaining in terms of positive-volume'd stuff "out there."
Jeff: UCA is not falsifiable
Z: Of course it's falsifiable.
J: No. Naive falsification is impossible. And inductive criteria apply to explanations ONLY. There is no explanation of ANY UCA history.
Jeff: and you have yet to even define how Einstein's space can utterly replace the Newtonian (i.e., intuitive) conception of space.
Z: We have. You're just not listening. Einstein replaced Newtonian space with a four-dimensional manifold.
J: And I explained how the very definition of manifold leaves the very specificity that would render Einstein's and Newton's spaces distinguishable unprovided. Feel free to provide it now.
Jeff: I have specifically asked multiple times what observation would falsify UCA, and no one can answer it.
Z: Show the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Show that mammals existed in the Precambrian. Show the existence of centaurs or griffins.
J: UCA doesn't imply any of the contraries to those hypotheses. So you're just completely ignorant of how deduction works. Besides, naive falsification is impossible. One can always explain away the "falsifying observation" by other assumptions consistent with the hypothesis in question.
Jeff: Once positive volumes are irrelevant to explanation, you're merely modelling phenomenal experience.
Z: It's not a logical necessity, as you have claimed. Indeed, quantum particles are point-like in many respects.
J: Once you're modelling by assigning properties to points in space, you're not contradicting metaphysical phenomenalism. And therefore positing stuff out there is non-parsimonious. This is what Bell and Einstein realized. Not only have you not falsified metaphysical phenomenalism, but modelling the past is not the same thing as explaining the past. Modelling past events is not inconsistent with events being UNCAUSED.
Jeff: You haven't even defined Einstein's space distinguishably from matter and Newton's space.
DeleteWe have, or rather, Einstein did. It's a four-dimensional manifold, as opposed to Newton's space which is three-dimensional and flat.
Jeff: The equations are consistent with Lorentzian-like explanations as far as we know.
Have no exact idea what "Lorentzian-like" is supposed to mean, but General Relativity could just be a lucky congruence of equations and fact. So could Newton's Theory. Instead of gravity, maybe angels really do move the planets, but do so in such a way that it is indistinguishable from gravity.
Jeff: Equations per se don't explain in terms of stuff OUT THERE unless the variables or constants in the equations are interpreted to MEAN particular VOLUMES of particular causal entities.
Not sure why you are hung up on volumes. Any physical theory may just be a lucky congruence of equation and fact. Newton's included.
Jeff: Gravitational "theory" is mere modelling of the seeming times and locations of conscious experience.
Of course it's a model. So is "The stove is hot".
Jeff: Thus, it provides ZERO inductive evidence of dark matter.
Of course it does. That's exactly what we mean by inductive evidence. The stove is still hot.
Jeff: You're just confused about the difference between modelling (in terms of times and locations) of conscious experience and explaining in terms of positive-volume'd stuff "out there."
The model is a model of stuff "out there", just like Newton's. Just like the stove is hot.
Jeff: There is no explanation of ANY UCA history.
You can keep repeating that, but just because you can't recognize an explanation when you see one doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Bifurcating descent predicts the nested hierarchy. The theory posits cladogenesis occurred "out there".
Jeff: And I explained how the very definition of manifold leaves the very specificity that would render Einstein's and Newton's spaces distinguishable unprovided.
They are distinguished because Einstein's manifold is curved.
Jeff: UCA doesn't imply any of the contraries to those hypotheses.
Sure it does. If the Earth is young, then there would not have been enough time for the number of bifurcations requires to explain the diversity of life. If mammals existed in the Precambrian, they would precede any plausible evolutionary ancestor. Centaurs and griffins also have no plausible evolutionary ancestor.
Jeff: One can always explain away the "falsifying observation" by other assumptions consistent with the hypothesis in question.
You can say anything you want, but a 6000 year old Earth would falsify the Theory of Evolution which requires millions of years.
Jeff: Once positive volumes are irrelevant to explanation, you're merely modelling phenomenal experience.
That is truly a bizarre position. Everything hinges on volumes for you. Never fear. Macroscopic objects have volume, even if they are mostly empty space filled with point-like particles.
Jeff: Not only have you not falsified metaphysical phenomenalism
You can't falsify metaphysical phenomenalism. Not with Newtonian theory. Not with General Relativity. Not with quantum theory. Not with saying objects have volume. You're a brain in a vat, and you can't tell otherwise.
Z: We have, or rather, Einstein did. It's a four-dimensional manifold, as opposed to Newton's space which is three-dimensional and flat.
DeleteJ: So modern physics models in terms of a 4-dimensional space (Einstein's space) and one dimension of time? You had said otherwise before.
Z: Have no exact idea what "Lorentzian-like" is supposed to mean,
J: Clocks change with velocity, etc, and time and space are mere frames of reference, as conceived of pre-Einstein.
Z: but General Relativity could just be a lucky congruence of equations and fact. So could Newton's Theory. Instead of gravity, maybe angels really do move the planets, but do so in such a way that it is indistinguishable from gravity.
J: Right. Until you IMPLY effects in TERMS of positive volumes of stuff "out there," you're just modelling mathematically. Metaphysical phenomenalism and uncaused histories are not ruled out by mere mathematical modeling.
Z: Not sure why you are hung up on volumes. Any physical theory may just be a lucky congruence of equation and fact. Newton's included.
J: Right. But if you're not "hung-up" on explaining in terms of stuff "out there," then POSITING stuff out there when you don't even care if it's there is NON-parsimonious and therefore COUNTER-inductive. They should just tell the public they have no inductive evidence for the existence of matter and don't care if it exists if that's their actual position. That's all CH is asking for - HONESTY!
Jeff: Gravitational "theory" is mere modelling of the seeming times and locations of conscious experience.
Z: Of course it's a model. So is "The stove is hot".
J: But most people agree that the "stove" is not an entity. They believe it's a COMPOSITE of entities. And we don't have a model of the properties of its composites that imply all of the conscious states we attribute to it. The final theory of REALITY will need to do that. All we're doing now is mathematical modeling. There is utility to that, for sure. But no one but confused people believe that mathematical models that don't model the causal role of the VOLUMES of the composites are telling us what's REAL.If volumes are irrelevant, we can't test whether the math has anything to do with a world of stuff "out there."
Z: Of course it does. That's exactly what we mean by inductive evidence. The stove is still hot.
J: No. A mere math model that can't be tested for the difference between a caused and uncaused history OR a metaphysically phenomenal world of events and a non-metapysically phenomenal world of events tells us nothing ABOUT a non-metaphysically phenomenal world INDUCTIVELY. Inductive criteria apply to EXPLANATIONS.
Jeff: You're just confused about the difference between modelling (in terms of times and locations) of conscious experience and explaining in terms of positive-volume'd stuff "out there."
Z: The model is a model of stuff "out there", just like Newton's. Just like the stove is hot.
J: Not if you're merely assigning values to points in space. And that's all you're doing. No tests yet exist to indicate inductively that stoves are composites of positive-volumed entities.
Z: Bifurcating descent predicts the nested hierarchy.
J: UCA per se doesn't require a nested hierarchy of the type you're talking about. And there are tons of DIFFERENT trees that satisfy mere bifurcated descent. That still leaves any particular tree (and there was ONLY ONE!) highly improbable. And no one can even articulate all the hypothetico-deductive axioms that would imply any single tree. So you're dead wrong.
Z: The theory posits cladogenesis occurred "out there".
J: Positing is not implying from axioms.
Z: It's a four-dimensional manifold, as opposed to Newton's space which is three-dimensional and flat.
DeleteJ: So modern physics models in terms of a 4-dimensional space (Einstein's space) and one dimension of time? You had said otherwise before. How do you design tests to EMPIRICALLY detect the role of a 4th dimension of space.
Z: Have no exact idea what "Lorentzian-like" is supposed to mean,
J: Clocks change with velocity, etc, and time and space are mere frames of reference, as conceived of pre-Einstein.
Z: but General Relativity could just be a lucky congruence of equations and fact. So could Newton's Theory.
J: Right. Until you IMPLY effects in TERMS of positive volumes of stuff "out there," you're just modelling mathematically.
Z: Not sure why you are hung up on volumes. Any physical theory may just be a lucky congruence of equation and fact. Newton's included.
J: Right. But if tax--subsidized scientists are not "hung-up" on explaining in terms of stuff "out there," then their POSITING stuff out is NON-parsimonious and therefore COUNTER-inductive/non-evidential.
Jeff: Gravitational "theory" is mere modelling of the seeming times and locations of conscious experience.
Z: Of course it's a model. So is "The stove is hot".
J: No. Most people agree that the "stove" is not an entity. They believe it's a COMPOSITE of tons of entities. And we don't have a model of the properties of its composites that imply all of the conscious states we attribute to it. A theory of a REALITY OUT THERE needs to do that. All we're doing now is mathematical modeling. There is utility to that, for sure. But no one but confused people believe that mathematical models that don't model the causal role of the VOLUMES of the composites are telling us what's REAL out there. If positive volumes are irrelevant, we can't test whether the math has anything to do with a world of stuff "out there."
Z: Of course it does. That's exactly what we mean by inductive evidence. The stove is still hot.
J: No. A mere math model that can't be tested for the difference between a caused and un-caused history OR a metaphysically phenomenal world of events and a non-metaphysically phenomenal world of events tells us nothing ABOUT a non-metaphysically phenomenal world INDUCTIVELY. Inductive criteria apply to EXPLANATIONS, not mere event modelling. Event math-models don't even per se imply that events are caused.
Jeff: You're just confused about the difference between modelling (in terms of times and locations) of conscious experience and explaining in terms of positive-volume'd stuff "out there."
Z: The model is a model of stuff "out there", just like Newton's. Just like the stove is hot.
J: Not if you're merely assigning various quantities to points in space. Neither a quantity nor a point in space (i.e., location) is a being/entity. And that's all you're doing. No tests of mathematical models yet exist to indicate inductively that stoves are composites of positive-volumed entities. The evidence that our visual experience is caused by invisible, extended-space-occupying, impenetrable particles came very early in life in terms of the most parsimonious explanation of the correlation of tactile/audible/optical experience.
Z: Bifurcating descent predicts the nested hierarchy.
J: UCA per se doesn't require a nested hierarchy of the type you're talking about. And there are tons of DIFFERENT trees that satisfy mere bifurcated descent. That still leaves any particular tree (and there was ONLY ONE!) highly improbable. And no one can even articulate all the hypothetico-deductive axioms that would imply any single tree. So you're dead wrong.
Z: The theory posits cladogenesis occurred "out there".
J: Positing is not implying from axioms.
Jeff: And I explained how the very definition of manifold leaves the very specificity that would render Einstein's and Newton's spaces distinguishable unprovided.
DeleteZ: They are distinguished because Einstein's manifold is curved.
J: For crying out loud! The definition said a manifold is a set of spatial points. Define "spatial" such that it's distinguisable from what we mean by a mere set of "spatial" points in Newton's space. Geesh. You do realize that there are subsets of spatial points in Newton's space don't you?
Jeff: UCA doesn't imply any of the contraries to those hypotheses.
Z: Sure it does. If the Earth is young, then there would not have been enough time for the number of bifurcations requires to explain the diversity of life.
J: UCA per se doesn't say a thing about rates of variation. Additional hypothetico-deductive axioms are required for that.
Z: If mammals existed in the Precambrian, they would precede any plausible evolutionary ancestor.
J: You can't even calculate a non-zero probability for any singe UCA tree in the first place unless, at minimum, you're willing to do so unconstrained by the laws of physics and chemistry, which is a violation of inductive criteria.
Z: Centaurs and griffins also have no plausible evolutionary ancestor.
J: No UCA lineage does either. That's the point. Inductive criteria applies to EXPLANATIONS, not personal credulity and speculation.
Jeff: One can always explain away the "falsifying observation" by other assumptions consistent with the hypothesis in question.
Z: You can say anything you want, but a 6000 year old Earth would falsify the Theory of Evolution which requires millions of years.
J: I didn't say "TOE," I said UCA.
Jeff: Once positive volumes are irrelevant to explanation, you're merely modelling phenomenal experience.
Z: That is truly a bizarre position. Everything hinges on volumes for you. Never fear. Macroscopic objects have volume, even if they are mostly empty space filled with point-like particles.
J: If particles are "like" points in the sense that they have zero volume, then there are no macroscopic objects. You're UTTERLY confused.
Jeff: Not only have you not falsified metaphysical phenomenalism
Z: You can't falsify metaphysical phenomenalism. Not with Newtonian theory. Not with General Relativity. Not with quantum theory. Not with saying objects have volume. You're a brain in a vat, and you can't tell otherwise.
J: Indeed. For the umpteenth time, naive falsification is IMPOSSIBLE. But that doesn't mean one can't hypothesize a causal ROLE for the volumes and shapes of entities such that it's implied effects can be modeled and tested against observation. Then, if tests of these theories "passed" and had greater parsimony and/or explanatory breadth, they would be BETTER explanations, per induction.
But scientists haven't even done THAT. So, again, if you don't think you can inductively rule out (using inductive criteria) that you're a brain in a vat, then your positing stuff out there is counter-inductive and therefore non-evidential in nature.
Jeff: Define "spatial" such that it's distinguisable from what we mean by a mere set of "spatial" points in Newton's space.
DeleteIt's in four dimensions. From someone confined to three dimensional space, if you go in a line that you determine to be straight locally, you end up following a curved line globally.
Jeff: UCA per se doesn't say a thing about rates of variation.
UCA doesn't exist in a vacuum. Even if life bifurcated every generation, there wouldn't be enough time to account for the diversity we observe.
Jeff: Additional hypothetico-deductive axioms are required for that.
A lot is simple observation, such as generation time in higher orders. So no, you are wrong. A young Earth would falsify evolutionary theory, and everyone knew it when Darwin proposed his theory.
Interesting story. Kelvin determined the age of the Earth based on it rate of cooling, and determined it couldn't be much more than a few tens-of-millions of years old. That didn't leave enough time for evolution.
Geologists and biologists were quite sure that the Earth was much older. The discrepancy persisted until the Curie's discovery radiation, which heats the interior of the Earth. It was Kelvin's physics that was falsified.
Jeff: You can't even calculate a non-zero probability for any singe UCA tree in the first place unless
Not sure what you mean, unless you seem to be suggesting that evolution should be able to predict the exact tree that life follows, which it doesn't purport to do so.
Jeff: No UCA lineage does either.
Of course they do. For instance, birds share a common ancestor with therapods.
Jeff: I didn't say "TOE," I said UCA.
Not sure you can quite separate them that way, but given even minimal knowledge of biological reproduction, a young Earth would falsify common descent.
Jeff: If particles are "like" points in the sense that they have zero volume, then there are no macroscopic objects.
Even if particles are point-like, they have associated fields that have volume.
Jeff: For the umpteenth time, naive falsification is IMPOSSIBLE.
Of course. Every observation is theory-laden. See discussion of Kelvin above.
Jeff: So, again, if you don't think you can inductively rule out (using inductive criteria) that you're a brain in a vat,
What the red pill? What other evidence do you have?
Jeff: Clocks change with velocity, etc, and time and space are mere frames of reference, as conceived of pre-Einstein.
DeleteSure you can always come up with transforms. However, relativity theory makes claims about space and time, claims that have their own empirical implications. For instance, if you accelerate a radioactive particle, it's half-life is extended.
Jeff: Until you IMPLY effects in TERMS of positive volumes of stuff "out there," you're just modelling mathematically.
Relativity does posit "stuff out there", including curved spacetime.
Jeff: But most people agree that the "stove" is not an entity.
Huh? They refer to it as a single entity, even while knowing it has parts.
Jeff: They believe it's a COMPOSITE of entities.
Are human entities? Or a composite of parts?
Jeff: Inductive criteria apply to EXPLANATIONS.
Relativity is an explanation. Indeed, Newton didn't explain gravity, Einstein did.
Jeff: No tests yet exist to indicate inductively that stoves are composites of positive-volumed entities.
You're out there alright.
Jeff: That still leaves any particular tree (and there was ONLY ONE!) highly improbable.
Of course. The specific tree is a tiny sliver of possible trees, while any tree is a tiny sliver of possible other patterns.
Jeff: So you're dead wrong.
Huh? It's trivial mathematics that bifurcation leads to a nested hierarchy.
Jeff: Positing is not implying from axioms.
Gee whiz. Cladogenesis is the hypothesis. It's also observed. You posit the mechanism then look for entailments.
Jeff: Define "spatial" such that it's distinguisable from what we mean by a mere set of "spatial" points in Newton's space.
DeleteZ: It's in four dimensions.
J: Again, are you saying that Einstein's space is 4-dimensional, or is time the 4th dimension? Please, just ANSWER a question directly. Elaboration is fine if added TO the answer.
Jeff: UCA per se doesn't say a thing about rates of variation.
Z: UCA doesn't exist in a vacuum. Even if life bifurcated every generation, there wouldn't be enough time to account for the diversity we observe.
J: There's no reason to believe 4.5 billion years is long enough. So that whole point is irrelevant.
Jeff: You can't even calculate a non-zero probability for any singe UCA tree in the first place
Z: Not sure what you mean, unless you seem to be suggesting that evolution should be able to predict the exact tree that life follows, which it doesn't purport to do so.
J: I mean exactly what I said. You can't CALCULATE a NON-ZERO probability for the occurrence for ANY UCA tree using fossils and observed organisms as data points.
Jeff: No UCA lineage does either.
Z: Of course they do. For instance, birds share a common ancestor with therapods.
J: There's no inductive evidence for that belief. Because there is no articulable explanation for such a genealogical history. And inductive criteria apply ONLY to explanations, not specultations.
Jeff: For the umpteenth time, naive falsification is IMPOSSIBLE.
Z: Of course. Every observation is theory-laden. See discussion of Kelvin above.
J: And yet you say a young earth would falsify UCA.
Jeff: So, again, if you don't think you can inductively rule out (using inductive criteria) that you're a brain in a vat,
Z: What the red pill?
J: What's the red pill?
Z: What other evidence do you have?
J: For what?
Z: Relativity does posit "stuff out there", including curved spacetime.
J: Does it have a positive volume? If so, is the volume 3-D or 4-D? If not, it's not "stuff out there." How do you measure a volume in 4-D?
Jeff: But most people agree that the "stove" is not an entity.
Z: Huh? They refer to it as a single entity, even while knowing it has parts.
J: We all do, EVEN while inferring it is a composite. Just like we still say sunset and sunrise, EVEN while knowing that is not what we actually believe is going on. So you haven't contradicted me at all. You really don't get logic even at the most basic level, do you?
Z: Sure you can always come up with transforms. However, relativity theory makes claims about space and time, claims that have their own empirical implications.
J: Define "empirical" and "time" such that you can "empirically" demonstrate that time is other than how Newton thought of it? Then you'll be getting somewhere with respect to showing it's testable, as per the axioms that render testing conceivable. Til then, you're just using words that have the same conventional meaning that Newton used without attempting to communicate the differences.
If I remember correctly, Einstein said a particular time was a particular reading of a clock. That assumes that "clock" is definable apart from a pre-existing conception of time. Clear me up. Was he using "time" in two senses? If not, what did "clock" mean to Einstein?
Z: Cladogenesis is the hypothesis. It's also observed. You posit the mechanism then look for entailments.
J: Cladogenesis is consistent with SA. UCA is the issue.
Jeff: Einstein's space is 4-dimensional, or is time the 4th dimension?
DeleteEinstein's spacetime is 4-dimensional.
Jeff: There's no reason to believe 4.5 billion years is long enough. So that whole point is irrelevant.
You just admitted the point, but pretended you didn't.
Jeff: You can't CALCULATE a NON-ZERO probability for the occurrence for ANY UCA tree using fossils and observed organisms as data points.
Any specific tree, that is correct.
Jeff: There's no inductive evidence for that belief.
There scientific evidence that birds and therapods share a common ancestor, including anatomical data.
Jeff: And yet you say a young earth would falsify UCA.
Yes, it would.
Jeff: What's the red pill?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arcJksDgCOU
Zachriel: Relativity does posit "stuff out there", including curved spacetime.
Jeff: Does it have a positive volume?
Yes.
Jeff: We all do, EVEN while inferring it is a composite.
People are entities, but have parts. Stoves are entities, but have parts.
entity, something that has separate and distinct existence and objective or conceptual reality
Jeff: That assumes that "clock" is definable apart from a pre-existing conception of time.
An observed physical regularity.
Zachriel: Cladogenesis is the hypothesis.
DeleteJeff: Cladogenesis is consistent with SA. UCA is the issue.
Again, you admit the claim, but pretend you didn't. Not sure why you are doing that.
In any case, any claim is consistent with an infinitude of possible explanations, however, few of those explanations have the quality of a scientific explanation, such as parsimony and the ability to make novel and distinguishing predictions.
Jeff: Einstein's space is 4-dimensional, or is time the 4th dimension?
DeleteZ: Einstein's spacetime is 4-dimensional.
J: Is space PER Einstein 4- dimensional or 3-dimensional?
Jeff: There's no reason to believe 4.5 billion years is long enough. So that whole point is irrelevant.
Z: You just admitted the point, but pretended you didn't.
J: Wrong. Your belief about the age of the earth has nothing to do with the plausibility of UCA because no one can calculate a non-zero probability for the occurrence of any UCA tree in that time-frame.
Jeff: You can't CALCULATE a NON-ZERO probability for the occurrence for ANY UCA tree using fossils and observed organisms as data points.
Z: Any specific tree, that is correct.
J: Newsflash: If UCA is true history, there was A SPECIFIC TREE! Now, let's make the simple conclusion: One, two, three -- a NON-ZERO probability of UCA can't be calculated or otherwise demonstrated. UCA can't be explained. No one can articulate or think that many hypothetico-deductive axioms. And inductive evidence ONLY applies to explanations, not believed stories.
Jeff: There's no inductive evidence for that belief.
Z: There scientific evidence that birds and therapods share a common ancestor, including anatomical data.
J: There's no inductive evidence of it, and you have yet to define what non-inductive, scientific evidence even means.
Jeff: And yet you say a young earth would falsify UCA.
Z: Yes, it would.
J: So you do believe in naive falsification after all. You contradict yourself incessantly.
Zachriel: Relativity does posit "stuff out there", including curved spacetime.
Jeff: Does it have a positive volume?
Z: Yes.
J: Correct. And its volume is finite. And since you claim it expands, etc, a frame of reference is used to conceive of such motion. That frame of reference is Newton's space. IOW, Einstein didn't rid the mind of the use of Newton's space. Rather, he merely added a positive volume'd entity that is, per the older definition, MATTER! Assigning a variable called mass to some matter (by the old definition) doesn't render Einstein's space version of matter any less matter per the old definition.
Jeff: We all do, EVEN while inferring it is a composite.
Z: People are entities, but have parts. Stoves are entities, but have parts.
J: A human body is a composite of entities/beings. The only sense in which it is a unit is in terms of a concept only. And that's why our language works for its purposes while not being ontologically accurate.
Z: entity, something that has separate and distinct existence and objective or conceptual reality
J: Right, some THING, SINGULAR!
Jeff: That assumes that "clock" is definable apart from a pre-existing conception of time.
Z: An observed physical regularity.
J: Regularity presupposes a conception of time. What did Einstein say time was that was different than Newton. Flesh it out.
Zachriel: Cladogenesis is the hypothesis.
Jeff: Cladogenesis is consistent with SA. UCA is the issue.
Z: Again, you admit the claim, but pretend you didn't. Not sure why you are doing that.
J: The claim isthat cladogenesis occurs. But that is consistent with SA as well. There is no inductive evidence for UCA.
Z: In any case, any claim is consistent with an infinitude of possible explanations, however, few of those explanations have the quality of a scientific explanation, such as parsimony and the ability to make novel and distinguishing predictions.
J: UCA is inexplicable, thus it is not discernibly the most parimonious explanation. It implies no future events. Adding bifurcating descent doesn't distinguish between SA and UCA since bifurcating descent is consistent with SA. YOu're utterly confused.
Jeff: Is space PER Einstein 4- dimensional or 3-dimensional?
DeleteSpace and time are our perceptions of spacetime.
Jeff: Your belief about the age of the earth has nothing to do with the plausibility of UCA because no one can calculate a non-zero probability for the occurrence of any UCA tree in that time-frame.
Given the hypothesis, the tree is of such extent that it couldn't have grown in a few thousand years. Hence, showing the world is only a few thousand years old would falsify the theory of evolution.
Jeff: If UCA is true history, there was A SPECIFIC TREE!
Sure, we have evidence of a specific tree, and a strongly supported theory of tree formation.
Jeff: There's no inductive evidence of it, and you have yet to define what non-inductive, scientific evidence even means.
Science includes induction, but is not simply induction, but hypothetico-deduction.
Jeff: So you do believe in naive falsification after all.
Not at all. The falsification itself is fraught with its own theoretical limitations, however, given the falsification, which is your proposition, then it would falsify the theory of evolution we have today.
Jeff: That frame of reference is Newton's space.
Um, no.
Jeff: Rather, he merely added a positive volume'd entity that is, per the older definition, MATTER!
No. It's a spacetime manifold.
Jeff: A human body is a composite of entities/beings. The only sense in which it is a unit is in terms of a concept only.
entity, something that has separate and distinct existence and objective or conceptual reality.
Humans have as much a separate and distinct existence as any other object.
Jeff: Regularity presupposes a conception of time.
We observe regularities.
Jeff: What did Einstein say time was that was different than Newton.
Einstein said time depends on the observer.
Jeff: The claim isthat cladogenesis occurs.
Z: The theory posits cladogenesis occurred "out there".
J: Positing is not implying from axioms.
Cladogenesis is a proposed hypothesis to explained the observed nested hierarchy.
Jeff: Adding bifurcating descent doesn't distinguish between SA and UCA since bifurcating descent is consistent with SA.
SA (special ancestry?) simply means that taxa form branches. The evidence strongly supports that these branches all belong to the same tree.
Jeff: What did Einstein say time was that was different than Newton.
DeleteZ: Einstein said time depends on the observer.
J: No, what did Einstein say time IS. Not a particular time, like 2pm, but time PER SE, as opposed to Newton.
Jeff: Regularity presupposes a conception of time.
Z: We observe regularities.
J: Regularity PRESUPPOSES a categorical meaning of time. We DON'T observe time. So what definition of time renders a definition of "regularity" intelligible. On the other hand, if what you're calling time is observable, does it have positive volume?
Jeff: Adding bifurcating descent doesn't distinguish between SA and UCA since bifurcating descent is consistent with SA.
DeleteZ: SA (special ancestry?) simply means that taxa form branches. The evidence strongly supports that these branches all belong to the same tree.
Jeff: By SA I mean separate ancestries. No one can explain a biological history in terms of either UCA or SA. Thus, the inductive criteria applied to explanations (parsimony, breadth of explanation, etc) have no application to adjudicating which is true. What else are you meaning by evidential when rejecting one over the other? This is what you haven't and can't answer.
We can say, however, that a Designer that renders inductive citeria valid and natural for humans because of sympathetic interest in humans would also render creation as utilitarianly-classifiable as was consistent with other ends of creation. Thus, the ability to classify per a hierarchical tree is not unexpected per big-D ID.
Jeff: No one can explain a biological history in terms of either UCA or SA.
DeleteIndeed, they can and have.
Jeff: Thus, the ability to classify per a hierarchical tree is not unexpected per big-D ID.
There are many other patterns a designer could have chosen other than one that makes it look like common descent.
Jeff: No, what did Einstein say time IS.
DeleteIt's one dimension of the four-dimensional spacetime manifold.
Z, I'm way busy and haven't had time to even finish reading your longer post above. But let me address right quickly your shorter, recent responses.
DeleteJeff: No one can explain a biological history in terms of either UCA or SA.
Z: Indeed, they can and have.
J: No, they haven't. You can't even say or write enough hypothetico-deductive axiomatic propositions to imply (i.e., EXPLAIN) any UCA tree that includes observed extant and fossil species, EVEN if you're willing to grant saltations to eliminate the need to posit unfossilized/unobserved intermediates.
Jeff: Thus, the ability to classify per a hierarchical tree is not unexpected per big-D ID.
Z: There are many other patterns a designer could have chosen other than one that makes it look like common descent.
J: So what? Where there is no actual explanation of a UCA or SA biological history any one can actually believe, there is no inductive evidence for either. Inductive criteria apply TO explanations, not speculations. And you have yet to define what other kind of criteria you are using to derive the notion of "evidence" from. Nor will you, because what you mean by evidence is just personal credulity.
Jeff: No, what did Einstein say time IS.
Z: It's one dimension of the four-dimensional spacetime manifold.
J: What he said was that a specific time is the interpreted reading of what is interpreted to be a clock. By that definition, time always was relative to the individual since clocks routinely give different interpreted "readings." IOW, Einstein didn't say anything new ABOUT time, he simply defined time to be what no one else ever defined it to BE. As such, he never showed that what people theretofore meant by time is invalid.
In short, Einstein didn't rule out Newton's time and space. He created new definitions of time and space that in no way contradict the role of Newton's time and space. Einstein's space, e.g., is what most people would call matter. It is conceived of as a finite, 3-D extended substance residing, moving, expanding, etc, IN Newton's space.
A couple more of your errors above need addressing:
DeleteJ: Positing is not implying from axioms.
Z: Cladogenesis is a proposed hypothesis to explained the observed nested hierarchy.
J: It doesn't explain THE OBSERVED nested hierarchy. It implies A nested hierarchy. That's your confusion. There are tons of nested hierarchies that are consistent with mere cladogenesis. You need to predict/imply ONE UCA tree that includes extant and fossil species in a relevant (to the constraints of fossil succession) temporal order from a set of hypothetico-deductive axiomatic propositions. No one is even in the ball park of doing this.
Jeff: Rather, he merely added a positive volume'd entity that is, per the older definition, MATTER!
Z: No. It's a spacetime manifold.
J: Can you even articulate the traditional definition of matter? I realize Einstein's space is not what modern scientists call matter. That's NOT what I said.
Jeff: You can't even say or write enough hypothetico-deductive axiomatic propositions to imply (i.e., EXPLAIN) any UCA tree that includes observed extant and fossil species, EVEN if you're willing to grant saltations to eliminate the need to posit unfossilized/unobserved intermediates.
DeleteSure you can. It's called bifurcating descent with modification.
Jeff: So what?
The same reason the theory of gravity argues against angels pushing planets on crystal spheres, it's the more parsimonious explanation, not to mention it leads to testable implications.
Jeff: Inductive criteria apply TO explanations, not speculations.
That's not correct. Scientific speculations have entailments.
Jeff: Einstein didn't say anything new ABOUT time, he simply defined time to be what no one else ever defined it to BE.
No one ever defined time in terms of a clock?! That's funny.
Jeff: Einstein didn't rule out Newton's time and space.
That is incorrect. Einsteinian physics is inconsistent with Newtonian physics.
Jeff: Einstein's space, e.g., is what most people would call matter.
Heh. Even funnier. No, space is not what most people would call matter.
Jeff: It doesn't explain THE OBSERVED nested hierarchy. It implies A nested hierarchy.
We understand the distinction you're trying to make, and we have restated it previously. Common descent implies a nested hierarchy, but not any particular nested hierarchy. That's because much of evolution is contingent, including cometary impacts.
But to say the shape of an elm is due to bifurcation is not a trivial statement, even if you can't predict the exact pattern of bifurcation.
Jeff: You need to predict/imply ONE UCA tree that includes extant and fossil species in a relevant (to the constraints of fossil succession) temporal order from a set of hypothetico-deductive axiomatic propositions.
Um, no. Science doesn't have to know everything to know some things. An elm tree grows by bifurcation.
Jeff: You can't even say or write enough hypothetico-deductive axiomatic propositions to imply (i.e., EXPLAIN) any UCA tree that includes observed extant and fossil species, EVEN if you're willing to grant saltations to eliminate the need to posit unfossilized/unobserved intermediates.
DeleteZ: Sure you can. It's called bifurcating descent with modification.
J: Wrong as always. Bifurcating descent imply ANY of the extant fossil species of earth. You simply don't know what a prediction/implication is. Astonishing.
Jeff: So what?
Z: The same reason the theory of gravity argues against angels pushing planets on crystal spheres, it's the more parsimonious explanation, not to mention it leads to testable implications.
J: Wrong as always. You haven't provided an explanation. You've only spoke of a temporal/spatial mathematical modelling of putative memories, each of which and each ELEMENT of which you insist must be posited distinctly as ARBITRARY assumptions--which assumptions you couldn't non-arbitrarily claim to remember.
But let's forget your arbitrariness. You keep saying a mathematical model IS an explanation. It's not. Math uses quantitative relationships. As such, an uncaused history (one that has no ACTUAL explanation) can conceivably be modelled. An explanation, on the other hand, assigns causes and effects to antecedent and subsequent existential conditions, respectively. You have yet to state what CAUSES what in terms of Eintein's space, modernly-defined-matter, etc. So pony up, puppy.
State the axioms describing the antecedent configuration and causal capacities of 3-D-extended stuff at time 0 sufficient to IMPLY the configuration of 3-D-extended stuff (whether modernly-defined-matter, Einstein's space, etc) at time t1. Then, and ONLY then, can we apply the parsimony criteria to ER and the angel theory.
Jeff: Inductive criteria apply TO explanations, not speculations.
Z: That's not correct. Scientific speculations have entailments.
J: Wrong as always. The scientific entailment IS the implication. Explanation simply IS the deducing of implications of the hypothetico-deductive axioms that constitute the theory to show that those implications are consistent with our "observations."
Jeff: Einstein didn't say anything new ABOUT time, he simply defined time to be what no one else ever defined it to BE.
Z: No one ever defined time in terms of a clock?! That's funny.
J: Right. We couldn't even conceive of the MEANING of an INACCURATE clock if time requires, for its very definition, the definition of a clock. This is the problem with you clueless ones. You can't define your terms, much less show entailments/implications.
Jeff: Einstein didn't rule out Newton's time and space.
Z: That is incorrect. Einsteinian physics is inconsistent with Newtonian physics.
J: True, but neither Einstein nor Newton ever provided anything but a mathematical model. And mathematical modelling, per se, doesn't even rule out metaphysical phenomenalism. And you have yet to show, by enumerating the respective hypothetico-deductive axioms, which is more parsimonious.
Jeff: Einstein's space, e.g., is what most people would call matter.
Z: Heh. Even funnier. No, space is not what most people would call matter.
J: Right. Not "space;" Einstein's space. You've forgotten, apparently, that Einstein's space is NOT the only meaning of space used by humans. I just watched a youtube video where the scientists admitted that most people think in terms of Newtonian conceptions of space and time. Apparently you're one of a very few utterly clueless wonders in the world.
Jeff: It doesn't explain THE OBSERVED nested hierarchy. It implies A nested hierarchy.
Jeff: It doesn't explain THE OBSERVED nested hierarchy. It implies A nested hierarchy.
DeleteZ: We understand the distinction you're trying to make, and we have restated it previously. Common descent implies a nested hierarchy, but not any particular nested hierarchy. That's BECAUSE much of evolution is contingent, including cometary impacts.
J: You don't understand the meaning of the word "BECAUSE." No one has IMPLIED from any set of hypothetico-deductive axioms that cometary impacts or any other historical event CAUSED a particular nested hierarchy that includes earth's extant and fossil species. You're oblivious to the nature of explanation/prediction/etc.
Z: But to say the shape of an elm is due to bifurcation is not a trivial statement, even if you can't predict the exact pattern of bifurcation.
J: Nor is it trivial to say that a Designer that intended for humans to both classify the way we do and interact with organisms would ALSO create organisms such that they are classifiable in terms of nested hierarchy. So we're tied so far. Now what you got?
Jeff: You need to predict/imply ONE UCA tree that includes extant and fossil species in a relevant (to the constraints of fossil succession) temporal order from a set of hypothetico-deductive axiomatic propositions.
Z: Um, no. Science doesn't have to know everything to know some things. An elm tree grows by bifurcation.
J: We're tied. Now what you got? Show me how the inductive criteria break the tie. This is what you haven't even attempted. Nor have you even attempted to define what other plausibility criteria there ARE. But why would you? That would be carrying on an intelligent discussion.
And BTW, in that same video I mentioned above, the scientists all admitted that Einstein's "space" is a great mystery. Actually, Einstein's space is not the mystery. It's Einstein's "time" that can't be defined such that we can still conceive of what we currently mean by "measuring" time PASSAGE. Many scientists don't understand definitions, and therefore deduction, and therefore the hypothetico-deductive methodology. They're just living in an epistemological world of personal credulity assuming that it MIRACULOUSLY equates to warranted inferential beliefs simply because they putatively do "science" for a living. But it doesn't. They're just utterly confused.
Delete"
ReplyDeleteDocumentaries like this suggest to me that it's the proponents of human exceptionalism who are worried, possibly by the growing catalogue of exoplanets which suggest otherwise."
I could not care less but until multiple other civilizations are found exoplanets would be no evidence against thatproposition
"The bible claims that humans are the only terrestrial organism that is made in the image of God."
ReplyDeleteI've never seen that reference. Made in the image of God yes but I have never seen a passage say we are the only ones. I am not a great believer in films as as a way of announcing discoveries though and I am not thrilled to see Krauss in that promo like he has something to do with the claims. No Krauss fan but I can see him having a legitimate beef with that promo.
Let's just say, Elijah, it's a fair inference. And that therefore Ian's claim still has no discernible relevance to CH's views. IOW, the judaeo-christian scriptures do say humans are made in the image of God. It does not say others are. And it's easy to see why that distinction would be made if that's the intended distinction.
Delete“Sure it's subject to criticism, as we already showed.”
ReplyDeleteWhere please? I shoud miss it.
“Your problem is that you seem to think that to criticize means to find fault”
May be, more precisely I think that criticize is find if it agrees with previous established trues.
You started by saying
criticize is : “examining as for consistency.”
“deduce the validity of the statement from other principles”
“examining the terms and their relationship in the statement.”
“consider the merits and demerits of and judge accordingly”
And you are back now to:
“you can show how it might be deduced from more basic principles”
Well then I would ask which are that more basic pronciples? Are them subject to investigation and criticism? Based on what other more basic principles?
Blas: Where please?
DeleteWe just repeated it. You can criticize it by taking a variety of statements and categorize them by whether or not they themselves can be criticized. You can criticize it based on whether the terms (e.g. "most" or "proposition") are properly delineated. More generally, you can show how it might be deduced from more basic principles, because every category and relationship in a statement can be subject to scrutiny.
Blas: May be, more precisely I think that criticize is find if it agrees with previous established trues.
That's *one* form of criticism. If there is a contradiction, then it could be that the proposition is wrong, or the previously established propositions are wrong, or your reasoning is wrong.
Blas: Well then I would ask which are that more basic pronciples?
Basic principles include how categories are formed, and the relationship between terms of the proposition.
Blas: Are them subject to investigation and criticism?
Of course.
Blas: Based on what other more basic principles?
Categories and relationships may be poorly delineated.
Basic principles include how categories are formed, and the relationship between terms of the proposition.
ReplyDeleteBlas: Are them subject to investigation and criticism?
Of course.
Blas: Based on what other more basic principles?
Categories and relationships may be poorly delineated.
And how do you know that categories are poorly delineated? Because you can deduce it from more basic principles. So in order to criticize do you need always more basic principles?
Jeff: Bifurcating descent imply ANY of the extant fossil species of earth.
ReplyDeleteNo. It explains why we observe a nested hierarchy.
Jeff: Explanation simply IS the deducing of implications of the hypothetico-deductive axioms that constitute the theory to show that those implications are consistent with our "observations."
We say Newton's Axioms are the explanation. The deductions are the specifics we use to test the explanation.
Jeff: It doesn't explain THE OBSERVED nested hierarchy. It implies A nested hierarchy.
That's right. Bifurcating descent is the explanation. The explanation implies a nested hierarchy.
Jeff: No one has IMPLIED from any set of hypothetico-deductive axioms that cometary impacts or any other historical event CAUSED a particular nested hierarchy that includes earth's extant and fossil species.
It's like pruning a tree. We can't be sure exactly how it will regrow, but it will be by a branching process.
Your position is vacuous and uninteresting.
Jeff: No one has IMPLIED from any set of hypothetico-deductive axioms that cometary impacts or any other historical event CAUSED a particular nested hierarchy that includes earth's extant and fossil species.
DeleteZ: Your position is vacuous ...
J: And yet you replied above, to the same point,
"We understand the distinction you're trying to make ..."
So apparently it's not vacuous to you at all. You're either utterly confused or intellectually dishonest or both.
The problem with only predicting a tree that is nested is that the number of such trees is so enormous that the probability of the actual one being one that includes earth's biota constrained in some significant degree by currently-observed fossil succession and what we currently can predict morphology- and phenotype-wise from our knowledge of genetics is virtually zero. I.e., there is precisely ZERO plausibilty of UCA given what we currently know.
Thus, it matters not what the plausibility of SA is or isn't. When you have nothing, it's shameless to complain about others having nothing.
Jeff: So apparently it's not vacuous to you at all.
DeleteJust because you are trying to make a distinction doesn't mean that distinction is meaningful.
Jeff: The problem with only predicting a tree that is nested is that the number of such trees is so enormous that the probability of the actual one being one ... is virtually zero.
Of course it is. Just like when we discover that trees form by a branching process, we don't know how a particular tree will form. However, the branching process is an infinitesimal of other possible patterns, so that discovery stringently limits the possibilities. It is significant to know that trees form by a branching process rather than suddenly appearing in the forest, or fully formed limbs with branches suddenly appear on the tree.