ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 4:26 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 62 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Whys and Hows
PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 12:22 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 869
Wandering Idiot wrote:
Tamayo wrote:
The Everett-DeWitt interpretation is very suspect; it injects metaphysics into physics, which is a crazy bad idea. There is no need for any of these "interpretations": just do the math. The math works, irrespective of any "interpretation".


"Shut up and calculate!" -attributed to Feynman ;)

It may be a practical point of view as far as current research is concerned, but I think long-term it's extremely unsatisfying to present a predictive framework without making any attempt to work out the mechanisms which underly it. It would be like accepting the gravity equations and not trying to figure out how gravity works.


I could say, "the gravity equations work as they do because mass concentrations bend the spatial manifold through time", but I am begging the question. I can't tell you why that occurs. Technically, I cannot devise an experiment or a logical argument to show why anything occurs. "Why" is a problem of metaphysics. "How" is the problem of science. Indeed, you might go so far as to ask me next, "well, how does mass bend the spatial manifold then?" and I will answer (being a mere computer nerd, not a physicist) "I don't know, but I can think of ways of discovering the answer".

We have to adjust to Clarke's Law: The universe is not only stranger than we know, but stranger than we can understand. For example, we have accepted that light is both a wave and a particle. It's very difficult for our minds to grasp how that can be, but it cannot be otherwise, so we shrug our metaphorical shoulders and say, "okay, it's both, however nonsensical that appears".


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 12:32 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 2:44 pm
Posts: 1821
Location: Home! Wheeeeee!
Wavicles! Yay!

I have nothing of substance to add to this, i know just enough to understand what the arguements are. :P

_________________
Image


Last edited by Emy on Sat Nov 06, 2004 4:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 1:26 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 06, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1967
Location: All curled up in a Calabi-Yau space
Tamayo wrote:
I could say, "the gravity equations work as they do because mass concentrations bend the spatial manifold through time", but I am begging the question. I can't tell you why that occurs. Technically, I cannot devise an experiment or a logical argument to show why anything occurs. "Why" is a problem of metaphysics. "How" is the problem of science. Indeed, you might go so far as to ask me next, "well, how does mass bend the spatial manifold then?" and I will answer (being a mere computer nerd, not a physicist) "I don't know, but I can think of ways of discovering the answer".

Exactly, and in trying to understand the underlying mechanisms of each successive answer, we gain a deeper and potentially more useful understanding of the phenomenon in question. We may never get the "final answer", but as long as each one is more complete than the one which preceded it, I'd call it progress.

Incidentally, if you look at my post, I used the word "how". I never said "why", which is admittedly ultimately outside the realm of science.

Quote:
We have to adjust to Clarke's Law: The universe is not only stranger than we know, but stranger than we can understand.

I always thought Clarke's Law was "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"? Anyway, it's an assumption. You can't know for sure that we (or our non-human descendants) will never be able to understand the universe.


Why is this a separate topic, btw, especially since you started it with a quote?

EDIT:
For anyone who comes in late, the current conversation could be said to have started somewhere around here in the other thread.

_________________
Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence.
- Robert Anton Wilson


Last edited by Wandering Idiot on Sun Nov 07, 2004 12:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 1:35 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 2:44 pm
Posts: 1821
Location: Home! Wheeeeee!
Wandering Idiot wrote:
Why is this a separate topic, btw, especially since you started it with a quote?

Either Tam hit the wrong button, or she thought it didn't belong in a political debate. :P

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: INCOHERENT RAMBLING AHOY!
PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 3:53 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
Silly non-liberal-arts-majors. Science doesn't actually present an accurate picture of the world. It's simply a big mess of interconnected models and equations that, we have found, predicts the outcome of various events rather well, when we know the details of said events. Just because something works doesn't mean that it's true. The connection between effectiveness and truth is an entirely human-created one.

Honestly, and I know I'm going to get a lot of shit for saying this, the idea of "objective reality" is pretty stupid. What matters in science is that the equations work. Asking what is "really" happening is mistakenly believing science can give us "truth". "Truth" simply does not exist. There are methods of acting or predicting events that are more effective than other methods, but this has nothing to do with "truth". Figuring out what the "truth" is was the realm of metaphysics, but that seems to be a rather dead end, and most post-Nietzschean continental philosophers are moving away from metaphysical thinking.

Metaphysics, the pursuit of "the truth", has led us absolutely nowhere; we are no closer to finding an answer to metaphysical questions than we were at the time of Plato. All we've really done since then is further explain the nature of those questions. As 3000 years of pursuing this has not led to a single advance, I think it's safe to say that there is no answer -- "truth" is a human-created concept.

Anyway, I just woke up and thus am a bit groggy, so sorry if I'm babbling incoherently. Will explain my ideas regarding this a bit more clearly some time soon. *goes back to bed*

(BTW, I'm honjestly a bigger fan of the Copenhagen interpretation -- in the end, it's a less complicated model than Everett-DeWitt. The only advantage E-D has over Copenhagen is that it conflicts with our precious little human intuition less. Suck it up, wusses!)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: INCOHERENT RAMBLING AHOY!
PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 4:15 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 6:10 pm
Posts: 2571
IcyMonkey wrote:
Honestly, and I know I'm going to get a lot of shit for saying this, the idea of "objective reality" is pretty stupid. What matters in science is that the equations work. Asking what is "really" happening is mistakenly believing science can give us "truth". "Truth" simply does not exist. There are methods of acting or predicting events that are more effective than other methods, but this has nothing to do with "truth". Figuring out what the "truth" is was the realm of metaphysics, but that seems to be a rather dead end, and most post-Nietzschean continental philosophers are moving away from metaphysical thinking.


Kali_Ava wrote:
My chemistry teacher once said something that I've taken to heart, because of a lab I once turned in. All science is theory and supporting evidence. Religion is what defines "proof."

Something like that. Just meaning that we all have our own ideas on how the world works. But science can never prove that our world actually exists the way we think it does ("How do we prove that we exist?" "Are we dreaming?" "Is God really controlling and creating?" etc.). All we have are ideas and theories. Expirementation and analysis help us figure out constant/consistant patterns amongst our world. They only find supporting evidence to theories. Religion tells us what we should believe the world to be and how things work.


Whee for saying the same thing. Except Icy sounds so much smarter saying it than me. <3 at Icy. Thank you for putting it intelligent language.

_________________
-DNI ~ by Ezelek
I have earned the title of Pedant.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: INCOHERENT RAMBLING AHOY!
PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 4:37 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
Kali_Ava wrote:
IcyMonkey wrote:
Honestly, and I know I'm going to get a lot of shit for saying this, the idea of "objective reality" is pretty stupid. What matters in science is that the equations work. Asking what is "really" happening is mistakenly believing science can give us "truth". "Truth" simply does not exist. There are methods of acting or predicting events that are more effective than other methods, but this has nothing to do with "truth". Figuring out what the "truth" is was the realm of metaphysics, but that seems to be a rather dead end, and most post-Nietzschean continental philosophers are moving away from metaphysical thinking.


Kali_Ava wrote:
My chemistry teacher once said something that I've taken to heart, because of a lab I once turned in. All science is theory and supporting evidence. Religion is what defines "proof."

Something like that. Just meaning that we all have our own ideas on how the world works. But science can never prove that our world actually exists the way we think it does ("How do we prove that we exist?" "Are we dreaming?" "Is God really controlling and creating?" etc.). All we have are ideas and theories. Expirementation and analysis help us figure out constant/consistant patterns amongst our world. They only find supporting evidence to theories. Religion tells us what we should believe the world to be and how things work.


Whee for saying the same thing. Except Icy sounds so much smarter saying it than me. <3 at Icy. Thank you for putting it intelligent language.


Not quite. You're saying truth can be found in religion. I'm saying truth simply does not exist.

Also, I would not say that science gives us the "how", as that would still be implying that science is describing "objective" things. Science simply gives us equations and models that lead to successful predictions.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 4:54 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 869
Wandering Idiot wrote:
I always thought Clarke's Law was "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"?'


That's Clarke's Second Law.

Quote:
Anyway, it's an assumption. You can't know for sure that we (or our non-human descendants) will never be able to understand the universe.


Well, yes, actually, I can. The volume of the sum of the human species' knowledge (of all sorts) is currently expanding exponentially with time, and shows no sign of slowing down, ever. There just isn't time for anyone to learn everything there is to know. Admittedly, knowledge isn't understanding, but I contend that it is prerequisite to understanding.

Quote:
Why is this a separate topic, btw, especially since you started it with a quote?


We aren't really talking about creationism any more, are we? ;-)

IcyMonkey wrote:
Honestly, and I know I'm going to get a lot of shit for saying this, the idea of "objective reality" is pretty stupid. What matters in science is that the equations work. Asking what is "really" happening is mistakenly believing science can give us "truth". "Truth" simply does not exist. There are methods of acting or predicting events that are more effective than other methods, but this has nothing to do with "truth". Figuring out what the "truth" is was the realm of metaphysics, but that seems to be a rather dead end, and most post-Nietzschean continental philosophers are moving away from metaphysical thinking.


Here's some of the shit you wanted: in that there is no other way to know the universe but through our senses, our instruments for extending our senses, and our capacity to reason, there is just no point talking about "objective reality" as distinct from any other kind of reality.

Science is the process of asking ourselves whether our beliefs about the universe actually match what we can observe about the universe. Statements that are not falsifiable are not within the purview of the scientist. A scientist cannot tell you whether or not there is a God because there's just no way to measure that state of affairs. You say "what matters in science is whether the equations work". You're looking at it upside-down; what matters in science is whether we can find equations that fit the data, so that by means of those equations, we can predict what will happen in the general case.

You want "truth" with the quotes; I can't give it to you. I even think that looking for the kind of truth that comes with quotes is something better left to religion than to philosophy. Metaphysics is (almost) pointless.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: INCOHERENT RAMBLING AHOY!
PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 5:01 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 9:43 pm
Posts: 1096
IcyMonkey wrote:
Silly non-liberal-arts-majors. Science doesn't actually present an accurate picture of the world. It's simply a big mess of interconnected models and equations that, we have found, predicts the outcome of various events rather well, when we know the details of said events. Just because something works doesn't mean that it's true. The connection between effectiveness and truth is an entirely human-created one.

Honestly, and I know I'm going to get a lot of shit for saying this, the idea of "objective reality" is pretty stupid. What matters in science is that the equations work.

Yes. And you deserve it too. The idea that the universe goes away whenever I shut my eyes is silly.

Even if absolute Truth (which I guess we're taking to mean a provably true and correct reason for anything) doesn't exist, science can lead us from what truths we know to things that are ... more true. The larger our internally consistent model becomes, the more likely it is to be True.

Think of a belief network. Individual nodes contribute evidence for conditional beliefs. Beliefs depend on other beliefs. The more fully connected and consistent the network is, the more it takes advantage of all the evidence available to it. The development of additional theories and supporting experiments adds nodes to the belief network we call science. This adds evidence and support for existing theories as well as supporting the new theory with established knowledge. It also bring our total truth closer to Truth.

Eventually we do reach concepts that have no real reason and simply <i>are</i>. But to confuse the pursuit of knowledge with the pursuit of abstract Truth would be a mistake to my way of thinking. Science is concerned with discovering the maximum amount of truth possible under the constraints imposed by the physical universe.



Incidentally, I understood that light was a particle who's existence was a function of a wave of probability, not a wavicle. Can someone confirm/deny this?
Also relevant, but linked here a while ago <a href="http://www.vega.org.uk/series/lectures/feynman/index.php">Feynman's lectures</a> on quantum electrodynamics.

_________________
Always watching, ever vigilant


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 5:27 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 2:44 pm
Posts: 1821
Location: Home! Wheeeeee!
Thin wrote:
Incidentally, I understood that light was a particle who's existence was a function of a wave of probability, not a wavicle. Can someone confirm/deny this?

Eh? I must be out of date.

Icy: Quantum Physics > Metaphysics
Icy wrote:
Not quite. You're saying truth can be found in religion. I'm saying truth simply does not exist.
Actually, i think she said "Religion tells us what to believe." not "Religions tells us what is true."

The first statement is at least mostly accurate; the second is patently false, since not all religion tells us the same thing.

As a side note, that's pretty much the difference between religion and science. Science gives us the same answer every time we ask a (propperly stated) question, religion does not.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 5:41 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
Tamayo wrote:
Here's some of the shit you wanted: in that there is no other way to know the universe but through our senses, our instruments for extending our senses, and our capacity to reason, there is just no point talking about "objective reality" as distinct from any other kind of reality.


You're talking about "knowledge" in (what I assume, from context) is the absolute sense. However, it is exactly this form of knowledge the existence of which I am questioning.

I'm not just saying that knowledge of the universe is impossible. I'm saying that the very concept of "knowledge of the universe" is ultimately fictional, and furthermore nonsensical.

Quote:
Science is the process of asking ourselves whether our beliefs about the universe actually match what we can observe about the universe.


No. Once again, you're injecting "belief" into it when you don't have to. Science is essentially made up of models (which are usually, but not always, simply convenient shorthand ways of understanding how various mathematical equations relate to each other). The goal of science is to develop models that can effectively predict the results of events. Now, a model is a form of representation, and thus we have a tendency to assume that it's representing something (namely, the universe) "accurately" (whatever that means). However, the relationship between representation and represented is tenuous at best (Ceci n'est pas une pipe and all that.) But I digress. My point is that the reason we assume that the model represents reality is that the model is effective. However, I have not yet heard a single argument for the relationship between effectiveness and truth that does not simply conclude that they're two names for the same concept. If you want to claim that they are, fine; but that means abandoning the traditional concept of truth as correspondence between "objective reality" and "subjective reality" (whatever the hell that means). If you cannot prove that any relationship exists between effectiveness and truth, then you have to concede that Science (which, as stated above, is based upon finding effective models) has no relationship to truth.

Quote:
Statements that are not falsifiable are not within the purview of the scientist.


Exactly. Because science is not concerned with "reality" or "truth", it's concerned with which ways of looking at things will be effective.

Quote:
You say "what matters in science is whether the equations work". You're looking at it upside-down; what matters in science is whether we can find equations that fit the data,
i.e. equations that work,
Quote:
so that by means of those equations, we can predict what will happen in the general case.


Ah, but "data" is quite different than direct, experiential reality. "Data" the result of that reality being processed according to the dictates of science (i.e. using things such as mathematical measurement(*)). Science essentially takes raw experience, transforms it into "data", and then finds the most effective ways of relating different pieces of data together.

Quote:
You want "truth" with the quotes; I can't give it to you. I even think that looking for the kind of truth that comes with quotes is something better left to religion than to philosophy. Metaphysics is (almost) pointless.


If metaphysics were a name brand, religion would be like the cheap-ass Costco/Sam's Club/BJ's knock-off. It's far lower quality, but it also "costs" much less in terms of mental effort. Whereas metaphysics pursues truth by proposing explanations which are subject to criticism, religion simply gives you an explanation and tells you to accept it. Now, that's not to say religion is bad, if you interpret the acceptance as an "act of faith" or what have you. It just means that, judged as a metaphysical system, it's poor.

[EDIT]
Thinman wrote:
Yes. And you deserve it too. The idea that the universe goes away whenever I shut my eyes is silly.


That's not what I said. I AM NOT A SOLIPSIST. REPEAT. I AM NOT A SOLIPSIST. I did not say that "the universe" (objectivity) is a concept dependent upon "myself" (subjectivity); I said that both "the universe" (objectivity) and "myself" (subjectivity), as well as their supposed relationship with one another (truth), are constructed concepts.

Quote:
Even if absolute Truth (which I guess we're taking to mean a provably true and correct reason for anything) doesn't exist, science can lead us from what truths we know to things that are ... more true. The larger our internally consistent model becomes, the more likely it is to be True.


Why is that, now? I don't understand your reasoning, but I have the suspicion that it assumes some sort of relationship between effectiveness and truth.[/EDIT]






(*) Mathematical measurement is one step away from pure experience; in other words, a form of distancing oneself from the raw experiential reality. I see, say, a tree. Now, before any processing or judgment goes on, it's not even a tree yet, it's simply what I see. Seperating it from its surroundings, naming it and classifying it is the first step away from the intitial experience. The next step, which is not always taken, but is in the case of scientific experiments, is mathemaical measurement. Now, that's no longer just a tree; it's a 20-foot tree. Size has now been converted from a qualitative element, as it originally was, to a quantitative element.[/i]


Last edited by IcyMonkey on Sat Nov 06, 2004 5:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 5:51 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 2:44 pm
Posts: 1821
Location: Home! Wheeeeee!
Icy, the more i read what you're writing, the less sure i am that i ever understood what you seem to be talking about. Are you trying to rduce this to a semantic discussion, or a philosophical one?

I'm pretty sure this was originally and arguement about the limits of science and which theories best model the way we perceive the universe to work.

Off topic: WI, you were right, a tesseract is just another name for a 4 dimensional hypercube. Also, go read And he build a crooked house by (who else) Heinlein.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: INCOHERENT RAMBLING AHOY!
PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 6:13 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 6:10 pm
Posts: 2571
IcyMonkey wrote:
Kali_Ava wrote:
Whee for saying the same thing. Except Icy sounds so much smarter saying it than me. <3 at Icy. Thank you for putting it intelligent language.


Not quite. You're saying truth can be found in religion. I'm saying truth simply does not exist.

Also, I would not say that science gives us the "how", as that would still be implying that science is describing "objective" things. Science simply gives us equations and models that lead to successful predictions.


See, intelligent speak. I must have said a few things wrong, because what you're saying is what I thought. And I just meant the perception of truth is all in belief which is all in religion. Not that it's "TRUTH", but that it's what people define as truth through their own beliefs.

_________________
-DNI ~ by Ezelek
I have earned the title of Pedant.

Image


Last edited by Kali_Ava on Sat Nov 06, 2004 6:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 6:14 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 4:58 pm
Posts: 3672
Location: Twin Cities, MN
IcyMonkey wrote:
Decontructionism


That's about it, really. One cannot prove that the universe exists, that all the phyisical laws truly exist, and that we're not part of some god's crazy, uber-detailed dream. For all we know, this is the first moment that has occured, since all other moments could just be implanted memories. Because all we have are our perceptions, which are not necessarily true.

However, our perceptions have lead us to create theories, which in turn have spun off into other theories, all the while trying (and for the most part, suceeding) to create a consistant model of reality. And this model seems to be pretty similar to how things work in the real world. So, unless the god wakes up or something happens to alter our perceptions, this model MIGHT AS WELL be the real thing. Because, frankly, we can't create anything better.


By the way, I've never taken any formal courses in philosophy or metaphysics, so it's quite possible that I'm talking out of my ass. This is just the theory I've come up with.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 6:49 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 9:43 pm
Posts: 1096
IcyMonkey wrote:
Quote:
Even if absolute Truth (which I guess we're taking to mean a provably true and correct reason for anything) doesn't exist, science can lead us from what truths we know to things that are ... more true. The larger our internally consistent model becomes, the more likely it is to be True.


Why is that, now? I don't understand your reasoning, but I have the suspicion that it assumes some sort of relationship between effectiveness and truth.

In a sense, maybe. I'm treating 'true' as 'likelihood to be True'. Since we're working from evidence rather than postulates, this seems about right. It also gives us more latitude to work with; lowercase-t truth is on a continuous range from 'never True' to 'True' with an uppercase-T.

Look at it this way; Truth is total knowledge of the reason things are the way they are. There are multiple knowable and internally consistent explanations, but the larger and more consistent the system, the more evidence there is that it's true. (Or the more effective it is, if you prefer.) If Truth does exist, then it's knowable extent will be manifest as the most true (most effective) systems possible. Thus, we can learn all of the knowable subset of Truth as truth.

There may be multiple equivalently consistent and true systems that provide indistinguishable results via different explanations, and I agree that science can't help us choose from among them (if, indeed, it is necessary to choose only one). However, we haven't reached that point yet, and it may well be that there is only one maximally consistent system.

_________________
Always watching, ever vigilant


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 7:05 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
Emy wrote:
Icy, the more i read what you're writing, the less sure i am that i ever understood what you seem to be talking about.


Image

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

Joking, of course.

Quote:
Are you trying to rduce this to a semantic discussion, or a philosophical one?


A little bit of both, really. I don't think you can really seperate semantical discussion from "pure" philosophical discussion, as every single term or signifier we use comes loaded with all sorts of implications and connotations. Thus, redefining a word, or equating one word with another, can have some pretty big psychological/philosophical consequences. (I also don't believe it's possible to fully and completely seperate psychology and philosophy, though I agree that they can be treated as two seperate disciplines in many cases.)

I am questioning our definition of truth, and whether the word actually has any meaning at all in the first place, so I suppose this is a semantic discussion to some extent. However, it's a semantic discussion with philosophically relevant ends.

Quote:
I'm pretty sure this was originally and arguement about the limits of science and which theories best model the way we perceive the universe to work.


And it still is. I've just taken it to a deeper, more fundamental level.

Wark wrote:
IcyMonkey wrote:
Deconstructionism


I hate it when people reduce all post-Nietzschean Continental philosophy to just Derrida, or, even worse, just deconstruction. (No "ism" -- it's a process of analyzing texts, not a philosophy itself.) Honestly, my argument here is inspired more by Nietzsche and Jean-Francois Lyotard than anything else, with hints of Hume, Berkeley, Michel Foucault, Gilles Deleuze, and , yes, Derrida thrown in. But the argument I'm making isn't particularly Derridean, nor does it involve any real deconstruction (in the academic sense).

Wark wrote:
That's about it, really. One cannot prove that the universe exists, that all the phyisical laws truly exist, and that we're not part of some god's crazy, uber-detailed dream. For all we know, this is the first moment that has occured, since all other moments could just be implanted memories. Because all we have are our perceptions, which are not necessarily true.


I think you're misinterpreting my argument. This has absolutely nothing to do with the old Cartesian question, "How can we be sure of anything? How do we know we're not just being deceived by evil demons?" As a matter of fact, in asking these sorts of questions Descartes unknowingly presupposed the very things which I am questioning in my own argument: namely, that there exists subjective reality and objective reality, and subjective reality can even in theory somehow "correspond to" or "match" objective reality.

This idea is in turn rooted in the traditional idea of the relationship between "representation" and "that which is represented", often referred to in philosophy and semiology as signifier and signified. The idea is that the signifier, though of a totally different nature than the signified, can somehow communicate the "reality" of that signified. In this case, "subjective reality" is (rather arbitrarily) made the signifier, and "objective reality" is (again, arbitrarily) made the signified. However, as I said earlier, the relationship between signifier and signified is tenuous at best. A good essay to read regarding this is Nietzsche's "On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense". (Yes, I know I plug this essay on almost every philosophical debate thread, but goddammit, it covers a lot of bases!)

(Interestingly enough, in the above explanation, I did actually veer a bit closer to Derridean philosophy, as the hierarchical relationship between various signifiers is sort of Jackie D's forte.)

Quote:
And this model seems to be pretty similar to how things work in the real world.


Again, only if one presupposes some sort of relationship between "truth" and "effectiveness". Otherwise, there's absolutely no way you can claim that science resembles the real world any more closely than any bullshit I could just make up right now. And if there is a relationship between truth and effectiveness, I'd like someone to explain to me exactly what that relationship is.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 7:48 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 2:44 pm
Posts: 1821
Location: Home! Wheeeeee!
Icy wrote:
And it still is. I've just taken it to a deeper, more fundamental level.
either that, or you've gone wildly off topic. You defy logical arguement by defying a common universe to which logical concepts can be applied. You've gone back to agruing religion.
Icy wrote:
namely, that there exists subjective reality and objective reality, and subjective reality can even in theory somehow "correspond to" or "match" objective reality.

If you're going to make the claim that there is subjective reality, which we each experience individually, and question the existance of an objective reality, underlying everything, then you have to posit some sort of "collective reality" which is described by science. Whether you call the repeatable and predictable results described by a scientific model reality or Truth or mass psychosis is just a word-game. It also appears that you seam to be ignoring the difference between semantics<sub>linguistics</sub> and semantics<sub>logic</sub>.

Icy wrote:
I am questioning our definition of truth, and whether the word actually has any meaning at all in the first place, so I suppose this is a semantic discussion to some extent. However, it's a semantic discussion with philosophically relevant ends.
um... You can't discuss whether truth has any philosophical meaning unless you agree on a definition, and you can't argue the definition without agreeing that there is something for it to define. So you're not having any kind of arguement, you're just playing word games.

If i'm wrong, please re-state your case a little more plainly.

Icy wrote:
Again, only if one presupposes some sort of relationship between "truth" and "effectiveness". Otherwise, there's absolutely no way you can claim that science resembles the real world any more closely than any bullshit I could just make up right now. And if there is a relationship between truth and effectiveness, I'd like someone to explain to me exactly what that relationship is.
Thin, paraphrased wrote:
There are multiple knowable and internally consistent explanations, but the larger and more consistent the system, the more effective. The knowable extent of reality will be modeled by the most effective system possible.

And Thin, if i butchered your meaning, please restate it without any reference to truth, since Icy refuse to accept any meanning attached to that word.

Icy: The most effective model is the most "true" in the sense that it accurately predicts the largest number of things which are experienced by every subject participating in the "collective reality". (for some reason the term "Consentual Reality" wants to pop into my mind) If you want to play word games, that may not be enough to qualify it as "True", but it's the closest we can get.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 8:08 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 4:58 pm
Posts: 3672
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Icy... I did not understand a single word you just said. Your argument has gone far beyond me ability to understand. You can take that either as a complaint or a compliment, whichever you prefer.

Again, having not studied philosophy or metaphysics in depth, I'm really not that good with semantics.

As far as the effecient reality vs. Reality, I will only say that the effective reality is proven based on lower, more fundamental realities, until your left with such basics as 2 + 2 = 4. While you can argue that this isn't necessarily true, it seems an acceptable reality based on the logic of the human mind. However, there is no underlying logic to theories that say, for example, that humans started with Adam and Eve and the world was created by God in 6 days. You can't break things down like that to fundamental levels, and you have to make logical assumsions, like God being omnipotent and whatnot. The only assumsion you have to make in the logical reality is that your senses and logic aren't decieving you, and if they are, then the argument is pretty useless, since arguments are tools of logic.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 8:58 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 9:43 pm
Posts: 1096
Emy wrote:
Icy wrote:
Again, only if one presupposes some sort of relationship between "truth" and "effectiveness". Otherwise, there's absolutely no way you can claim that science resembles the real world any more closely than any bullshit I could just make up right now. And if there is a relationship between truth and effectiveness, I'd like someone to explain to me exactly what that relationship is.
Thin, paraphrased wrote:
There are multiple knowable and internally consistent explanations, but the larger and more consistent the system, the more effective. The knowable extent of reality will be modeled by the most effective system possible.

And Thin, if i butchered your meaning, please restate it without any reference to truth, since Icy refuse to accept any meanning attached to that word.

Basically, yeah. Some of the theories we develop are consistent with, and implicit in, any abstract Truth that we in the universe must accept as axiomatic at best.

Theories implicitly derived from Truth will be effective at explaining the universe. Not all effective theories are implicit in Truth, and there is no way to discriminate between the two. However, the knowable effects and corollaries of our abstract, unknowable, Truth <i>are</i> somewhere in the set of effective theories. These are the theories that I was calling lowercase-t true.

_________________
Always watching, ever vigilant


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 10:57 pm 
Offline
<font color=darkred><b>Lorem Ipsum
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3342
Location: ich bin ein Auslander
Icy,

You can read books, congratulations. But those books and the names of other men, likely dead men, mean as little to me as a holy text. it has no relevance to me.

Now that we know what you think after reading a bunch of books, tell us what your experiences have taught you. Has the reality you have experienced subjectively given you any reason to doubt that there is a constant reality that you share with other minds who also exist in this constant reality?

If not, then i'm afraid these theories seem as quantifiable and authoritative as genisis, as they are impossible to prove or disprove.

As for truth, perhaps the word accuracy is a word more to everyone's liking, with varying degrees of accuracy. <i>"This model is a 98% accurate model for describing this phenomenon"</I>

EDITO FISTU: or perhaps the word Fact. although i expect that science deals in the word fact more than truth. Facts can be defined as accurate statements, regardless of what a person believes. Truths can be statements that someone believes to be accurate.

SEMANTICS

To tell the truth is the opposite of telling a lie., something you know not to be correct. Science has nothing to do with truth, as it is just a language for describing patterns and consistencies. Truth and Lie hold connotations of intellect and personality, human qualities. Therefore, truth is nothing grand and has nothing to do with science. i'm talking in circles.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 62 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group