Page 438 of 440 FirstFirst ... 338388428436437438439440 LastLast
Results 13,111 to 13,140 of 13195

Thread: The last and final argument about reality.

  1. #13111
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,258
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    Yes, my concept of MIR is in my mind. I can't prove that it's real and I don't need to believe that it's real.
    'Not needing to believe' doesn't disqualify it from still being an argument based on belief though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck
    Based on my observations over the years, I'll just treat it as likely to be real while awaiting more information.
    The information you may encounter in the future, is no more 'real' than the belief held (provisionally) as being 'likely to be real'.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck
    If it's not real, it's close enough at this time.
    Near to circular reasoning .. all based on beliefs .. Undeterred from that belief, you are .. (which then makes it a belief).

  2. #13112
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,645
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    Yes, my concept of MIR is in my mind.
    Yes, it is a model created in your mind that depends on how you think. Others think differently and create a different model they think of as MIR, or they don't create any model they think of as MIR, they just accept the mind dependence of their models and are done with it.
    I can't prove that it's real and I don't need to believe that it's real.
    If you can't prove it's real then you do need to believe it, choosing a belief is exactly what you are doing.
    Based on my observations over the years, I'll just treat it as likely to be real while awaiting more information.
    The issue is never if it is "real", that's your word and you can mean whatever you mean when you use it. The issue is whether it depends on your mind, and how your mind leaves it signature on how you have interpreted all those observations over the years. We see many examples of this on this thread, where no two people even mean the same thing when they talk about MIR. When the very concept of MIR depends on people's minds, I think that makes it pretty clear which hypothesis is passing the tests here.

  3. #13113
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,645
    Quote Originally Posted by George View Post
    Objectivity is initially like ready-mix -- given enough time and not overly disturbed, it will become concrete. We all like to keep things as simple as possible and we like the idea that we have firm foundations we label as truths, which is okay if we understand the truthful fact is that things can change.
    Yes, it's the losing track of the process after the solidification has occurred that I am trying to expose. It's fine to want to deal with solid concrete, but no one who pours concrete is aided by forgetting the process by which it becomes solid, or the things that could make it supple again.

  4. #13114
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    12,777
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    Yes, it's the losing track of the process after the solidification has occurred that I am trying to expose. It's fine to want to deal with solid concrete, but no one who pours concrete is aided by forgetting the process by which it becomes solid, or the things that could make it supple again.
    Exactly. I would bet engineers prefer seeing science as MIR vs. MDR, where the label "law" comes as quickly as possible to allow for concrete applications. [I wonder if this law-labeling process is more from engineers than scientists, especially if we ignore egos?]
    We know time flies, we just can't see its wings.

  5. #13115
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,645
    Quote Originally Posted by George View Post
    Exactly. I would bet engineers prefer seeing science as MIR vs. MDR, where the label "law" comes as quickly as possible to allow for concrete applications. [I wonder if this law-labeling process is more from engineers than scientists, especially if we ignore egos?]
    I'm not sure that would hold, perhaps engineers have seen enough "laws" that aren't good enough to describe a practical situation that they stop becoming believers in laws altogether. Scientists, on the other hand, are often the ones who want to believe that the universe is really ruled by laws, as if the universe solves equations in order to arrive at the behaviors it exhibits. That belief is probably the most remarkably fantastic of any belief held by anyone in any context, and certainly exceeds belief in a supreme being when it comes to the sheer weight of contrary evidence that must be ignored in order to hold the belief.

  6. #13116
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    394
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    I can think of experiments that would disprove MIR. No such experiments for a supreme being come to mind.
    An extremely large comet/space rock could falsify both.

  7. #13117
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,258
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    Scientists, on the other hand, are often the ones who want to believe that the universe is really ruled by laws, as if the universe solves equations in order to arrive at the behaviors it exhibits. That belief is probably the most remarkably fantastic of any belief held by anyone in any context, and certainly exceeds belief in a supreme being when it comes to the sheer weight of contrary evidence that must be ignored in order to hold the belief.
    Ha!
    Its a pity Roger Penrose hasn't been involved in this thread then! Nor does he appear to have even been aware of Hawking/Mlodinow's 2010 publication: The Grand Design, when he made that interview!

  8. #13118
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,556
    Quote Originally Posted by George View Post
    Exactly. I would bet engineers prefer seeing science as MIR vs. MDR, where the label "law" comes as quickly as possible to allow for concrete applications. [I wonder if this law-labeling process is more from engineers than scientists, especially if we ignore egos?]
    I bet against, engineers make formulae from observations often dimensionally incorrect but predictive within known bounds, example flow over weirs, and wait for scientists to remove enough parameters to get a nice equation which looks like a law but is too simple to use in practical situations. Engineers coined Murphy’s law, moores law and the law of unintended consequences which have no scientific basis. Do you know a law for the strength of concrete? Well it depends where you start with variables.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  9. #13119
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,556
    If we now consider MDR we should include mind phenomena like hope. Hope is, in these terms, a form of prediction. Prediction is the evolutionary role of the mind. So historically we hope for an MIR before we believe in an MIR, or maybe we form beliefs first in infancy and then add hopes in our naturally optimistic mind set. By experiment we hope to test our hypothesis.

    A Nietzsche type would scoff that hope is just denial about death (a specific MIR belief) while a conscious model with memory generates hope as a prediction and projects it onto an MIR without the pointlessness of solipsism nor of inevitable suffering.

    Here is the central point about assumptions regarding the infinities of MIR which we cannot know, we hope to know more, we hope to have agency, we hope for wisdom . That is MDR, I suggest.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  10. #13120
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,339
    Quote Originally Posted by Selfsim View Post
    Ha!
    Its a pity Roger Penrose hasn't been involved in this thread then! Nor does he appear to have even been aware of Hawking/Mlodinow's 2010 publication: The Grand Design, when he made that interview!
    I hope you are not implying Penrose can learn from this forum?

  11. #13121
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,645
    Quote Originally Posted by Selfsim View Post
    Ha!
    Its a pity Roger Penrose hasn't been involved in this thread then! Nor does he appear to have even been aware of Hawking/Mlodinow's 2010 publication: The Grand Design, when he made that interview!
    And what we should notice with that interview is, it would be very easy to say "see, someone as smart as Roger Penrose says mathematics is 'out there' in a very MIR kind of way, that shows the MIR does exist." But here's the problem: Penrose is a mathematician, so the MIR he is talking about is high-level mathematics. It's also the mathematics going on at scales that are expressly those discounted from the MIR from other members of this thread! So what we have here is a mind that is adept at deeply abstract mathematics who sees the MIR as a world of pure mathematics ruling phenomena that we never directly see or experience, and a more common-sense type of mind that doesn't count abstract mathematics as the MIR, but rocks and tigers are. So we cannot use these two opinions as evidence for the existence of the MIR, because we cannot even establish what MIR is being talked about. Instead, we have two more passed tests for the MDR hypothesis-- a mind with experience in mathematics sees a mathematical MIR, a mind with experience with rocks and tigers sees them as the MIR. Then we have Hawking, another great mind, with a perspective more in tune with this thread. So we are seeing that the mind determines the opinion about the MIR, and whether or not there even is an MIR. That's MDR at work.

    Now, it is still fascinating and surprising Penrose's point that the mathematics inside an atom is accurate to the width of a human hair over the distance from LA to NY, but belief in MIR doesn't explain why that is true. We still don't know if there is a "true" mathematical theory that is exactly correct, so how does having a theory that is close to perfect say there is an MIR? In other words, are we supposed to think that if we have a theory that is close to true, there should be some other theory that is exactly true? Or are we supposed to think there is no exactly true theory, but the MIR is the thing that is nearly true? I honestly can't even tell which of those I'm supposed to be thinking is the evidence for MIR here. So while I'm amazed math works as well as it does, and I'm even more amazed it works better in applications that are the most widely separated from anything most people ever actually experience, none of that adds up to an MIR for my mind. All I see in that language is a conflict between the meanings of "mind-independent" and "reality."
    Last edited by Ken G; 2019-Aug-11 at 06:56 PM.

  12. #13122
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    394
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    We still don't know if there is a "true" mathematical theory that is exactly correct, so how does having a theory that is close to perfect say there is an MIR? In other words, are we supposed to think that if we have a theory that is close to true, there should be some other theory that is exactly true? Or are we supposed to think there is no exactly true theory, but the MIR is the thing that is nearly true? I honestly can't even tell which of those I'm supposed to be thinking is the evidence for MIR here. So while I'm amazed math works as well as it does, and I'm even more amazed it works better in applications that are the most widely separated from anything most people ever actually experience, none of that adds up to an MIR for my mind. All I see in that language is a conflict between the meanings of "mind-independent" and "reality."
    Ken G, in Platonic realism it is implied that the perfect form is not part of our reality, are you saying it is or are you just saying it doesn't exist?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_realism#Forms
    The Platonic form is the ideal triangle — a figure with perfectly drawn lines whose angles add to 180 degrees. Any form of triangle that we experience will be an imperfect representation of the ideal triangle. Regardless of how precise your measuring and drawing tools you will never be able to recreate this perfect shape. Even drawn to the point where our senses cannot perceive a defect, in its essence the shape will still be imperfect; forever unable to match the ideal triangle.

  13. #13123
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,556
    I think there is a comparison here between Plato’s. Archetypes, perfect forms in the mind of god, MIR, and maths which has features independent of mind, like the primes, although a language invented by minds, and incomplete, lest we forget. So at a particle level maths agrees with observation to a fine degree, while retaining “beauty” . That is without the fudge factors engineers have to use in macro situations to get working predictions. Yet at the same time , when we deal with particles we see probability in place of certainty, we see paradoxes when compared to our macro world model. Indeed we have to use two models, GR and quantum models just as engineers use different formulae when the Reynolds number changes. In MDR we have to use scale factors but those spoil the beauty of perfect archetypes,which should work at any scale.

    So maths is an archetype that any intelligent consciousness should discover, like the periodic table, but for us an archetype remains a model precisely because it only approximately fits our observations.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  14. #13124
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    12,777
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    I'm not sure that would hold, perhaps engineers have seen enough "laws" that aren't good enough to describe a practical situation that they stop becoming believers in laws altogether.
    Yes, but isn't that the other side of the coin to the hard rule that design must follow laws to protect the designer from things like legal liability? Engineers know that GR demonstrates areas of weaknesses to Newton's laws, but only when necessary do they use GR to solve problems. Knowing the assumptions and limitations to any law shouldn't prevent an MIR informal adoption to get the job done. I'm speaking in terms of the simplistic use of accepting the practical power of a given law. Given known boundary (limitations) conditions, why not hold the law as if it were a truth, even if MDR is their formal view?

    Scientists, on the other hand, are often the ones who want to believe that the universe is really ruled by laws, as if the universe solves equations in order to arrive at the behaviors it exhibits.
    I'm unclear what you mean since wouldn't MIR and MDR views accept natural laws? Does an MIR mindset support a view that the universe somehow solves things?

    That belief is probably the most remarkably fantastic of any belief held by anyone in any context, and certainly exceeds belief in a supreme being when it comes to the sheer weight of contrary evidence that must be ignored in order to hold the belief.
    It seems it would be tough for one to get one's mind around it and tougher to think one wasn't.
    Last edited by George; 2019-Aug-12 at 03:13 PM.
    We know time flies, we just can't see its wings.

  15. #13125
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    12,777
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    I bet against, engineers make formulae from observations often dimensionally incorrect but predictive within known bounds, example flow over weirs, and wait for scientists to remove enough parameters to get a nice equation which looks like a law but is too simple to use in practical situations.
    Yes, but knowing the initial and boundary conditions allow for the effective application of the law as if it was a truth, even if they know it's not a truth but a tested and reliable application. So I'm only suggesting that engineers operate in a way that is more like MIR even if they themselves agree it's formally unacceptable.

    Do you know a law for the strength of concrete? Well it depends where you start with variables.
    Yes, which is normal engineering but implementation requires the testing of concrete core samples to verify that those conditions are met.
    We know time flies, we just can't see its wings.

  16. #13126
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,556
    Quote Originally Posted by George View Post
    Yes, but knowing the initial and boundary conditions allow for the effective application of the law as if it was a truth, even if they know it's not a truth but a tested and reliable application. So I'm only suggesting that engineers operate in a way that is more like MIR even if they themselves agree it's formally unacceptable.

    Yes, which is normal engineering but implementation requires the testing of concrete core samples to verify that those conditions are met.
    OK I think we agree but I have always been unhappy about "laws" and especially "the truth". In my view those words should be used in secular law and maths and not extended to engineering where we know we use imperfect models. We use theory to see how close we are getting to a better model, as in Carnot for example, but testing to see if we are being effective with our materials. So if we were to see an MIR it would be Quixotic and malicious, tempting us to make mistakes "The innate hostility of inaminate objects" has been demonstrated to me many times.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  17. #13127
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,258
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    And what we should notice with that interview is, it would be very easy to say "see, someone as smart as Roger Penrose says mathematics is 'out there' in a very MIR kind of way, that shows the MIR does exist." But here's the problem: Penrose is a mathematician, so the MIR he is talking about is high-level mathematics. It's also the mathematics going on at scales that are expressly those discounted from the MIR from other members of this thread! So what we have here is a mind that is adept at deeply abstract mathematics who sees the MIR as a world of pure mathematics ruling phenomena that we never directly see or experience, and a more common-sense type of mind that doesn't count abstract mathematics as the MIR, but rocks and tigers are. So we cannot use these two opinions as evidence for the existence of the MIR, because we cannot even establish what MIR is being talked about. Instead, we have two more passed tests for the MDR hypothesis-- a mind with experience in mathematics sees a mathematical MIR, a mind with experience with rocks and tigers sees them as the MIR. Then we have Hawking, another great mind, with a perspective more in tune with this thread. So we are seeing that the mind determines the opinion about the MIR, and whether or not there even is an MIR. That's MDR at work.
    Yep .. sure is!
    I usually get to the point where brute force becomes the weapon of choice for asserting one MIR over the other, as being the 'true MIR', (where have we heard that one before? ..)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G
    Now, it is still fascinating and surprising Penrose's point that the mathematics inside an atom is accurate to the width of a human hair over the distance from LA to NY, but belief in MIR doesn't explain why that is true. We still don't know if there is a "true" mathematical theory that is exactly correct, so how does having a theory that is close to perfect say there is an MIR? In other words, are we supposed to think that if we have a theory that is close to true, there should be some other theory that is exactly true? Or are we supposed to think there is no exactly true theory, but the MIR is the thing that is nearly true? I honestly can't even tell which of those I'm supposed to be thinking is the evidence for MIR here. So while I'm amazed math works as well as it does, and I'm even more amazed it works better in applications that are the most widely separated from anything most people ever actually experience, none of that adds up to an MIR for my mind. All I see in that language is a conflict between the meanings of "mind-independent" and "reality."
    So what we get is that things 'obviously part of MIR', (the words of an MIR advocate here), such our experiencing odours, can't be modelled using math descriptions .. yet the cause of them can be .. because the odour itself, is part of the math structured universe). This being akin to: the 'experience of blue' or the web-dress color debate .. mentioned previously in this thread.

  18. #13128
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,645
    Quote Originally Posted by George View Post
    Given known boundary (limitations) conditions, why not hold the law as if it were a truth, even if MDR is their formal view?
    It is certainly the MDR approach to treat laws in a hypothetical way, as if they were true-- like solving a problem neglecting air resistance, as if there were no air resistance. I'm saying that this only intersects with MIR belief if you hold that there actually is a truth there, no "as if." That's the basic flaw with MIR thinking, it always requires treating a hypothetical as if it were an absolute. We don't say there is hypothetically a tiger there, we say there is a tiger there, but it's just a shortcut of language-- of course it's always a hypothetical tiger in our minds, all minds can hold are hypotheticals.
    I'm unclear what you mean since wouldn't MIR and MDR views accept natural laws? Does an MIR mindset support a view that the universe somehow solves things?
    For MDR thinking, all laws are hypotheticals, and are expected to fail somewhere. But MIR thinkers tend to frame the search for laws like they were the search for the MIR, as though the MIR was made of laws. That seems to be Penrose's view, for example. You also find that mindset in statements like "God is a mathematician", which is a statement that only a mathematician could ever make.
    It seems it would be tough for one to get one's mind around it and tougher to think one wasn't.
    Yes, it's hard to imagine that the universe has to solve equations to decide what to do, because where is the equation solver? It would be exactly the same as if the universe was a simulation. But if it is a simulation, and occurs by solving equations, why can we find equations that are very very close but not actually the ones being solved? Where is the claim that a simulation should be very very close to other simulations that aren't it? So there's really no logic in the claim that because we have found mathematical laws that are very very close to correct in simplified situations, that somehow implies the universe really does follow laws to the letter. Of course, then we ask, if not mathematical laws, then what? Precisely the question, but we must not reason from incredulity-- just because our minds cannot see the alternative does not mean there isn't one.

  19. #13129
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,645
    Quote Originally Posted by LaurieAG View Post
    Ken G, in Platonic realism it is implied that the perfect form is not part of our reality, are you saying it is or are you just saying it doesn't exist?
    I'm saying science never assumes it exists, nor needs it to exist. Whether or not someone wishes to believe it exists is a personal choice that really has nothing to do with scientific discovery or knowlege, because science only needs hypotheticals, it only needs to enter into calculations in which it assumes some set of laws prevails in a provisional way. There is never any need for those laws to exactly prevail, and there is never any need for any other laws to exactly prevail. The Platonic forms are always treated as hypotheticals in science, that's just how it works.

  20. #13130
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,645
    Quote Originally Posted by Selfsim View Post
    So what we get is that things 'obviously part of MIR', (the words of an MIR advocate here), such our experiencing odours, can't be modelled using math descriptions .. yet the cause of them can be .. because the odour itself, is part of the math structured universe). This being akin to: the 'experience of blue' or the web-dress color debate .. mentioned previously in this thread.
    Yes, it is ironic that the things that are farthest from those highly accurate equations are often regarded as the things that are "the most real"-- they are certainly the "real things" we care about the most. Whenever you find yourself hoping against hope that something will happen, because it is so important to you that it happen, it is inevitable that you are talking about something no equation predicts, despite Penrose's point about widths of hairs between Los Angeles and New York. There is a kind of blind faith that the things that we care about are somehow emergent from the "theory of everything" we might one day express in exact mathematical laws, but we have an example of an entire subfield of physics called thermodynamics which is built expressly to not be emergent from the detailed laws. Instead, thermodynamics is built to be insensitive to those details, which is more or less the opposite of an "emergent phenomenon." When systems get complicated enough, their behaviors begin to transcend their own building blocks, and take on a new character governed (hypothetically) by deeper and more fundamental kinds of laws than those ruling (hypothetically) the structure of an atom.

  21. #13131
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,645
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    So if we were to see an MIR it would be Quixotic and malicious, tempting us to make mistakes "The innate hostility of inaminate objects" has been demonstrated to me many times.
    I agree that the main problem with MIR belief is it tends to come just before someone adopts the view that their MDR is the MIR, and nature often bites us for such hubris. The lion tamer does not get bitten because he maintains a level of skepticism that the lion is really there, he gets bitten because he thinks he understands lions better than he actually does.

  22. #13132
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    12,777
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    It is certainly the MDR approach to treat laws in a hypothetical way, as if they were true-- like solving a problem neglecting air resistance, as if there were no air resistance. I'm saying that this only intersects with MIR belief if you hold that there actually is a truth there, no "as if." That's the basic flaw with MIR thinking, it always requires treating a hypothetical as if it were an absolute.
    So is it the philosophical/theological elements that are attractive enough for some to warrant extrapolating the "as if" as if it were an asymptote? Is scientism part of the problem?
    We know time flies, we just can't see its wings.

  23. #13133
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,645
    Quote Originally Posted by George View Post
    So is it the philosophical/theological elements that are attractive enough for some to warrant extrapolating the "as if" as if it were an asymptote? Is scientism part of the problem?
    That depends on what you mean by scientism. If you just mean a tendency to think that science is the only reliable path to truth, that's not really a problem, any more than a person choosing that their religious belief is the only reliable path to truth. The problem is failing to recognize that a belief has been chosen, and the belief is never tested, it is chosen for non-scientific reasons. So when one chooses scientism, one is choosing a non-scientific belief. That's a paradox, but belief need not be internally consistent, because it does not require logic in its rules of operation. If a scientist puts on their science hat and realizes they are in "what if" land, there is no problem, and if a scientist takes off their science hat and says "I choose to believe that science provides the only reliable path to truth", then there is no problem. There is only a problem if the scientist doesn't realize they took off their science hat.

  24. #13134
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    12,777
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    That depends on what you mean by scientism. If you just mean a tendency to think that science is the only reliable path to truth, that's not really a problem, any more than a person choosing that their religious belief is the only reliable path to truth. The problem is failing to recognize that a belief has been chosen, and the belief is never tested, it is chosen for non-scientific reasons. So when one chooses scientism, one is choosing a non-scientific belief. That's a paradox, but belief need not be internally consistent, because it does not require logic in its rules of operation. If a scientist puts on their science hat and realizes they are in "what if" land, there is no problem, and if a scientist takes off their science hat and says "I choose to believe that science provides the only reliable path to truth", then there is no problem. There is only a problem if the scientist doesn't realize they took off their science hat.
    Agreed, but perhaps they conflate valid logic with sound logic, which is often misunderstood in religion, at least. There are "valid" syllogisms that, no doubt, can come from MIR views, but their conclusions won't be "sound" unless the premises are true. The inability to falsify premises that aren't testable is no reason to argue such arguments are sound.
    We know time flies, we just can't see its wings.

  25. #13135
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,645
    Quote Originally Posted by George View Post
    Agreed, but perhaps they conflate valid logic with sound logic, which is often misunderstood in religion, at least. There are "valid" syllogisms that, no doubt, can come from MIR views, but their conclusions won't be "sound" unless the premises are true. The inability to falsify premises that aren't testable is no reason to argue such arguments are sound.
    Yes, indeed it's not clear there is any argument that a belief is sound-- it is just a choice, and if you believe it, you regard it as sound, and if you don't, you don't.

  26. #13136
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    394
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    I'm saying science never assumes it exists, nor needs it to exist.
    Surely just because the scientific MDR doesn't 'need it to exist' doesn't actually mean that a MIR doesn't exist but the scientific MDR just doesn't know if it exists.

    Before you go off on a 'belief' tangent consider that when the scientific MDR was dominated by religion in the past, did the scientific MDR exist then or not or just a little bit?

  27. #13137
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,258
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    Yes, it is ironic that the things that are farthest from those highly accurate equations are often regarded as the things that are "the most real"-- they are certainly the "real things" we care about the most.
    I guess I can also see that theories that are so abstract as to be scarcely recognisable (even to the mathematical physicists looking at them), give us a least a shot at approaching our own mind's event horizon (from which there isn't any evidence or tests, thus far, which may faciliate our escape). For example; it has been put to me, that maybe our observations leading our thinking about how we model those particular observations, may actually end up producing something that bears no resemblance with 'the thing we are actually observing'. It looked to me like a plea for God's intervention to correct for this 'possible' distortion which apparently 'might' affect our models .. but maybe esoteric, almost unintelligible, physical mathematics might be that 'God'? (Otherwise .. its over to our linguistically communicative aliens (or fairies) who dwell 'out there' .. somewhere in the Great MIR).

  28. #13138
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,258
    Quote Originally Posted by LaurieAG View Post
    Surely just because the scientific MDR doesn't 'need it to exist' doesn't actually mean that a MIR doesn't exist but the scientific MDR just doesn't know if it exists.
    Science is a well documented process y'know .. so I'm not sure your question has much to do with it also being viewed from the MDR viewpoint(?) Ie: for example, from here:

    The scientific method:

    At the core of biology and other sciences lies a problem-solving approach called the scientific method. The scientific method has five basic steps, plus one feedback step:

    1. Make an observation.
    2. Ask a question.
    3. Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation.
    4. Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
    5. Test the prediction.
    6. Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.

    The scientific method is used in all sciences—including chemistry, physics, geology, and psychology. The scientists in these fields ask different questions and perform different tests. However, they use the same core approach to find answers that are logical and supported by evidence.
    There's nothing in that description which says: 'Step: 0. Assume the Platonic perfect form exists', or is it: 'assume it doesn't exist'(?) .. either way, it certainly doesn't say 'assume' any such things!

    Quote Originally Posted by LaurieAG
    Before you go off on a 'belief' tangent consider that when the scientific MDR was dominated by religion in the past, did the scientific MDR exist then or not or just a little bit?
    The above process was observably, (from historical texts), well underway when religion was 'the norm'. (From my travels also: I'm not at all sure religion isn't still 'the norm', come to think of it!).
    I suppose its only relatively recently been formalised in the process description shown above though .. but so what?

  29. #13139
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,556
    Quote Originally Posted by LaurieAG View Post
    Surely just because the scientific MDR doesn't 'need it to exist' doesn't actually mean that a MIR doesn't exist but the scientific MDR just doesn't know if it exists.

    Before you go off on a 'belief' tangent consider that when the scientific MDR was dominated by religion in the past, did the scientific MDR exist then or not or just a little bit?
    The religions of the past all assumed agency, mostly superior to human agency, and the thinkers tried to model logical rules that linked creation to messing with the weather and human fates. Science cannot test any of that but it does put up alternative models that do not assume external agency. In that way science pushed MIR back from being an agency to just being something there to discover. I think it is fair to say that while science does not need to believe in any MIR to operate, it usually ignores the possibility of external agency and hopes that identical trials will give identical results. If they don’t we look for extra variables rather than divine intervention. But being all MDR we cannot know about that. The waft and weft is so complex outside of single particles that many belief options remain open. And playing with particles needs the biggest most complex machines ever devised plus the mind brain thing.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  30. #13140
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,645
    Quote Originally Posted by LaurieAG View Post
    Surely just because the scientific MDR doesn't 'need it to exist' doesn't actually mean that a MIR doesn't exist but the scientific MDR just doesn't know if it exists.
    Yes, I have never taken any position on the existence or non-existence of the MIR, which is also my stance on a supreme being. Indeed, I don't really see any difference between belief in MIR and belief in a supreme being, to me they are equally untestable and believed in for more or less the same reasons.
    Before you go off on a 'belief' tangent consider that when the scientific MDR was dominated by religion in the past, did the scientific MDR exist then or not or just a little bit?
    I'm not sure what you are asking, it's easy to see the MDR existed, you find it in books of the day.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •