Scientific Method Mega Thread - Page 6 - Orbiter-Forum

JEL · 05-24-2011, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hielor

If reality only exists in your head because you want it to be the way it is, please decide that gravity no longer exists for you and start flying around.

I don't think I said existence exists because I want it to.
I think I only said it's impossible to know the truth about existence with absolute certainty, therefore leaving room for alternative interpretations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jedidia

Can we not, without discounting this possibility, assume that if the world is not what it seems, it does pretend to be so really darn well. So well that we have to arrange ourselves with it if we want to get anything done in it.

That is exactly what I am requesting; the liberty and right to live in accordance with one's own perceived reality.
You have YOUR ideas of what is real, other people may have other ideas. Your ideas are not superior to theirs (unless you think you are better than they are)

Quote:

Originally Posted by jedidia

Elevator

Do you know any people, except maybe for terrorists, who want to build crashing elevators?
I'm pretty sure that anyone who believes in elevators also believe in building them so they don't crash (they'll probably test them, over-loaded with dead-weight, before putting people in them, don't you think?

). If you believe in people, then have a little faith in them, please.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jedidia

Otherwise, I will excercise my free will and blow up some local stores here, I want to see some action you know, and I find it rather disturbing that my free will is limited in such a way that I'm simply not allowed to...

If you want to blow stuff up... join the army. They blow a lot of stuff up in Afghanistan and Libya already. Good luck with that

Quote:

Originally Posted by jedidia

You didn't answer my question, by the way.

That's because the volume of observations are irrelevant as long as they remain subjective.

**Hielor** · 05-24-2011, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JEL

I don't think I said existence exists because I want it to.
I think I only said it's impossible to know the truth about existence with absolute certainty, therefore leaving room for alternative interpretations.

Then please alternatively interpret gravity out of the equation and start flying.

Quote:

You have YOUR ideas of what is real, other people may have other ideas. Your ideas are not superior to theirs (unless you think you are better than they are)

Or unless their ideas don't actually work--like, for example, believing there's no such thing as gravity.

Quote:

Do you know any people, except maybe for terrorists, who want to build crashing elevators?
I'm pretty sure that anyone who believes in elevators also believe in building them so they don't crash (they'll probably test them, over-loaded with dead-weight, before putting people in them, don't you think?

). If you believe in people, then have a little faith in them, please.

And in order to build an elevator that works, they have to acknowledge that acceleration due to gravity is 9.8 m/s^2.

Quote:

That's because the volume of observations are irrelevant as long as they remain subjective.

You're right, it doesn't matter that anyone who measures the acceleration due to gravity at Earth's surface is 9.8m/s^2. Someone is free to go and believe that it's 0, and fly around instead of being confined to the ground. Wait, what?

I have to say, you are very good at dodging questions and giving responses that don't answer the question.

jedidia · 05-24-2011, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Do you know any people, except maybe for terrorists, who want to build crashing elevators?

Thanks God not. I didn't even say that anyone would want to. I merely said that if someone does not acknowledge that 1g = 9.81 m/s^2, he WILL. Now, I guess I have to fire a simple, direct question at you that you can't dodge. Please answer with yes or no: Do you believe that an elevator built under the assumption that g = 8 m/s^2 will lift the weight it was designed to lift? yes or no!

Quote:

That's because the volume of observations are irrelevant as long as they remain subjective.

Maybe we're talking about the wrong thing here. We're talking about subjectivity all the time, let's talk a bit about objectivity for a change. Please tell me how you define objectivity, because I think we don't perceive the term in the same way.

**tblaxland** · 05-25-2011, 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JEL

Do you know any people, except maybe for terrorists, who want to build crashing elevators?

Sure, but what about the bloke that wants to build an elevator who has been taught that gravity is something other 9.8 m s^-2? With the best intentions in the world, it won't work for him. And it may kill someone because...

Quote:

Originally Posted by JEL

(they'll probably test them, over-loaded with dead-weight, before putting people in them, don't you think?

)

Actually not. We've gotten so good at building elevators that don't crash that such tests are no longer required for the registration of lift machines (at least here). They call it "self-certification". Confidence is high that engineers won't have been taught alternative gravities because we make sure that school teachers won't teach such things.

Wishbone · 05-25-2011, 01:13 PM

Self-certification and self-regulation are very dangerous; am afraid we're back in the era of exploding steam boilers... (In Russia, elevators are still considered regulated equipment with AFAIK periodic re-certification despite the drive to self-regulate everything). As for alternative values of G, it is actually different on Mt.Everest and near the Dead Sea

jedidia · 05-25-2011, 02:31 PM

Quote:

As for alternative values of G, it is actually different on Mt.Everest and near the Dead Sea

Of course it is, but I can tell you pretty exactly what the gravity on mount everest without even going there and measuring it. According to Jel, we wouldn't even know IF we do...

JEL · 05-25-2011, 04:20 PM

@Hielor;

If the knowledge you have about existence is LESS than total, do you not then have to agree that there IS a possibility for the existence of something you have NOT thought of?

I never said you chose your beliefs at will.
What you believe may be forced upon you.

@jedidia;

You have to start at the beginning.

What do you know with certainty? That you are aware of your thoughts.

Since you are aware of your thoughts, you can conclude that you exist.

Now we have "Cogito ergo sum".

Good... you exist... next step.

What do you know about your thoughts with certainty? Only that they exist and that you are aware of them. Their nature, and the nature of their content, however, remains unknown.

Thus certainty ends here. Beyond this point is speculation.

It therefore is impossible to claim that the content of your thoughts represent an indisputable truth that exist beyond you and independent of you. The possibility is there, but it's only a possibility, not a certainty.

And without certainty you cannot logically rule anything in or out.

So all talk about the content of your thoughts (gravity, math, sunshine, etc) becomes secondary and therefore really irrelevant to the main issue, namely; "what can be determined with certainty?"

The content of your thoughts MIGHT be an illusion. A dream maybe.

So it's too early to move on to claiming the existence of a true objective world around you, based on the mere content of your thoughts.

You may BELIEVE in such a world, but you can't know with absolute certainty if your belief is true.
Thus you HAVE to accept that your belief MAY be wrong. Otherwise you are nolonger dealing with the truth, or science, but simply with fiction.

Don't blame me if you don't like the truth. I didn't invent the world

And I'm not dodging your questions, it's just that your questions don't make any sense because they are premature.

Fizyk · 05-25-2011, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JEL

Thus certainty ends here. Beyond this point is speculation.

Strictly speaking, yes. But for all practical purposes, no. The probability that everything is totally different is simply too low for it to be seriously considered.

**Hielor** · 05-25-2011, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JEL

If the knowledge you have about existence is LESS than total, do you not then have to agree that there IS a possibility for the existence of something you have NOT thought of?

Sure, but we have a pretty good understanding of gravity, namely that it's 9.8m/s^s at sea level and that hasn't changed since we started measuring.

Quote:

I never said you chose your beliefs at will.
What you believe may be forced upon you.

Reality does have a way of forcing beliefs upon you, yes.

JEL · 05-25-2011, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fizyk

The probability that everything is totally different is simply too low for it to be seriously considered.

You can't calculate a probability without info.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hielor

we have a pretty good understanding of gravity

Within the realms of the world that MAY be an illusion, yes

I'm sorry for being a pain in the behind on you guys, but this is an old old subject that humans have fought with for millenia. If you want to learn more about it, or dive deeper into it, there's plenty of reading material on the web

All the arguments that both you and I have presented in this thread have already been thoroughly discussed before.

jedidia · 05-25-2011, 08:44 PM

Quote:

You may BELIEVE in such a world, but you can't know with absolute certainty if your belief is true

Which brings us back to what I already said two times before: I dont need that certainty. As long as the world reliably pretends to be what it is, I can work with it.

Quote:

And I'm not dodging your questions, it's just that your questions don't make any sense because they are premature.

It is premature to ask what you actually believe about reality on another level than the dialectical? It is premature to ask you how you define objectivity? No. It is not. These are questions essential to the discussion. What you have been doing so far is discuss dialectics without any practical meaning or aplication. Very well, that's what philosophy is all about. What would interest me is what consequences these believs have in your life. If they have none, then your believs would have absolutely no implicatins whatsoever, except to give you the preposterous feeling that reality will step aside for you. And that might not end well...

JEL · 05-25-2011, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jedidia

Which brings us back to what I already said two times before: I dont need that certainty. As long as the world reliably pretends to be what it is, I can work with it.

As long as you are not certain about something, you should refrain from judging/restricting other people's freedom and liberties.

Please read up on

Galileo Galilei

, before you repeat the inquisition's banning of beliefs they didn't like:

Quote:

In 1633, Galileo was convicted of "grave suspicion of heresy" based on the book, which was then placed on the Index of Forbidden Books, from which it was not removed until 1835 (after the theories it discussed had been permitted in print in 1822.)
In an action that was not announced at the time, the publication of anything else he had written or ever might write was also banned.

The book: "Dialog Concerning the Two Chief World Systems"

Freedom and liberty is NOT up for compromise!
They are a constitutionally defended right! (and that's in the world YOU believe in

)

Quote:

Originally Posted by jedidia

It is premature to ask what you actually believe about reality on another level than the dialectical?

Sorry, then I must have misunderstood your question initially. I apologize for that.
I believe "cogito ergo sum".

Quote:

Originally Posted by jedidia

It is premature to ask you how you define objectivity?

Princeton university defines it like this:

Quote:

judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices

I like that definition... objectivity is the opposite of subjectivity (IE anything not related to my mind) although it obviously means no objectivity can be known, since we can't know anything that has not in some way been influenced by our own mind. After all, our mind HAS to do the observation and thoughtful evaluation of whatever MAY be truly objective in nature, and thus this definition limits us from knowing it objectively SHOULD it exist (once again we're limited to "cogito ergo sum")

There's nothing wrong with the definition. The problem is that we can't know anything without a mind to do the 'knowing' with. Thus our mind is, at the very least, ALWAYS a factor in the equation. The definition of objectivity does NOT allow such a subjective factor to be included.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jedidia

What you have been doing so far is discuss dialectics without any practical meaning or aplication.

I went into this debate ONLY to defend practical liberty and freedom from what I think is a dangerous populist view (the view that science can support absolutist ideals). Not to end up in a deeper philosophical talk.

jedidia · 05-26-2011, 07:05 AM

Quote:

I believe "cogito ergo sum".

That *is* dialectics. What about the elevator?

Quote:

judgement based on observable phenomena...

This part you deny, since you claim that nothing can be truly observed.

Quote:

...uninfluenced by personal emotion or prejudices

And this states nothing else than that the more you can take emotion and prejudice out of the equation, the closer you get to objectivity. Although, grantet, you can never get *quite* there. However, if the sole problem to get closer to objectivity is to eliminate emotion and prejudice, then increasing the volume of observations totally makes them more objective. Which you denied too.

This is pretty much how I define objectivity, and I was under the impression that you defined it differently, because you deny both basic premises (especially the first one, and resulting from that the second). So now I'm even more confused... from my subjective observation it seems that you're not sticking to your definition, but I'd need to increase the volume of observations to get my personal bias out.

Quote:

Freedom and liberty is NOT up for compromise!
They are a constitutionally defended right! (and that's in the world YOU believe in

)

Freedom and Liberty were always up for compromise, as much as I may distaste that. Reality, as far as we can tell, wasn't.

Certainly, our perception of reality was, and is. Again, I'm not denying that. But it seems rather drastic, and extremely silly, to deny any reality at all because you feel threatend in the execution of your free will because gravity doesn't allow you to fly.

That was a bit cynical, I know. I'm not neccessarily suggesting that that's what you believe, that's just what it looks like to me.

Quote:

As long as you are not certain about something, you should refrain from judging/restricting other people's freedom and liberties.

You're saying that I'm not allowed to restrict another mans freedom to kill somebody else because I can't be certain that a) he really did, and b) that the other is really dead. I just don't get how that would be better than a bad dictatorship (I'm not saying it's worse, either. People can't live either way). And both reek of horrible amounts of doublethink.

Quote:

I went into this debate ONLY to defend practical liberty and freedom from what I think is a dangerous populist view

If that's the only thing you meant to say, then I can only repeat: You'll get better results if you aproach the problem politically. If you deny any concept of reality to defend your personal freedom, you sound like a lunatic with illusions of grandure (I'm not saying you are. I say this is my subjective impression from what you write, and I don't believe it's true, either. I just think we're somewhere having a knot in the communication, and trying to clear that up was what I was trying to do these last few posts).

JEL · 05-28-2011, 06:22 AM

@jedidia; "Cogito ergo sum" was said by René Descartes. I have a feeling you aren't going to call that guy a lunatic.

We've already been through all the points you raise in your last post, and there's no point in my repeating myself over and over. So I'll simply conclude that we don't agree, and leave it at that.

Thanks for the talk though

**Urwumpe** · 05-28-2011, 06:51 AM

JEL: Nobody here except you dares to reduce Descartes to just this sentence and then reinterpret it in a new way to fit his concepts. The cogito ergo sum is just the climax of Descartes magnum opus, but he wrote a lot more about it and how he meant it.

Also, about the lack of data: We have already trillions of scientific measurements. There are still measurements, that contradict the old models when you have better accuracy of the sensors, but the coarse data still suits the old models. It happens only once in a lifetime, that an scientific explanation for observed data is completely wrong... usually it happens in biology, astrophysics or genetics, because of the inability to watch the processes in real-time from inside and analyze them - at least for now.

05-24-2011, 09:12 PM	#78
jedidia shoemaker without legs	Quote: Do you know any people, except maybe for terrorists, who want to build crashing elevators? Thanks God not. I didn't even say that anyone would want to. I merely said that if someone does not acknowledge that 1g = 9.81 m/s^2, he WILL. Now, I guess I have to fire a simple, direct question at you that you can't dodge. Please answer with yes or no: Do you believe that an elevator built under the assumption that g = 8 m/s^2 will lift the weight it was designed to lift? yes or no! Quote: That's because the volume of observations are irrelevant as long as they remain subjective. Maybe we're talking about the wrong thing here. We're talking about subjectivity all the time, let's talk a bit about objectivity for a change. Please tell me how you define objectivity, because I think we don't perceive the term in the same way. Last edited by jedidia; 05-25-2011 at 06:36 AM.

05-25-2011, 10:48 PM	#87
JEL Addon Developer	Quote: Originally Posted by jedidia Which brings us back to what I already said two times before: I dont need that certainty. As long as the world reliably pretends to be what it is, I can work with it. As long as you are not certain about something, you should refrain from judging/restricting other people's freedom and liberties. Please read up on Galileo Galilei Galileo Galilei , before you repeat the inquisition's banning of beliefs they didn't like: Quote: In 1633, Galileo was convicted of "grave suspicion of heresy" based on the book, which was then placed on the Index of Forbidden Books, from which it was not removed until 1835 (after the theories it discussed had been permitted in print in 1822.) In an action that was not announced at the time, the publication of anything else he had written or ever might write was also banned. The book: "Dialog Concerning the Two Chief World Systems" Freedom and liberty is NOT up for compromise! They are a constitutionally defended right! (and that's in the world YOU believe in ) Quote: Originally Posted by jedidia It is premature to ask what you actually believe about reality on another level than the dialectical? Sorry, then I must have misunderstood your question initially. I apologize for that. I believe "cogito ergo sum". Quote: Originally Posted by jedidia It is premature to ask you how you define objectivity? Princeton university defines it like this: Quote: judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices I like that definition... objectivity is the opposite of subjectivity (IE anything not related to my mind) although it obviously means no objectivity can be known, since we can't know anything that has not in some way been influenced by our own mind. After all, our mind HAS to do the observation and thoughtful evaluation of whatever MAY be truly objective in nature, and thus this definition limits us from knowing it objectively SHOULD it exist (once again we're limited to "cogito ergo sum") There's nothing wrong with the definition. The problem is that we can't know anything without a mind to do the 'knowing' with. Thus our mind is, at the very least, ALWAYS a factor in the equation. The definition of objectivity does NOT allow such a subjective factor to be included. Quote: Originally Posted by jedidia What you have been doing so far is discuss dialectics without any practical meaning or aplication. I went into this debate ONLY to defend practical liberty and freedom from what I think is a dangerous populist view (the view that science can support absolutist ideals). Not to end up in a deeper philosophical talk.

05-26-2011, 07:05 AM	#88
jedidia shoemaker without legs	Quote: I believe "cogito ergo sum". That is dialectics. What about the elevator? Quote: judgement based on observable phenomena... This part you deny, since you claim that nothing can be truly observed. Quote: ...uninfluenced by personal emotion or prejudices And this states nothing else than that the more you can take emotion and prejudice out of the equation, the closer you get to objectivity. Although, grantet, you can never get quite there. However, if the sole problem to get closer to objectivity is to eliminate emotion and prejudice, then increasing the volume of observations totally makes them more objective. Which you denied too. This is pretty much how I define objectivity, and I was under the impression that you defined it differently, because you deny both basic premises (especially the first one, and resulting from that the second). So now I'm even more confused... from my subjective observation it seems that you're not sticking to your definition, but I'd need to increase the volume of observations to get my personal bias out. Quote: Freedom and liberty is NOT up for compromise! They are a constitutionally defended right! (and that's in the world YOU believe in ) Freedom and Liberty were always up for compromise, as much as I may distaste that. Reality, as far as we can tell, wasn't. Certainly, our perception of reality was, and is. Again, I'm not denying that. But it seems rather drastic, and extremely silly, to deny any reality at all because you feel threatend in the execution of your free will because gravity doesn't allow you to fly. That was a bit cynical, I know. I'm not neccessarily suggesting that that's what you believe, that's just what it looks like to me. Quote: As long as you are not certain about something, you should refrain from judging/restricting other people's freedom and liberties. You're saying that I'm not allowed to restrict another mans freedom to kill somebody else because I can't be certain that a) he really did, and b) that the other is really dead. I just don't get how that would be better than a bad dictatorship (I'm not saying it's worse, either. People can't live either way). And both reek of horrible amounts of doublethink. Quote: I went into this debate ONLY to defend practical liberty and freedom from what I think is a dangerous populist view If that's the only thing you meant to say, then I can only repeat: You'll get better results if you aproach the problem politically. If you deny any concept of reality to defend your personal freedom, you sound like a lunatic with illusions of grandure (I'm not saying you are. I say this is my subjective impression from what you write, and I don't believe it's true, either. I just think we're somewhere having a knot in the communication, and trying to clear that up was what I was trying to do these last few posts). Last edited by jedidia; 05-26-2011 at 07:11 AM.

Quick Links	Need Help?
About Us Register to Participate Orbiter Website Orbiter Download Projects Recommended Addons Orbit Hangar Mods Photo Gallery Social Groups External Links	Did you forget your password? Rules & Guidelines Frequently Asked Questions Orbiter F.A.Q. Orbiter Tutorials Orbiter IRC Chat Search Forum Site Map Contact Us Mark Forums Read

05-24-2011, 02:26 PM	#76
JEL Addon Developer	Quote: Originally Posted by Hielor If reality only exists in your head because you want it to be the way it is, please decide that gravity no longer exists for you and start flying around. I don't think I said existence exists because I want it to. I think I only said it's impossible to know the truth about existence with absolute certainty, therefore leaving room for alternative interpretations. Quote: Originally Posted by jedidia Can we not, without discounting this possibility, assume that if the world is not what it seems, it does pretend to be so really darn well. So well that we have to arrange ourselves with it if we want to get anything done in it. That is exactly what I am requesting; the liberty and right to live in accordance with one's own perceived reality. You have YOUR ideas of what is real, other people may have other ideas. Your ideas are not superior to theirs (unless you think you are better than they are) Quote: Originally Posted by jedidia Elevator Do you know any people, except maybe for terrorists, who want to build crashing elevators? I'm pretty sure that anyone who believes in elevators also believe in building them so they don't crash (they'll probably test them, over-loaded with dead-weight, before putting people in them, don't you think? ). If you believe in people, then have a little faith in them, please. Quote: Originally Posted by jedidia Otherwise, I will excercise my free will and blow up some local stores here, I want to see some action you know, and I find it rather disturbing that my free will is limited in such a way that I'm simply not allowed to... If you want to blow stuff up... join the army. They blow a lot of stuff up in Afghanistan and Libya already. Good luck with that Quote: Originally Posted by jedidia You didn't answer my question, by the way. That's because the volume of observations are irrelevant as long as they remain subjective.

05-24-2011, 07:00 PM	#77
Hielor Defender of Truth	Quote: Originally Posted by JEL I don't think I said existence exists because I want it to. I think I only said it's impossible to know the truth about existence with absolute certainty, therefore leaving room for alternative interpretations. Then please alternatively interpret gravity out of the equation and start flying. Quote: You have YOUR ideas of what is real, other people may have other ideas. Your ideas are not superior to theirs (unless you think you are better than they are) Or unless their ideas don't actually work--like, for example, believing there's no such thing as gravity. Quote: Do you know any people, except maybe for terrorists, who want to build crashing elevators? I'm pretty sure that anyone who believes in elevators also believe in building them so they don't crash (they'll probably test them, over-loaded with dead-weight, before putting people in them, don't you think? ). If you believe in people, then have a little faith in them, please. And in order to build an elevator that works, they have to acknowledge that acceleration due to gravity is 9.8 m/s^2. Quote: That's because the volume of observations are irrelevant as long as they remain subjective. You're right, it doesn't matter that anyone who measures the acceleration due to gravity at Earth's surface is 9.8m/s^2. Someone is free to go and believe that it's 0, and fly around instead of being confined to the ground. Wait, what? I have to say, you are very good at dodging questions and giving responses that don't answer the question.

05-25-2011, 06:26 AM	#79
tblaxland Webmaster	Quote: Originally Posted by JEL Do you know any people, except maybe for terrorists, who want to build crashing elevators? Sure, but what about the bloke that wants to build an elevator who has been taught that gravity is something other 9.8 m s^-2? With the best intentions in the world, it won't work for him. And it may kill someone because... Quote: Originally Posted by JEL (they'll probably test them, over-loaded with dead-weight, before putting people in them, don't you think? ) Actually not. We've gotten so good at building elevators that don't crash that such tests are no longer required for the registration of lift machines (at least here). They call it "self-certification". Confidence is high that engineers won't have been taught alternative gravities because we make sure that school teachers won't teach such things.

05-25-2011, 01:13 PM	#80
Wishbone Clueless developer	Self-certification and self-regulation are very dangerous; am afraid we're back in the era of exploding steam boilers... (In Russia, elevators are still considered regulated equipment with AFAIK periodic re-certification despite the drive to self-regulate everything). As for alternative values of G, it is actually different on Mt.Everest and near the Dead Sea

05-25-2011, 02:31 PM	#81
jedidia shoemaker without legs	Quote: As for alternative values of G, it is actually different on Mt.Everest and near the Dead Sea Of course it is, but I can tell you pretty exactly what the gravity on mount everest without even going there and measuring it. According to Jel, we wouldn't even know IF we do...

05-25-2011, 04:20 PM	#82
JEL Addon Developer	@Hielor; If the knowledge you have about existence is LESS than total, do you not then have to agree that there IS a possibility for the existence of something you have NOT thought of? I never said you chose your beliefs at will. What you believe may be forced upon you. @jedidia; You have to start at the beginning. What do you know with certainty? That you are aware of your thoughts. Since you are aware of your thoughts, you can conclude that you exist. Now we have "Cogito ergo sum". Good... you exist... next step. What do you know about your thoughts with certainty? Only that they exist and that you are aware of them. Their nature, and the nature of their content, however, remains unknown. Thus certainty ends here. Beyond this point is speculation. It therefore is impossible to claim that the content of your thoughts represent an indisputable truth that exist beyond you and independent of you. The possibility is there, but it's only a possibility, not a certainty. And without certainty you cannot logically rule anything in or out. So all talk about the content of your thoughts (gravity, math, sunshine, etc) becomes secondary and therefore really irrelevant to the main issue, namely; "what can be determined with certainty?" The content of your thoughts MIGHT be an illusion. A dream maybe. So it's too early to move on to claiming the existence of a true objective world around you, based on the mere content of your thoughts. You may BELIEVE in such a world, but you can't know with absolute certainty if your belief is true. Thus you HAVE to accept that your belief MAY be wrong. Otherwise you are nolonger dealing with the truth, or science, but simply with fiction. Don't blame me if you don't like the truth. I didn't invent the world And I'm not dodging your questions, it's just that your questions don't make any sense because they are premature.

05-25-2011, 05:09 PM	#83
Fizyk Orbinaut	Quote: Originally Posted by JEL Thus certainty ends here. Beyond this point is speculation. Strictly speaking, yes. But for all practical purposes, no. The probability that everything is totally different is simply too low for it to be seriously considered.

05-25-2011, 07:31 PM	#84
Hielor Defender of Truth	Quote: Originally Posted by JEL If the knowledge you have about existence is LESS than total, do you not then have to agree that there IS a possibility for the existence of something you have NOT thought of? Sure, but we have a pretty good understanding of gravity, namely that it's 9.8m/s^s at sea level and that hasn't changed since we started measuring. Quote: I never said you chose your beliefs at will. What you believe may be forced upon you. Reality does have a way of forcing beliefs upon you, yes.

05-25-2011, 08:23 PM	#85
JEL Addon Developer	Quote: Originally Posted by Fizyk The probability that everything is totally different is simply too low for it to be seriously considered. You can't calculate a probability without info. Quote: Originally Posted by Hielor we have a pretty good understanding of gravity Within the realms of the world that MAY be an illusion, yes I'm sorry for being a pain in the behind on you guys, but this is an old old subject that humans have fought with for millenia. If you want to learn more about it, or dive deeper into it, there's plenty of reading material on the web All the arguments that both you and I have presented in this thread have already been thoroughly discussed before.

05-25-2011, 08:44 PM	#86
jedidia shoemaker without legs	Quote: You may BELIEVE in such a world, but you can't know with absolute certainty if your belief is true Which brings us back to what I already said two times before: I dont need that certainty. As long as the world reliably pretends to be what it is, I can work with it. Quote: And I'm not dodging your questions, it's just that your questions don't make any sense because they are premature. It is premature to ask what you actually believe about reality on another level than the dialectical? It is premature to ask you how you define objectivity? No. It is not. These are questions essential to the discussion. What you have been doing so far is discuss dialectics without any practical meaning or aplication. Very well, that's what philosophy is all about. What would interest me is what consequences these believs have in your life. If they have none, then your believs would have absolutely no implicatins whatsoever, except to give you the preposterous feeling that reality will step aside for you. And that might not end well...

05-28-2011, 06:22 AM	#89
JEL Addon Developer	@jedidia; "Cogito ergo sum" was said by René Descartes. I have a feeling you aren't going to call that guy a lunatic. We've already been through all the points you raise in your last post, and there's no point in my repeating myself over and over. So I'll simply conclude that we don't agree, and leave it at that. Thanks for the talk though

05-28-2011, 06:51 AM	#90
Urwumpe Donator	JEL: Nobody here except you dares to reduce Descartes to just this sentence and then reinterpret it in a new way to fit his concepts. The cogito ergo sum is just the climax of Descartes magnum opus, but he wrote a lot more about it and how he meant it. Also, about the lack of data: We have already trillions of scientific measurements. There are still measurements, that contradict the old models when you have better accuracy of the sensors, but the coarse data still suits the old models. It happens only once in a lifetime, that an scientific explanation for observed data is completely wrong... usually it happens in biology, astrophysics or genetics, because of the inability to watch the processes in real-time from inside and analyze them - at least for now.