Faith, Reason, and Self-evident truths

[Jester]

This is currently being discussed in the Holy Huddle room, but for those non-Christians who wish to participate, I'm adding the topic here.

Is there proof, reasonable evidence, some evidence, etc for the existence of reality?

Or:

Must we accept some things on a non-rational basis?

Or:

Do you have some response not mentioned above?

[Thought Criminal]

See, this is exactly the sort of abuse of QM that I was talking about. QM is a probabilistic theory. Except in cases where P=0 or P=1, it only tells us what the probability of the outcome is.

So in the case of a particle that will turn out to be an electron or a positron, it can tell us the odds are 50/50, but can't tell us which way it'll be. This is a limitation of QM, not support for half-electron/half-positron particles.

/quote]

That's what I call QM abuse. Let me quote Schroedinger himself:

The psi-function of the entire system would express this by having in it the living and dead cat (pardon the expression) mixed or smeared out in equal parts

The wave function is not some statistical function based on the behaviour of many particles. It describes the entire state of the system. As long as the wave function has not collapsed, the cat is both living and dead.

This is a statement about an abstract probability function, not reality. For that matter, the idea of collapse is ridiculous and is not part of QM; it's just another error of the Copenhagen interpretation.

TC

[Sjoerd]

For that matter, the idea of collapse is ridiculous and is not part of QM; it's just another error of the Copenhagen interpretation.

Quoting Wikipedia now:

Acceptance among physicists

According to a poll at a Quantum Mechanics workshop in 1997, the Copenhagen interpretation is the most widely-accepted specific interpretation of quantum mechanics, followed by the many-worlds interpretation.

So, the Copenhagen interpretation is mainstream science. It states that the cat is both living and dead until we measure it. The alternative, the many-worlds interpretation, states that the cat is permanently both living and dead, one state in our universe, the other state in another universe.
Unless you can e-mail me your PhD thesis on Quantum Mechanics, I am seriously doubting your judgment.

And you are still dodging the question. Please prove rationally that self-contradictory statements are false.

[Thought Criminal]

So, the Copenhagen interpretation is mainstream science. It states that the cat is both living and dead until we measure it. The alternative, the many-worlds interpretation, states that the cat is permanently both living and dead, one state in our universe, the other state in another universe.
Unless you can e-mail me your PhD thesis on Quantum Mechanics, I am seriously doubting your judgment.

I didn't say it was unpopular, I said it was false. Nobody is denying the math behind QM; it works. The controversy is over which interpretation of that math is correct. The Copenhagen interpretation is the oldest, but also one of the dumbest. There are many better alternatives.

And you are still dodging the question. Please prove rationally that self-contradictory statements are false.

Please prove that formal logic is false.

TC

[Sjoerd]

Of course, what makes this truly sad is that you're doing the same thing Jester did not long ago: argue for something you don't for a moment believe in an attempt to "win". You should be ashamed of yourself.

It's worthless precisely because it's empty; it explains nothing. For that matter, contradictory beliefs are necessarily invalid. If you have no problem with false beliefs, then you're wasting your time pretending your beliefs are true.

Your posts lack substance, and this reflects on your person. You cannot disassociate yourself from what you say and do.

Indulging your demand for proof is out of the question. The above posts are unsubstantiated ad hominems. Ad hominems are logical fallacies. There are two courses of action: a moderator report or allowing you to correct your fallacy and come up with a real argument. I have tried to take the second course, but your attitude leaves me no choice. Have a good day.

Sjoerd

[Thought Criminal]

Of course, what makes this truly sad is that you're doing the same thing Jester did not long ago: argue for something you don't for a moment believe in an attempt to "win". You should be ashamed of yourself.

It's worthless precisely because it's empty; it explains nothing. For that matter, contradictory beliefs are necessarily invalid. If you have no problem with false beliefs, then you're wasting your time pretending your beliefs are true.

Your posts lack substance, and this reflects on your person. You cannot disassociate yourself from what you say and do.

Indulging your demand for proof is out of the question. The above posts are unsubstantiated ad hominems. Ad hominems are logical fallacies. There are two courses of action: a moderator report or allowing you to correct your fallacy and come up with a real argument. I have tried to take the second course, but your attitude leaves me no choice. Have a good day.

Sjoerd

Yes, report me for stating that self-contradictions are necessarily false. It's certainly a lot easier than arguing against me. I'm having an excellent day, and I've reported you for failing to support your claims.

TC

[Goat]

I would suggest to read a bit more on quantum mechanics before calling contradictory beliefs false. Or have another look at one of those images that are two things simultaneously.
And I never asked anyone to accept all my beliefs. I am always willing, for the sake of an argument, to limit myself to a subset and ignore the other ones for the time being.

I think you know far too much science to blithely invoke QM in support of this sort of nonsense, so I'm going to politely overlook your lapse.

Instead, I'm going to remind you that self-contradictions are necessarily false.

TC

Very well. I am going to remind you that "Schroedinger's cat is alive" and "Schroedinger's cat is dead", which are clearly self-contradictory statements, are nevertheless believed to be true by modern QM, though usually on a more microscopic scale.
Now *prove* to me that self-contradictions are necessarily false.

Well that is the thought experiment. However, I don't think that has meaning on above the quantum level..

[Thought Criminal]

Well that is the thought experiment. However, I don't think that has meaning on above the quantum level..

And its meaning at the quantum level is disputed. One interpretation is that the particle is neither an electron nor a position, but rather something that is neither at this time but will become one or the other. In this way, there is no contradiction.

Likewise, the question of whether it is a particle or a wave is a false dichotomy. Things at this scale have both wave-like and particle-like behaviors, which are manfiest under different situations. The right answer is that it's an electron, and it does whatever an electron does. There is no self-contradiction.

This is why I called his invocation of QM an abuse. QM does not override logic. Rather, logic is how we know that the QM formalisms are true and how we determine how best to interpret these formalisms.

TC

[micatala]

Moderator Intervention

Of course, what makes this truly sad is that you're doing the same thing Jester did not long ago: argue for something you don't for a moment believe in an attempt to "win". You should be ashamed of yourself.

It's worthless precisely because it's empty; it explains nothing. For that matter, contradictory beliefs are necessarily invalid. If you have no problem with false beliefs, then you're wasting your time pretending your beliefs are true.

Your posts lack substance, and this reflects on your person. You cannot disassociate yourself from what you say and do.

Indulging your demand for proof is out of the question. The above posts are unsubstantiated ad hominems. Ad hominems are logical fallacies. There are two courses of action: a moderator report or allowing you to correct your fallacy and come up with a real argument. I have tried to take the second course, but your attitude leaves me no choice. Have a good day.

Sjoerd

I am giving a formal warning to Thought Criminal

The first statement accuses two members of dishonesty based on Thought Criminal's assumptions about their internal thinking. This is unwarranted.

The second moves an argument from the position to the person. Again, personal attacks are against the rules.

Yes, report me for stating that self-contradictions are necessarily false. It's certainly a lot easier than arguing against me. I'm having an excellent day, and I've reported you for failing to support your claims.

As far as I can see, sjoerd has provided evidence for his position by quoting main stream science. You may disagree with his sources, but I do not see that sjoerd is simply making an assertion without providing any justification for it.


I will ask both sjoerd and Thought Criminal to calm down and return to discussion of the OP issues without engaging in emotional or personal rhetoric.


Again, any questions or challenges to this post should be made via PM. You can message me, or if you wish, one of the other moderators.

[Jester]

I’m not convinced that our goal is to understand and predict, nor do I see that throwing out possibilities helps with understanding.

Then you're mistaken twice. First, if it is not our goal to understand and predict, you will need to offer an alternative and suport it. Second, we're not throwing out possibilities, we're choosing what's most likely. Something that is less likely may, after additional evidence and analysis, turn out to be more likely, to it's shelved, not thrown out.

Our goal is to debate until we have felt we’ve reached the truth. While I’ll agree that understanding is implicit, prediction is not. That is a requirement of a scientific theory, and would, of course, be applicable in that case. As we are not, however, I see no reason why prediction is a requisite for truth. I agree that disproved predictions cast doubt on any assertion, but do not see that such has been the case with mine.
As to the matter of likelihood, I see no solid evidence to believe that any conclusion regarding the existence of reality is more likely than any other. Frankly, I can’t envision a reliable way to test for such likelihood. I will agree that it seems pointless to assume that physical reality is false when one seems incapable of perceiving much, if anything, else. I don’t see, however, that this does anything to establish it as more likely.

More to the point, I would say that we cannot assume that something is true for lack of an alternative explanation. This is the same logic that supports the “God of the gaps� arguments, which I believe to be faulty.

The fault of God of the gaps is that it tries to fill a gap in scientific knowedge with religion. This is a stretch, as religion has yet to provide any knowledge at all. It is not an error to say that a gap in scientific knowledge will be filled by science, if it is filled at all.

I agree that scientific gaps, if they are filled, will be filled with science. What I object to is the idea that non-scientific questions, such as that of the validity of physical reality, will be answered by science. This is where I drew the parallel. Scientific inquiry, by definition, pre-assumes the existence of the physical world. Therefore, science is not relevant to this question.

Lastly, we have not established that we need to account for the keyboard, but merely one’s belief in the keyboard. Insanity or mind control (something akin to The Matrix comes to mind) would account for such a perception.

The problem with an error theory is that it now needs to account for both the content of the error and its source. In other words, it must explain both why the keyboard seems to be one way and why it is in fact not this way. Good luck with that.

This would only be the case if I were asserting that physical reality is an illusion. As I have only asserted that physical reality is not evidenced, I need only point out that this is a possibility, as well as our lack of means to ascertain the likelihood of this case to support my point.

I completely agree with this. My issue is that any unconscious perceptions, including the type that you mention, are not subject to formal logic. Hence, they are non-rational conclusions.

You can't possibly agree because you don't even understand.

This is bordering on a personal appraisal/judgment. I’m aware that this discussion can be frustrating (it is for me as well), but would you mind being careful about telling me what I do and don’t understand?

But, getting to your actual point;

Formal logic never entered into the picture here. This is about the scientific method, of which formal logic is a small part.

Actually, I would say that formal logic has much more to do with our discussion than the scientific method. As noted above, it pre-assumes one conclusion, which makes it irrelevant to this debate (much as I love it).
Though you haven’t said otherwise, I would like to be sure to state that formal logic is not simply a part of science. It is used in many fields of study.

We seek to account for the totality of our perceptions, but your error theory is unparsimonious and unsupported.

No conclusion is as yet supported (or evidenced), which has been my only assertion thus far.

Predictive power can only be counted as relevant to an actual occurrence. Perhaps an illustration would be best:
If an insane man noticed that the purple aliens which “visit� him always come when he is alone, he has gained predictive power. He would, however, believe that he has gained predictive power regarding aliens (that they only visit people who are alone) when in fact he has gained predictive power regarding the symptom of his neurosis. Hence, predictive power does not infer the nature of its subject to be real.

The trouble with analogies is that they are only valid to the extent that they are analagous. Here you posit an error theory to explain away one aspect of this person's perceptions. Elsewhere, you pretend that such a theory can explain away everything.

I’m not sure where I have done this, actually. I do not believe that I’ve claimed that an error theory is evidenced. Certainly, that was not my intent if I did. As to the idea that such a theory could explain events, this is true. This is the case, and is the case in my example. The insane man’s theory explains the data and gives him predictive power. It is also false. This was presented to support my statement that the scientific ability to make predictions and explain events does not evidence the validity of physical reality. Never did I intend to say that such a theory has been shown as correct. Apologies if it sounded that way.

I’ll admit that it was general, but I wouldn’t say vague myself.
In any case, the fact that some things are outside of the field of science is a very relevant point, in this case.

Calling it vague was an act of generosity.

Whether or not it is vague does not really interest me personally. I’d rather address the issue of whether or not this discussion is within the realm of science. My position is that it is not. My support for such a position is (possibly beating a dead horse, sorry) the fact that the scientific method pre-assumes a conclusion on this matter.

I’m not sure why that is. I have made no positive claim. I have merely said that we cannot be certain that the mind is entirely accounted for by brain activity. If you mean to make the positive claim that it is so accounted, then burden of proof would be placed on the latter claim.

So far, science has shown a good track record with the brain. If you want to claim otherwise, it's up to you to support it. Otherwise, all you're doing is tossing out fake doubts so as to later justify your fake certainty.

If I try to justify “fake certainty� through these doubts at a later date, feel free to call me on the fallacy. In the mean time, what I claimed was true. Science, while it has done far more than any other method to chart the connection between the brain and the mind, has not established whether or not one is the product of the other. Nor has it attempted to do so; that is not its job. Personally, I marvel at science’s ability to do its job, but feel that it would be contrary to the spirit of science to draw hazy lines about what its job is.

[Thought Criminal]

Our goal is to debate until we have felt we’ve reached the truth. While I’ll agree that understanding is implicit, prediction is not. That is a requirement of a scientific theory, and would, of course, be applicable in that case. As we are not, however, I see no reason why prediction is a requisite for truth. I agree that disproved predictions cast doubt on any assertion, but do not see that such has been the case with mine.

It's the requirement of epistemology, which underlies scientific theory, among other things. In general, the goal of epistemology is to create a system of beliefs that matches reality, a model of the universe that we can use to determine why things happened and what would happen if we made certain choices. We seek truth, but with an emphasis on relevant facts.

One of the hardest aspects of predicting things in the real world is that you need to arrive at your prediction before it becomes retrodiction. We need the answer now, even if rushing introduces some risk of error, because the alternative of having no answer is even worse. The more moving pieces our model for a problem has, however, the slower our calculations. Add to this the fact that those distracting irrelevant details can generate artifacts that introduce errors. Choosing a model comes down to cost/benefit analysis, with predictive power being the benefit and computational complexity as the cost.

That's why, as a matter of deepest practicality, we need to simplify the model by abstracting away any details that don't help us answer the kinds of questions we need to ask. This is the basis of parsimony.

The problem with making all of these ad hoc abstract models to solve specific problems is that you have to keep track of them all. Each is only good for a limited domain, not only leaving gaps where no models reach but also conflicts where domains overlap and models contradict.

Our solution is to combine models by reducing one to the other. This means we explain away items mentioned in one discrete model in terms of items in another. So, for example, we explain away temperature as nothing more than molecular movement. Not only does this simplify things, it removes conflicts and expands the scope of what we can model.

Both parsimony and reduction are means towards an end, and that end is to allow us to make decisions. In order to achieve our goals, whatever those goals might be, we must have some idea of where we are and where we want to be, and then be able to plot a course from the former to the latter. Of course, some paths are better than others. The way we find these paths is to run the possible choices through our model of the universe, letting our ideas live and die in simulation so that we don't have to.

In short, we craft models that explain how things are and how they will be if we act, picking the simplest model that works and seeking to reduce each model to a special case of a broader one, resting atop a small heterarchy of base facts. Given this, any model that denies the reality of our senses is worse than useless.

As to the matter of likelihood, I see no solid evidence to believe that any conclusion regarding the existence of reality is more likely than any other. Frankly, I can’t envision a reliable way to test for such likelihood. I will agree that it seems pointless to assume that physical reality is false when one seems incapable of perceiving much, if anything, else. I don’t see, however, that this does anything to establish it as more likely.

Parsimony tells us which model to choose from, given a set that accounts equally well for the data. When a model is less powerful, though, simplicity will not save it. Admittedly, the stuff-falls-down theory of gravity is simpler than Newton's, but it explains less. Likewise, adding the Lorentz transform complicates Newton's math, but it allows us to get accurate results for high velocities. We can only retain simpler-but-weaker theories as handy approximations for limited scopes: automobile engineers never have to worry about relativistic velocities.

Ultimately, the error hypothesis model you suggest is both more complicated and less powerful, so it's a non-starter. It's not merely less likely, it's utterly worthless.

I agree that scientific gaps, if they are filled, will be filled with science. What I object to is the idea that non-scientific questions, such as that of the validity of physical reality, will be answered by science. This is where I drew the parallel. Scientific inquiry, by definition, pre-assumes the existence of the physical world. Therefore, science is not relevant to this question.

This is simply false. Science is a formalization of the general epistemology I outlined above, and the reason it recognizes the existence of the physical world is that epistemology forces it to. It's not an additional constraint or an arbitrary premise, it's the natural outcome.

This would only be the case if I were asserting that physical reality is an illusion. As I have only asserted that physical reality is not evidenced, I need only point out that this is a possibility, as well as our lack of means to ascertain the likelihood of this case to support my point.

This is weaseling, not a legitimate argument. It ignores the evidence of our senses as evidence of what our senses tell us, and it pretends to argue for a possibility when it's actually claiming that it's a possibility we need to consider. If you think about how low a bar mere possibility is, you'll see that such an argument would be worthless even if it were sound.

This is bordering on a personal appraisal/judgment. I’m aware that this discussion can be frustrating (it is for me as well), but would you mind being careful about telling me what I do and don’t understand?

Take it as personally as you like; I don't care. When you show that you don't understand something, I will say so. I'm going to speak the truth, and if you don't like it, ban me.

Actually, I would say that formal logic has much more to do with our discussion than the scientific method. As noted above, it pre-assumes one conclusion, which makes it irrelevant to this debate (much as I love it).
Though you haven’t said otherwise, I would like to be sure to state that formal logic is not simply a part of science. It is used in many fields of study.

Formal logic is a tool used by epistemology, not a replacement for epistemology. Your entire argument is based on the idea that formal logic can't tell us what's real. This is as true as it is uninteresting, because we're talking about knowledge here, which means we're within the field of epistemology.

No conclusion is as yet supported (or evidenced), which has been my only assertion thus far.

It is an assertion that has been repeatedly demonstrated to be false, as recently as in this message and as far back as the first one on this topic. Your inability to understand or refusal to accept does not constitute a counterargument. I will not repeat myself again on this matter, so this is your last chance to get it.

I’m not sure where I have done this, actually. I do not believe that I’ve claimed that an error theory is evidenced. Certainly, that was not my intent if I did. As to the idea that such a theory could explain events, this is true. This is the case, and is the case in my example. The insane man’s theory explains the data and gives him predictive power. It is also false. This was presented to support my statement that the scientific ability to make predictions and explain events does not evidence the validity of physical reality. Never did I intend to say that such a theory has been shown as correct. Apologies if it sounded that way.

An insane man is not rational, so there's little point discussing why they cling to a demonstrably false belief. The delusion that he is Napoleon fails to explain the discrepancies between that idea and all the evidence. It predicts less, and less accurately, than the error hypothesis.

Whether or not it is vague does not really interest me personally. I’d rather address the issue of whether or not this discussion is within the realm of science. My position is that it is not. My support for such a position is (possibly beating a dead horse, sorry) the fact that the scientific method pre-assumes a conclusion on this matter.

It is a discussion of the scientific method, which is a formalization of epistemology. Youre splitting hairs here to no end. And, as I've explained, you are simply mistaken about what the scientific method presumes.

If I try to justify “fake certainty� through these doubts at a later date, feel free to call me on the fallacy. In the mean time, what I claimed was true. Science, while it has done far more than any other method to chart the connection between the brain and the mind, has not established whether or not one is the product of the other. Nor has it attempted to do so; that is not its job. Personally, I marvel at science’s ability to do its job, but feel that it would be contrary to the spirit of science to draw hazy lines about what its job is.

You already have; you've said that your epistemological confusion, as exemplified here, is what justifies your fake certainty -- you call it "faith" -- in religious dogmas.

TC