*laughs harder* Hey Aaron, did you know that we scientists actually serve the devil? HAHA! Maybe that's what Maxwell was talking about, huh?
or
<---
Which one would you like to serve, Aaron, I'm giving you the first
pick!
Chapter 5
From Andrew Beckwith
Thu Jan 01, 2004 6:36 am:
David,
Your replies are becoming incoherent. When you put in a retort that philosophers have eyes , you are neglecting that philosophers and scientists are part of the same logical tree. That of symbolic logic reasoning. Observations are the CORE of scientific methodology. That you refuse to accept this means that your methodological processes used to construct your paradigms are based upon slopism and are untrustworthy.
I am sorry it has come to this. People have very patiently tried to explain that you have an untendable starting point. Sticking your head in the sand and chanting mantras against 'bad vibes' is materially no different from an infant throwing food against the wall after the child does not get its own way. You are having a temper tantrum because the world does not confirm to your slopistic credo.
Cool off and chill out. You need to do that. Otherwise you are in a no win situation with respect to the entire bloody planet.
From David Quinn
Thu Jan 01, 2004 1:06 pm:
Andrew Beckwith wrote:
|
Quote: |
|
Your replies are becoming incoherent. When you put in a retort that philosophers have eyes , you are neglecting that philosophers and scientists are part of the same logical tree. That of symbolic logic reasoning. Observations are the CORE of scientific methodology. That you refuse to accept this means that your methodological processes used to construct your paradigms are based upon slopism and are untrustworthy. |
"Observations" can either take the form of empirical testing (which is the domain of science) and logical testing (the domain of pure logic and philosophy). I gave an example of the latter in my last post to you. If you want to dispute it, then please do so with a specific argument that pertains to that example.
Nearly all of your posts are full of conventional slogans and dogmatisms and contain very little reasoned argument. You create the impression that you do little else but mindlessly repeat the scripts that you've learnt at school. You have a chance to dispell that impression by putting forward a proper analysis.
From Andrew Beckwith
Thu Jan 01, 2004 4:50 pm:
|
Quote: |
|
"Observations" can either take the form of empirical testing (which is the domain of science) and logical testing (the domain of pure logic and philosophy). I gave an example of the latter in my last post to you. If you want to dispute it, then please do so with a specific argument that pertains to that example. |
It's not worth even answering. Your arguements are self contradictory. And your remark about absolute truths without mathematical buttressing of the premises is a non sequitor. By my standards, as a theoretical physics person, what you have said is incoherent. I am sorry you dislike it so much but that is the bottom line.
I am a CTMU devotee. I believe that there are certain universal truths. Unlike you, I know that science is a bridge between our everyday existence to the core arguements .
If you cannot accept this, then you are no better than Christian monks who would maroon themselves in the desert sitting in some god forsaken monastery during the fifth and six centuries, AD. And less useful than they since you are a closed system.
Your rejection of scientific methodology makes your arguements slopistic, and I am tiring of pointing this out. So is the rest of NPU. And, once you loose respect by being so bull headed, it is damnably hard to regain it.
From Plato
Thu Jan 01, 2004 5:27 pm:
David, I am disappointed to say that I agree with Andy here. You are neither addressing the elementary arguments posed to you in a rigorous manner, nor posing any sufficiently developed alternative set of principles for us to latch onto. In fact, your replies contain mistakes of definitional nature. For example, you said:
|
Quote: |
|
It is a philosophical matter because the division that you make in an otherwise seamless Reality is a conceptual one and not verifiable (or falsifiable) by empirical/scientific testing. |
This shows that you have missed the entire point of our discussion. I am not dividing Reality into anything - I am looking at the various reflections or images of that reality. Thus, I said that one such image is due to our senses and the other is due to our imagination. The fact that a thing can generate an infinite number of images is a logical proposition. That does not alter the underlying singular nature of that thing in any way.
|
Quote: |
|
Translation: We can imagine things. |
Your linguistic skills are excellent, but think about what the meaning of this simple statement is. If we can imagine things that are not found within the Sensorium or that are logically derived from anything in the Sensorium, and then verify their existence by experiment, it means that the image of reality generated by our imagination is a higher, more complete, image of reality. At least we're getting there.
|
Quote: |
|
What is higher reality? What is the difference between it and Reality? |
*laughs* Let's think about this logically. Either: a) You have not read the proof carefully and are therefore confused. In this case, simply read the proof over again carefully:
Perceived reality is an incomplete image that is subsumed by noetic reality. Assume there is another image that subsumes noetic reality, but is unknowable to us. Thus, the map from R->S(Reality to Sensorium) is in the domain of N (noesis) that is in the domain of H (higher reality). Thus, there are objects in N that are not in P and in H that are not in N or P. Yet, since P,N,H all belong to R, objects that are in N but not in P map onto some objects in P. However, that creates an ontological inconsistency in P, that is resolvable if one identifies the corresponding object in N (i.e. existence of scientific principle is recognized due to some paradox in the Sensorium). Now, apply this to N and H. If there is an object in H that is not in N, it must be mapped to some object in N, creating an ontological inconsistency in N. However, N is ontologically consistent, thus H = N.
or b) You have read the proof carefully, but are unfamiliar with either the style of mathematical proofs or the terminology employed. The ability to use set theory to make epistemological arguments, as Cantor did for example, was the incentive of going into this whole business with images. You assume that some other image H of reality R is possible that is more complete than N, or the (scientific) image obtained by imagination. Then you derive some property of N and show that that property is in contradiction to what we know about N. Thus, H is impossible and N is the most complete possible image of reality, which means its isomorphic to reality. This is my greatly simplified proof, but I greatly recommend Cantor's and Godel's work before embarking on any epistemological pilgrimages. The logic here in not in question (the logical postulates still have only a posteriori validity in light of the truthful nature of the scientific method). What you may question is my ability to demonstrate ontological consistency on N, but I have covered that previously.
Take Andy, for example. I don't think he thinks that N is isomorphic to reality because I recall him saying something about the limits on cognition. If limits on cognition exist, then clearly there is a whole class of objects out there that are unknowable and hence N is ontologically inconsistent and hence H exists. That's fair. We can argue that out in a rigorous scientific way without any flip flopping. You can join us too, if you promise to behave.
|
Quote: |
|
You're only guessing here. The world could well be a simulation run by demons, who "reward" humans with extra powers whenever they (the humans) discover new false principles. |
*laughs harder* Hey Aaron, did you know that we scientists actually serve the devil? HAHA! Maybe that's what Maxwell was talking about, huh?
|
Quote: |
|
For example, the very emergence of science itself as a discipline of thought is a by-product of humanity's philosophical progress, as is the emergence of enlightened people, great spiritual texts, the spreading of mental clarity and rationality throughout all sectors of society, and so on. |
Yes, I believe that I have stated in my very first post here that the object of philosophy is to develop scientific methods that are congruent with the nature of human cognition. That also includes a posteriori verifiable logical postulates, formal systems, and further insight into principles discovered so far. Wow, look at that - so much for you to do! I suggest you get to it.
|
Quote: |
|
It's a nice poem, but it really only reflects Kristy's desires and world-view ( and perhaps yours) and doesn't relate to my own situation in any way. |
Do you always have to be such a dolt? Jeez, just say a few nice things about the poem. Noone will think less of you.
|
Quote: |
|
Ultimately, there is really no Mind, no universe, nor any reflections. One needs to go beyond all the reflections and realize this great truth. |
Fasten your seatbelts everyone, cuz we'r going for a ride beyond reflections, the mind and the universe, to realize a great truth *voice deepens* that you are a slave Neo, born into a prison without walls, a prison for your mind. Of course, noone can be told what the Matrix is - you have to see it for yourself! *loud rock music starts* *David wakes up from his dream* Oh, man, I thought I was the One!
From David Quinn
Thu Jan 01, 2004 8:26 pm:
Andrew Beckwith wrote:
|
Quote: |
|
DQ:
"Observations" can either take the form of empirical
testing (which is the domain of science) and logical testing
(the domain of pure logic and philosophy). I gave an example of
the latter in my last post to you. If you want to dispute it,
then please do so with a specific argument that pertains to that
example. |
I don't believe you. Where is the reasoning to back this up?
|
Quote: |
|
And your remark about absolute truths without mathematical buttressing of the premises is a non sequitor. |
I have provided an example of an absolute truth without any mathematical content. Where is your reasoning which falsifies it?
|
Quote: |
|
Your rejection of scientific methodology makes your arguements slopistic, and I am tiring of pointing this out. |
I have repeatedly said that I do not reject scientific methodology. Do "mega-geniuses" always have the habit of admonishing people for things they don't do?
Please stop being a condescending show-off and offer some proper arguments to back up your scripted assertions.
From Andrew Beckwith
Thu Jan 01, 2004 8:55 pm:
This logic bomb and non sequitor flame out on your part convinced me you are hopeless. Sorry, David. I regret to tell you this but I have no other conclusion I can draw.
From David Quinn
Thu Jan 01, 2004 9:25 pm:
Plato wrote:
|
Quote: |
|
DQ:
It is a philosophical matter because the division that you make
in an otherwise seamless Reality is a conceptual one and not
verifiable (or falsifiable) by empirical/scientific testing.
|
And I am pointing out that this is a conceptual construct on your part - and ultimately a fiction.
Our imaginations play a strong role in determining and shaping what we perceive through our senses, just as our senses play a strong role in determining and shaping what we conceptualize in our minds. You can't really pull the two realms cleanly apart, except through the contrivance of our conceptualizing.
There is nothing wrong with creating these kinds of clean-cut divisions, as long as you keep in mind that it is a mental creation and doesn't really exist in Nature.
|
Quote: |
|
DQ:
Translation: We can imagine things. |
Yes, I know you like to believe that. But, as I've pointed out, it is an article of faith, essentially no different to the Christian belief in God.
|
Quote: |
|
DQ:
What is higher reality? What is the difference between it and
Reality? |
Isn't H automatically assumed by the nature of the scientific enterprise, which is the attempt to discover more than we already know? And when we do discover something new, doesn't this scientifically demonstrate the existence of H?
Furthermore, if science were to somehow develop a complete picture of Reality (which is impossible, in my view) wouldn't it mean the end of science?
|
Quote: |
|
DQ:
You're only guessing here. The world could well be a simulation
run by demons, who "reward" humans with extra powers
whenever they (the humans) discover new false principles.
|
You're evading the issue - and not for the first time, either. Please show how the scenario that I paint doesn't undermine your claim that scientific theorizing can lead to absolute principles.
|
Quote: |
|
DQ:
It's a nice poem, but it really only reflects Kristy's desires
and world-view ( and perhaps yours) and doesn't relate to my own
situation in any way. |
Even if it means my being fake?
From Andrew Beckwith
Thu Jan 01, 2004 9:36 pm:
|
Quote: |
|
And I am pointing out that this is a conceptual construct on your part - and ultimately a fiction. |
Garbage, David. Sophistry of the highest order. And, you know it.
From David Quinn
Thu Jan 01, 2004 10:21 pm:
Andrew Beckwith wrote:
|
Quote: |
|
This logic bomb and non sequitor flame out on your part convinced me you are hopeless. |
In what way have I flamed you?
Our little stoush is an interesting one to observe. I, the supposed ignorant monk from the dark ages, am challenging your religious belief in scientific materialism with reasoned argument and you, the supposed defender of rationality, are responding with the kind of dismissive responses one would expect to see from a priest or a bishop towards a heretic. The more the monk demands that the discussion embrace reasoned argument, the more dismissive the priest becomes.
The priestliness of your attitude also shines through in something you said earlier:
|
Quote: |
|
I am a CTMU devotee. I believe that there are certain universal truths. Unlike you, I know that science is a bridge between our everyday existence to the core arguements |
This is like the pope saying that he is the intermediatory between the human race and God, and that no one can approach God without going through him. With an attitude like this, it is no wonder that you have forgotten how to defend your core beliefs with reason.
From David Quinn
Thu Jan 01, 2004 10:25 pm:
Andrew Beckwith wrote:
|
Quote: |
|
DQ:
And I am pointing out that this is a conceptual construct on
your part - and ultimately a fiction. |
No, I don't know this. What is the reasoning behind your claim?
From Plato
Fri Jan 02, 2004 12:54 am:
|
Quote: |
|
And I am pointing out that this is a conceptual construct on your part - and ultimately a fiction. |
Everything we deal with in philosophy or science is a conceptual construct. The question is whether or not each particular construct is truthful. In this case, the distinction is absolutely certain - it is not arguable. If there are 2 apples in box A and 3 apples in box B, A and B cannot be the same box. I do not care how the two boxes are related to one another - maybe they are compartments within a single box, maybe some demon comes in every so often to transfer apples from one box to another - I don't care. It is certain that any thing can have an infinite number of images. Every person, for example, has a different perceptual image of reality. It is also certain that there is only one scientific image of reality due to human capacity for imagination, creativity and cognition. It is certain that these are different images of reality. Once again, I do not care how the two interrelate or how they influence one another. I only need to know that they are different for my proof.
|
Quote: |
|
Isn't
H automatically assumed by the nature of the scientific
enterprise, which is the attempt to discover more than we
already know? And when we do discover something new, doesn't
this scientifically demonstrate the existence of H?
|
David, this is an ontological argument. "Ontology" is defined as "branch of metaphysics concerned with identifying, in the most general terms, the kinds of things that actually exist". Thus, the "ontological commitments" of a philosophical position include both its explicit assertions and its implicit presuppositions about the existence of entities, substances, or beings of particular kinds. Obviously, noetic reality is incomplete - there are always more principles that we can discover. Similarly, there are always more things to experience in the Sensorium. But what I am talking about here is ontological completeness i.e. whether or not noetic reality contains all types of things that exist. Let's go back to the analogy with the boxes. We have two boxes - box A contains some apples and box B apples and oranges. Neither box is full. Clearly, box B is more ontologically complete, i.e. it contains more types of fruits. The question is whether or not box B contains all types of fruits that exist or there exists some other box C which contains even more types of fruits. See how this goes?
Box A is perceived reality (P); it contains only mass-objects (other things such as space and time are both relational i.e. perceived in relation to the distribution and alteration of mass-objects). Box B is noetic reality (N); it contains universal principles (other things in scientific view are all derived in some way from a core set of universal principles). Assume now there exists another higher image of reality (H), that contains some types that are not in N. Now, look at the proof again - it's really a damn good proof and simple too.
Perceived reality is an incomplete image that is subsumed by noetic reality. Assume there is another image that subsumes noetic reality, but is unknowable to us. Thus, the map from R->S(Reality to Sensorium) is in the domain of N (noesis) that is in the domain of H (higher reality). Thus, there are objects in N that are not in P and in H that are not in N or P. Yet, since P,N,H all belong to R, objects that are in N but not in P map onto some objects in P. However, that creates an ontological inconsistency in P, that is resolvable if one identifies the corresponding object in N (i.e. existence of scientific principle is recognized due to some paradox in the Sensorium). Now, apply this to N and H. If there is an object in H that is not in N, it must be mapped to some object in N, creating an ontological inconsistency in N. However, N is ontologically consistent, thus H = N.
|
Quote: |
|
Even if it means my being fake? |
Come now, David. We're all friends here, let's foster some comradery and team spirit. Take your armor off every now and then - I promise no one will bite your head off.
From Andrew Beckwith
Fri Jan 02, 2004 3:48 am:
|
Quote: |
|
In what way have I flamed you? |
You did not flame me. You flamed your own mind by insisting upon a course of action which puts unnecessary constraints upon your own personal deductive logical processes.
There is no question that you are intelligent. But you do not trust your own deductions. Otherwise you would not be torturing yourself defending a position you yourself have doubts about.
How about giving yourself a break ? You made a mistake in your initial suppositions. Live and learn. If you do, you will become a philosopher. If you do not, you will turn yourself into a fanatic.
From Andrew Beckwith
Fri Jan 02, 2004 10:55 am:
|
Quote: |
|
With an attitude like this, it is no wonder that you have forgotten how to defend your core beliefs with reason. |
Says the person who falsely accused Plato N factorial times of making sub divisions of 'reality' when he patiently SHOWED you through examples ad nauseum that there is a general continuum between philosophy and science. You IGNORED his examples and kept on ranting as though your upset at being contradicted will make up for your starting point being BOGUS. Relax, David. It will not. You are done for.
You accused me of a lot , and of not using my head. I use my head far more than you think and I am tired of you. This will be the end result of this magnificent faux pax which has gone around and around the bend N factorial times . I am already BORED of you. You have magnificent VERBAL skills and the common sense of a dodo.
From Andrew Beckwith
Fri Jan 02, 2004 11:59 am:
David Quinn wrote:
|
Quote: |
|
You haven't dealt with my point about the possibility of the perceived universe being a simulation of some kind. |
David,
If you knew anything about biology and bio physics you would realize that this is tautological nonsense. We IMAGE through our senses and create within our minds a 'simulation' of external reality. This is reflected in our common langages and cultures. Our common language and communication is in itself a SIMULATION of reality.
It would be safe to say that our communication linkage between us is the real simulation and that what lies beyond is in many cases unknowable with our limited sensory and intellectual repetoire.
I have re read your posts this afternoon and am more and more convinced that you KNOW you are wrong but are too stubborn to let yourself out of the hole. If you wish to make a self made hell for yourself you are doing an excellent job of starting your quest off right
From David Quinn
Fri Jan 02, 2004 8:03 pm:
Plato wrote::
|
Quote: |
|
DQ:
And I am pointing out that this is a conceptual construct on
your part - and ultimately a fiction. |
Look at it this way:
Imagine you are having a dream in which everything behaves very differently from the norm - e.g. gravity pulls things apart instead of pulling things together, energy isn't perfectly conserved in each interaction, motion follows different rules, objects don't follow the law of least resistence, etc . Now imagine a little dream-Plato trying to formulate the scientific laws which govern this strange world; indeed, imagine that he even believes that the laws and principles he is uncovering are universal and absolute. And then, just as he arrives at them, the dream ends. You wake up and you realize that little dream-Plato's "absolute" principles weren't really absolute at all. They were strictly relative and contigent to that particular dreamworld.
Now what would we make of this dream-Plato's assertion that the distinction between noetic reality and perceived reality is meaningful and real? Surely, we would laugh in his face. For we can see, from our perspective, that the noetic reality of Plato's mind was entirely formed by the perceived reality. For all intents and purposes, the distinction doesn't really exist at all.
In my opinion, the only meaningful distinction to make in this matter is the one between the logical realm (which is where the pure logical truths of philosophy reside) and the empirical realm ( which contains the knowledge of science). This distinction is very useful because it enables the mind to hone in on the timeless knowledge of the Infinite.
To illustrate this distinction, imagine a little David Quinn inhabiting the strange dream world that Plato was in. Imagine that this David Quinn isolates the pure logical truths of that particular world - such as all things are finite, all things are caused, all things lack inherent existence, etc. The dream then ends, automatically obliterating Plato's knowledge, but what about David Quinn's knowledge? It continues to live on. It applies just as much to the next world as it did to the dream world. Indeed, it applies to all worlds. For David Quinn's knowledge truly is universal and absolute, while Plato's knowledge is provincial and dated and ultimately insignificant.
Previous Contents Next
End of Chapter 5