|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
posted May 02, 2013 06:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I think the only thing scientists would ask from laymen is to be afforded the same degree of respect laymen give experts in any profession. A layman wouldn't presume to tell a cardiac surgeon how to operate on a heart - why do they argue with an evolutionary biologist over whether evolution is a random process? This is what drives us bonkers.
Probably because it has not been proven evolution is random. You can't prove God never once directed evolution in a certain way or that he did not kick off the whole shebang in a such a way that everything happened exactly the way he wanted. People who claim it has been prove evolution is completely random are simply spreading false information whether they label themselves as a scientist, a scientologist, a xenoboxian or whatever.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted May 02, 2013 06:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
know this is totally speculative, just food for thought. Let us assume that we do live in a multiverse and there are other universes with fundamentally different laws of motion, physics, matter/energy transformations etc etc. And let us assume an intelligent species with enough brain capacity evolved in one of those universes. Theoretically, could their -not will their, could their- math be the same as ours?
Mathematics presumes, at the very least, two things - motion and quantification. If they don't exist, there would be no mathematics. In a hypothetical universe which is completely static and indivisible, there will be no mathematics at all. The thing is, at this point the existence of such a universe seems impossible and even if it exists, it will have no resident intelligence at all because intelligence implies motion, just like everything else.
On the other hand, I don't agree with JJ's attempts to alienate the mathematics from the physical world exactly because of the above reasons - if it wasn't in motion and couldn't be subjected to quantification, it wouldn't be able to produce mathematics. Only if you prove that the mind is immaterial and independant from the matter you can claim that its achievements (including mathematics) are independant from the matter as well.
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted May 02, 2013 06:10 PM |
|
Edited by Seraphim at 18:47, 02 May 2013.
|
Quote:
Quote:
because materialism and idealism are not physical concepts. They have nothing got do with logic or math.
It's amusing to actually see materialist to write down that materialism have nothing to do with logic!
I wonder how idealists can put two sentences together without somehow violating logic. I bet there is some Aether in every argument.
oh and:
"Ad Hominem: Attacking the arguer or the argument's presentation instead of the actual argument."
"Non Sequitur Fallacy: Coming to a conclusion which is not supported by the facts or even has no relationship to the facts."
Come to think about it, I just did the same thing as you, but have little taste of your own medicine.
And a theist trying talking about materialism is in itself irony and worth a
Keep it flowing ML!
Tell me more about your intuitive assertions as to how Quantum theory, Logic, idealism, your invisible skydaddy can somehow fit together and make a theory of everything.
____________
"Science is not fun without cyanide"
|
|
master_learn
Legendary Hero
walking to the library
|
|
posted May 02, 2013 07:31 PM |
|
|
@Well,Seraphim,you might be surprized.
I was materialist upon a time!BANG!I bet you didn't see that coming.
My days of materialist thinking had the element of opposing those who talked about God and the Creation as described in the bible.
Of course I knew that there is no reason to believe in the texts you read as if they told you the FINAL ABSOLUTE thuth.
But I thought over what a human is,what our sistem of values is,the problems of life and death.
I won't go into details what changed me and how.
But let me ask you-what do materialists offer?
Should I accept that I am a monkey(they say i come from)or a computer(they switch me off if they want to and I can't do anything).
If you accept for yourself that you are a monkey,animal,computer,there is no FUNDAMENTAL reason for others TO NOT TREAT you as such!
____________
"I heard the latest HD version disables playing Heroes. Please reconsider."-Salamandre
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 02, 2013 08:37 PM |
|
|
Quote:
On the other hand, I don't agree with JJ's attempts to alienate the mathematics from the physical world exactly because of the above reasons - if it wasn't in motion and couldn't be subjected to quantification, it wouldn't be able to produce mathematics. Only if you prove that the mind is immaterial and independant from the matter you can claim that its achievements (including mathematics) are independant from the matter as well.
That's complete nonsense - we are talking about WHAT MATHEMATICS IS DEALING WITH, not whether the mind processes that breed all the mathematics stuff are immaterial or not (which is an open question and cannot be proven at this point, neither this way or that way, even though it seems that that quantum processes are that make all the difference). You can't go ahead and claim something Elodin-style, saying I'm right as long as you don't prove I'm wrong. I can do the same thing, obviously, since materialism is just an idea.
Mathematics DO NOT DEAL with the physical world, except where they are explicitely developed for that purpose, say field theory mathematics.
On another note, you can expand this to language in general (because mathematics are a language on a certain level).
Take a word - say Idealism. Is that word part of the physical world, a mere idea, an idea that gives the meaning of the word a certain reality, a mixture of all, nothing? What ARE words - especially those that have an ABSTRACT meaning?
What about the word NOTHING?
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 02, 2013 08:46 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 20:48, 02 May 2013.
|
@JJ
Quote:
You can't go ahead and claim something Elodin-style, saying I'm right as long as you don't prove I'm wrong.
You have two choices:
1) Link to a quote of me saying that I am right as long as someone does not prove me wrong;
2) admit you are lying about me.
I think your only real option is #2 because I've never said what you would need in #1.
Sadly some people seem to have some sort of psychological need to attack me.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted May 02, 2013 08:46 PM |
|
Edited by Seraphim at 21:14, 02 May 2013.
|
Quote:
If you accept for yourself that you are a monkey,animal,computer,there is no FUNDAMENTAL reason for others TO NOT TREAT you as such!
If you are fond of treating materialists as "cows" then it is only just if we materialists treat idealists as deluded morons.
If you really think that one should adopt a way of thinking because it somehow offers you something, go on. I dont care.
Just dont come around with snide comments about others either.
I dont care what you think or why you think the way you think. You should oppose arguments rather than joke make or a joke on someones belief.
Of course I am more than able to throw every possible argument at you, to prove myself I am right if I have to. That would not serve any point though.
I find your ad hominem attack amusing.
The simple reason why materialism or idealism are not based on logic is because they are philosophical theories.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_theory
Quote:
The elementary theorems that comprise a philosophical theory consist of statements which are believed to be true by the thinkers who accept them, and which may or may not be empirical.
Beliefs are/can be illogical.
Now let me put some
PS: Before you get angry or something, it was you who started all this.
____________
"Science is not fun without cyanide"
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 03, 2013 12:24 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 03:50, 03 May 2013.
|
Quote:
The simple reason why materialism or idealism are not based on logic is because they are philosophical theories.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_theory
Quote:
The elementary theorems that comprise a philosophical theory consist of statements which are believed to be true by the thinkers who accept them, and which may or may not be empirical.
Beliefs are/can be illogical.
Yes, especially yours.
LOGIC isn't mentioned. EVERYTHING is based on statements believed to be true. These are axioms in mathematics and law of natures in physics, and they are not BELIEVED to be true, but ASSUMED to be true.
In Philosophy it's the same thing. A priori assumptions: "I think, thus I AM." Based on those, LOGIC comes into play, starting from the main assumptions.
Mod edit: Personal attack removed.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 03, 2013 01:36 AM |
|
|
JJ:
What I see on that Wikipedia page makes me even more reluctant to make any judgments about quantum physics. Either it means that scientists (who know more about the subject than we do) don't agree, and so a layman saying "Well, I think this interpretation is correct" is useless, or Wikipedia is presenting it as more controversial than it really is (which I've seen for other topics), in which case it's still an unhelpful page.
master_learn:
A human isn't a monkey. A human is a primate, and monkeys are primates too.Quote:
If you accept for yourself that you are a monkey,animal,computer,there is no FUNDAMENTAL reason for others TO NOT TREAT you as such!
This is an odd claim. If for some reason you accepted that you are a pebble (even though you aren't), would it make sense for people to treat you as a pebble? 
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted May 03, 2013 02:31 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 03:52, 03 May 2013.
|
Mod edit:
Quote:
Corr will probably delete this anyway so,
You must be able to see the future. Yes, personal attacks have been deleted. As you can see, there isn't much left.
____________
"Science is not fun without cyanide"
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted May 03, 2013 08:22 AM |
|
|
Quote:
That's complete nonsense - we are talking about WHAT MATHEMATICS IS DEALING WITH, not whether the mind processes that breed all the mathematics stuff are immaterial or not (which is an open question and cannot be proven at this point, neither this way or that way, even though it seems that that quantum processes are that make all the difference). You can't go ahead and claim something Elodin-style, saying I'm right as long as you don't prove I'm wrong. I can do the same thing, obviously, since materialism is just an idea.
Mathematics DO NOT DEAL with the physical world, except where they are explicitely developed for that purpose, say field theory mathematics.
On another note, you can expand this to language in general (because mathematics are a language on a certain level).
Take a word - say Idealism. Is that word part of the physical world, a mere idea, an idea that gives the meaning of the word a certain reality, a mixture of all, nothing? What ARE words - especially those that have an ABSTRACT meaning?
What about the word NOTHING?
You either don't understand or act like you don't. Read word by word if it's easier for you - the mathematics wouldn't be dealing with anything if it didn't exist just like you wouldn't write the above post if you didn't exist. The mathematics is a development and like all developments it doesn't just appear out of thin air. So it either appears as a result of the observation of the physical properties of the world, or it has always existed and will always exist - in case the mind is immaterial and seperated from the matter. This "mathematics is not dealing with the physical world" is an empty slogan because the mathematics is a product of the mind and the mind couldn't be dealing with something that it can't comprehend. So either the comprehension starts from observing the physical world - and with it the afore mentioned properties of motion and quantification - or it's totally seperated from the physical world and the achievements of the mind are purely idealistic. In short, if the mind is inseperable from the matter, all of its developments are inseperable from the matter as well. If it isn't - then they exist on their own.
Or, consider an example. You are man who gets no information from the outside world. Zero. You're 100% blind, deaf, can't smell, can't feel anything outside or inside your body, you're in total isolation because you have no means to check if something besides you exists. You have been like that for all of your life. Your mind is intact though. Would you be able to come up with a mathematical idea in such a case? Would you even know that you exist?
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted May 03, 2013 08:39 AM |
|
|
I'm with JJ here, and not only does mathematics not deal with the physical world, I can't find much use for some aspects of math at all, maybe only in unlikely situations in the real world.
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 03, 2013 09:01 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
That's complete nonsense - we are talking about WHAT MATHEMATICS IS DEALING WITH, not whether the mind processes that breed all the mathematics stuff are immaterial or not (which is an open question and cannot be proven at this point, neither this way or that way, even though it seems that that quantum processes are that make all the difference). You can't go ahead and claim something Elodin-style, saying I'm right as long as you don't prove I'm wrong. I can do the same thing, obviously, since materialism is just an idea.
Mathematics DO NOT DEAL with the physical world, except where they are explicitely developed for that purpose, say field theory mathematics.
On another note, you can expand this to language in general (because mathematics are a language on a certain level).
Take a word - say Idealism. Is that word part of the physical world, a mere idea, an idea that gives the meaning of the word a certain reality, a mixture of all, nothing? What ARE words - especially those that have an ABSTRACT meaning?
What about the word NOTHING?
You either don't understand or act like you don't. Read word by word if it's easier for you - the mathematics wouldn't be dealing with anything if it didn't exist just like you wouldn't write the above post if you didn't exist. The mathematics is a development and like all developments it doesn't just appear out of thin air. So it either appears as a result of the observation of the physical properties of the world, or it has always existed and will always exist - in case the mind is immaterial and seperated from the matter. This "mathematics is not dealing with the physical world" is an empty slogan because the mathematics is a product of the mind and the mind couldn't be dealing with something that it can't comprehend. So either the comprehension starts from observing the physical world - and with it the afore mentioned properties of motion and quantification - or it's totally seperated from the physical world and the achievements of the mind are purely idealistic. In short, if the mind is inseperable from the matter, all of its developments are inseperable from the matter as well. If it isn't - then they exist on their own.
Or, consider an example. You are man who gets no information from the outside world. Zero. You're 100% blind, deaf, can't smell, can't feel anything outside or inside your body, you're in total isolation because you have no means to check if something besides you exists. You have been like that for all of your life. Your mind is intact though. Would you be able to come up with a mathematical idea in such a case? Would you even know that you exist?
You are making your conclusions up. To name just an example: "the mind couldn't be dealing with something that it can't comprehend." That is evidently and empirically wrong on all levels.
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted May 03, 2013 09:17 AM |
|
|
Spot on, JJ. Your last post is I think the only one in the OSM that I was able to fully agree with.
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 03, 2013 06:59 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Only if you prove that the mind is immaterial and independant from the matter you can claim that its achievements (including mathematics) are independant from the matter as well.
I agree that this is enough to postulate a materialistic world view. That's why I am one. What mathematics is dealing with is another question though. On that, I'm with JJ, not his results necessarily but
on his opinion on the nature of the question.
@JJ
Evidence for physical reality is NOT idealistic. It involves math, it is not composed only of math. Being a materialist means what to me, to put external reality prior to internal perception and cognitive content. Saying that the first one leads to the production of the other, not the other way around.
And about your example of geometrical axioms, what if this hypothetical species had no sight, hence no perception of what a line is? They are evolved from bat-like creatures and their communication and transportation is based on sound waves.
Quote:
You can't prove God never once directed evolution in a certain way or that he did not kick off the whole shebang in a such a way that everything happened exactly the way he wanted. People who claim it has been prove evolution is completely random are simply spreading false information whether they label themselves as a scientist, a scientologist, a xenoboxian or whatever.
Because that's not something provable (or falsifiable) in the first place. Even if we had every bit of information about the universe, you could still say "That's the way God did it." The important thing is, with evolution we CAN explain sophisticated living organisms coming into existence without a designer and there is no specific or scientific reason to assume a designer. So vast majority of biologists don't. Calling them liars because they don't feel the need to adjust their data to your mythological creature is non-sense. And that's exactly what people mean by making an Elodin-style claim, saying God did it because we can't prove God didn't do it.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 03, 2013 08:00 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 20:04, 03 May 2013.
|
Quote:
And that's exactly what people mean by making an Elodin-style claim, saying God did it because we can't prove God didn't do it.
Nah, I don't say that God did something simply because we can't prove God didn't do it. Evidently the Artu-style armuments are based around lying about somebody because the presenter of such arguments are lacking in any rational counters and lacks the morals needed to inhibit lying about other people.
Quote:
Because that's not something provable (or falsifiable) in the first place. Even if we had every bit of information about the universe, you could still say "That's the way God did it." The important thing is, with evolution we CAN explain sophisticated living organisms coming into existence without a designer and there is no specific or scientific reason to assume a designer. So vast majority of biologists don't. Calling them liars because they don't feel the need to adjust their data to your mythological creature is non-sense.
Shall we look at exactly what I said in the context in which I said it in order to dispel your falsehoods?
Quote:
Quote:
I think the only thing scientists would ask from laymen is to be afforded the same degree of respect laymen give experts in any profession. A layman wouldn't presume to tell a cardiac surgeon how to operate on a heart - why do they argue with an evolutionary biologist over whether evolution is a random process? This is what drives us bonkers.
Probably because it has not been proven evolution is random. You can't prove God never once directed evolution in a certain way or that he did not kick off the whole shebang in a such a way that everything happened exactly the way he wanted. People who claim it has been prove evolution is completely random are simply spreading false information whether they label themselves as a scientist, a scientologist, a xenoboxian or whatever.
Now, can you prove evolution was completely random? Can you prove God never at any point in time had anything to do with evoution? Can you prove that God did not set up the whole evolutionary process to be exactly like it is (whatever that is?) If not and you make the claim that evolution is completely random you are in fact making claims you can't substantiate. Spreading false information. I did not call such a person a liar because they could simply be delusional or under the mistaken impression that science has established something that it has not.
Sadly certain persons (who all appear to be atheists for some reason)seem to enjoy making up lies about me and feel some deep-seated need to continually insult me.
However, since it is apparently not against the moderator's interpretation of the COC to use somebody's name, make an adjective out of it and tie it to negative things like several atheists now have a habit of doing with my name I'm certainly going to feel free to do the same with their names in the future. This should be interesting. 
And since you want to talk about mythological stuff, the biggest face of a fairy tale of all is that the universe is either eternal or created itself out of a steady state of absolute nothing. I'm have to be completely brain dead to fall for that crap.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 03, 2013 08:11 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 20:11, 03 May 2013.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And that's exactly what people mean by making an Elodin-style claim, saying God did it because we can't prove God didn't do it.
Quote:
Nah, I don't say that.
Quote:
Now, can you prove evolution was completely random? Can you prove God never at any point in time had anything to do with evoution? Can you prove that God did not set up the whole evolutionary process to be exactly like it is (whatever that is?)
LOL. nice job, elodin. 
If are saying I said God did it because we can't prove God did not do it you are either a liar or you have the reading comprehension of an amoebea.
____________
Revelation
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 03, 2013 08:14 PM |
|
|
Nice job indeed. And he thinks I am out of context... 
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 03, 2013 09:14 PM |
|
|
@ artu
I don't really underastand your last answer. This is what I asked:
Quote:
Now I would like to ask YOU a question: it's about your idea of physicalism. Ask yourself this: the way you understand it, wouldn't physical evidence for reality being idealistic paradoxically mean for you, that it was also materialistic (physicalistic), because it was physical science that delivered the evidence?
If you answer this with YES, your terminology and definitions make no sense, because it's not free of contradiction.
If you answer this with NO - what is physicalism for you?
You answer:
Quote:
Evidence for physical reality is NOT idealistic. It involves math, it is not composed only of math. Being a materialist means what to me, to put external reality prior to internal perception and cognitive content. Saying that the first one leads to the production of the other, not the other way around.
However, my question was. IF there was PHYSICAL (scientific) evidence that we live in an IDEALISTIC reality (think Simulacron 3), would that mean for you, that the reality was also materialistic because of the delivering of physical evidence? - and on with the quote. I don't think you answered that; maybe you misunderstood the question?
Quote:
And about your example of geometrical axioms, what if this hypothetical species had no sight, hence no perception of what a line is? They are evolved from bat-like creatures and their communication and transportation is based on sound waves.
Think evolution. Bats function mainly because of their ULTRAsonic capabilities combined with the best known immune system. They are not intelligent, because they don't need to be to survive. If a species is to survive and develop intelligence there must be "survicvl abilities", and if one of those is "intelligence" they MUST have a useful way of collecting information based on electromagnetiv waves - or develop the means to artificially collect them. For math, imagination is all you need. Think chess grandmasters. They don't need a board, they can play a game completely in their mind - a couple of them at the sam etime actually.
In short: I don't think math is based on eyesight.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 03, 2013 09:37 PM |
|
|
And of course
@ Elodin
You have a belief - and that belief is that there is a very specific god that did a couple of things - you beelieve that's the truth of it.
Now, when it comes to evoltion theory, your point is, that god easily may have made it LOOK like it, so that it simpl,y makes scientific sense.
THAT point is ALWAYS true. If you assume a being LIKE god with all those abilities - even if you could prove, that everything can be explained FULLY simple, without any kind of god having a hand in it, you could STILL say, that god makes it look like it - and no one could say anything against the logic: IF there was a being with these characteristics, he COULD.
Worse, even if you could prove that there cannot be a being with such characteristics - even *I* have no problem saying, so what, I'd be bored as hell knowing everything, what about the power of BEING SURPRISED, so even IF quantum theory would determine that omniscience isn't possible in our reality, you'd still be able to say that god did that on purpose, because otherwise a lot of things don't make sense.
Now, all that is fine. Nothing definite.
Except, for you it IS definite. You often enough said, that you KNOW the truth. That Jesus spoke to you. That you have experienced him. You say, that WE cannot know ANYTHING, except if you personally experience the "truth" like you did.
That's what you say - or would you deny it?
And every time someone says something against that, your point is: "You cannot prove your point, but I KNOW my point is RIGHT."
Would you deny that? Would you say, yes, there IS a possibility that there is no god. Or at least not my god?
I don't think so.
And THAT is, what we call Elodin style - you do not NEED proof to be certain of what you BELIEVE, and that's why you use the necessity to GET proof for alternative stances as ... a weapon.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
