Total posts: 1,014
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
"Wouldn't "reality" according to this description be unintelligible?"
No. As you agreed, an observation is unintelligible unless brought under a concept. I argued that they are interdependent. Reality would only be unintelligible if our observations aren't brought under a concept, but if they are, as I propose concepts must do In order to connect with reality in their own right, then they will be intelligible.
"What does it mean to "actually exist" in opposition to an idealistic or notional idea?"
There are an infinite number of Concepts that can be brought about in one's mind. Until those concepts have something empirical to tie them to reality, then there is no way to differentiate them from any other figment of one's imagination. The empirical element seperates the concepts that correspond to reality from those that don't. Therefore, concept alone cannot provide actual knowledge.
"Physical Laws are defined by mathematical proof. That is, physical laws = physical laws iff they can be proven mathematically"
Like I said, physical laws are properties of matter. The fact that matter behaves consistently in controlled experiments, is the reason we can describe those properties with equations. The reason we consider those descriptions "laws" is because thet consistently make testable predictions about novel future data.
" Isn't knowledge in one's mind?"
Yes, but it has to be able to be demonstrated to be called knowledge. Otherwise, one could call any wild conjecture, "knowledge". Its important to remember that knowledge that a concept exists is not the same as knowledge that that concept is true.
"Is this an inductive argument?"
Idk, maybe? Probably.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I don't think it's free anymore, but Project Zomboid is a great free one. I got GTA V for free on epic games, so idk if that counts lol. Unturned Is a good free game too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Looks like an influx of debaters. Doesn't seem like bots.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Lol I did say, "hmu if you want to get destroyed."
Created:
Posted in:
Anyone want to play some Pokemon with me?
My username is Blastoix
I play Gen 4 OU and Gen 4 UU
Hmu if you want to get destroyed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
@Theweakeredge
Edge brings up a good point. Probably the best way to understand oneself is to create an understanding of others, and people in general.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Reality - The world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
Physical Laws are descriptions of properties of matter. The empirical elements of matter inform the concepts they are brought under: physical laws. Observation is, as you agreed, unintelligible without a concept to be brought under. If they are interdependent, then they will necessarily have to both be present with the other to convey knowledge. There is a problem trying to take a concept alone as knowledge, because there is no way to differentiate that between what's real and what's in one's mind. There is a gap between a concept, and knowledge about reality. That gap can only be bridged with an empirical correlate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
The reason that a concept needs an empirical element is because the concept and the observation are interdependent in order to inform about reality. Reality can't be reasoned conceptually alone, or else it has no tie to reality; in a similar fashion, observations rely on concepts to be intelligible. In this way, they are interdependent. Alone, neither produces knowledge, they have to be Incorporated together.
Without an empirical element, you can never bridge the gap between a specified concept, no matter how specific, and knowledge.
Without an empirical element, you can never bridge the gap between a specified concept, no matter how specific, and knowledge.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
"c" is the speed of light constant. That is a pretty fundamental oversight on your part.
Classical time breaks down when particles become massless. Photons are massless. Therefore, photons do not experience time the way we do.
It's my understanding that our conception of time is based on the fact that the second law of thermodynamics is the only law that doesn't look the same going backwards as forwards.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Concept alone cannot bridge the gap between concepts and reality. That bridge is incorporation of an empirical element. Without that, it cannot inform about reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Why?
Because if they don't, then you cannot ever connect that concept to reality, you can only specify the concept.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
You don't. In order to have knowledge, either empirical or conceptual, it has to bridge the gap between those categories. Concepts must tie to something empirical in order to have substance, and observations must be brought under concepts to be intelligible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Before conducting a measurement, it is wise to specify what is supposed to be measured.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I've been playing since I was 12 and I have never gotten past level ~12 on kino der toten
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Yeah, but that's only specifying the concept, without pointing to anything empirical. That renders it fundamentally empty.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
The post is specifically about the failure of the Ontological Argument to include an empirical element. Without it, it will never bridge the gap between a specific concept and knowledge.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
...however the indicators (evidence) that God exists and the natural intuition that the universe is a product of intelligent work is near undeniable.
What is that evidence? Otherwise, the Ontological argument is an empty concept.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
What do you think of this assessment?
Created:
Posted in:
I think one major problem for the Ontological argument is that it cannot convey knowledge of god's existence. It is a wholly conceptual argument, and without an empirical element, it can only become more specific as a concept. But no concept, however specific, can convey actual knowledge if it doesn't correlate to some empirical element. So the argument can only generate specific concepts of god, but it is empty as a source of actual knowledge.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bringerofrain
I don't think they should be banned. If people want to take an indefensible position like, "the holocaust was good" or something stupid like that, then they should be allowed to take that L
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Congrats, you've officially peaked
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Undefeatable
I had 20+ experts and 5 arguments combined
Fauxlaw go hard ig
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Undefeatable
I was docked source points when I used ohio state's astronomy division and nature, while my opponent used evolutionisamyth.com
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
I didn't say it denies logic, just that we have to check our conclusions against reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
But I will comment now on one thing: this is not a philosophical question; it's a scientific question. Science is the only way to acquire information about the origin of the Universe. We can use logic to come to any number of ridiculous conclusion If we don't check our conclusions with reality.
Consider your logical form you presented in #55:
1. A=B
2. B=C
C. A=C
But conclusions drawn from this won't necessarily correspond to reality:
1. Cats are dogs
2. Dogs are chickens
C. Cats are chickens
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
I will respond to you, I just haven't gotten around to it. Demonstrating the Big Bang to Fruit is my top priority rn.
But succinctly put : no you're wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Did you give your own post the thumbs up?I.e.,
Lol no
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Yeah AJ is super technical in the style of golden gloves, and centerline theory is great and all, but I just think tyson is probably gonna win this one. He's got more in his toolbox.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Yes, so movement is the "third" (behind blocking and parrying) and most advanced form of pure defense because it requires the highest level of skill to slip punches efficiently. But the reward is also the highest, as slipping invariably leaves the fighter in the best position to deal damaging blows. So it's a give an take. The ole 1-2 is super reliable, but advanced techniques work.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
There's a technique in high level striking called "drawing". It's when you purposefully leave an opening for your opponent to punch at, with a counter-strike already prepared. It's a common technique of counterpunchers (with the obvious drawbacks if you're too slow). So it isn't really fair for us to say he leaves himself open, therefore he is not technical. This technique is discussed briefly towards the end of "championship fighting, explosive punching and aggressive defense."
By fluidity, I mean a fighters ability to adjust his style and techniques in real time, in order to counter his opponent and win. Historically, the ability to adjust is all too often the deciding factor in a bout. (See stipe vs dc 2 (mma), and tony ferguson vs justin G. (Also mma)).
At the end of the day though, of course we just have to watch the right lol, but it is fun to theorize.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
It's important to remember that technique is simply the efficient application of strength and athleticism. AJ's confinement to a one-dimensional boxing style (golden gloves) indicates to me that he does not possess the fluidity necessary to beat a guy that will switch it up on his opponent like fury. That lack of rigidity to a "style" is actually a great reason to expect his win, because he is more likely to adapt to his opponent. Especially if they have consistent, predictable patterns.
So the most technical, is the one that's most efficient, and the most efficient style is fluid and adaptable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I don't follow professional boxing very closely, but I think fury Is gonna have his number. You see heavy influence of AJ's origins in golden gloves in his approach to boxing. And while it has garnered him success, I think tyson fury is the more technical boxer.
Created:
-->
@janesix
I don't see how your definition of mass makes atoms, or electrons, physical.E=MC2 just means mass and energy are equivalent (in some undefined way)The only reason I even allow for "fields" to be physical is because everything is vibration (but there has to be "something" that is vibrating. What the F is vibrating?)
They're physical because they interact in the physical world. What do you mean by "nonphysical"? Photons don't have mass but they're still physical. They interact with the physical world.
E=mc^2 doesn't say mass and energy are equivalent, but that they're interchangeable. It specifically says in the equation that a lot of energy is needed to make a little mass.
Quantum fields are for modeling particles in a way that unifies particles and fields in the same theoretical framework.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Are you asking me how the higgs field gives mass to bosons?
Created:
-->
@janesix
Mass - a quantitative measure of inertia/the resistance that a body of matter offers to a change in its speed or position upon the application of a force.
I don't think quantum field theory applies to atoms, since we can determine their position precisly enough to manipulate them, and so we don't have to model them as localized vibrations in a quantum field. Electrons sure, but not atoms. But electrons still have mass too, so they are physical.
Created:
-->
@janesix
Either way, atoms still have mass.
Created:
-->
@janesix
Are you referring to the concept of wave-particle duality? Or are you referring to the conceptualization of particles as localized vibrations in a quantum field?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Yeah, so that image is just a way to visualize how relativity models gravity in a general sense, that being gravity as a bending of spacetime. You cannot infer mathematical specifics of the strength of gravity from that image for that reason: it's just a visual/conceptual aid, and not an exact diagram of exactly how much earth bends spacetime.
Created:
-->
@janesix
atoms aren't physical. Nothing is.
Atoms are physical. What makes you say that?
Created:
Posted in:
RESPONSE TO PGA2.0
This post is the promised response to the questions PGA2.0 asked me in the comments section of "The Universe is Older than 10,000 years." Sorry it took me like a month.
PGA2.0:
"How do you justify not use an exclusively natural as opposed to a supernatural view (thus, the presuppositions nature of your argument) in interpreting the evidence? What was faulty thinking on either Wesley's or my part regarding the speed of light argument, and I am interested in your view on how the expansion (fast or slow) of the Universe could adversely affect its age. I am also interested in how you would answer the Thomas Aquinas issue?"
PHILOSOPHY
Methodological Naturalism is not the same as Ontological Naturalism. Ontological Naturalism is the presupposition that all that exists in spacetime is physical. Whereas Methodological Naturalism is simply A Posteriori investigation, in an attempt to create/acquire synthetic knowledge about the natural world.
LAWYERS VS SCIENTISTS
Often people will say that "we are looking at the same evidence and coming to different conclusions." In theory, two lawyers could walk into a courtroom and flip a coin to see who takes what side of a case to argue. Their presupposition is assigned to them, and regardless of what the reality of who did what in the case, their job is to convince you of their side.
Scientists do not operate this way. A scientist's job is to construct a model of reality that best incorporates all the known data and makes testable predictions. They have to synthesize a model that most accurately describes reality. They don't come to the table with their conclusions assigned to them.
__________
QUALITIES OF A SCIENTIFIC THEORY
A scientific theory is an attempt to construct a model of some aspect of reality. A scientific theory must have three qualities.
1. It must be independently verifiable, preferably by making novel predictions about future data.
2. It must be potentially falsifiable, otherwise it can be discarded into the category of pseudoscience.
3. It must make as few assumptions as possible, the idea of Parsimony.
If a theory is not verifiable, or it's predictions fail, that is indicative that it is not a reliable model of reality. If a theory is not falsifiable, then it cannot be tested with the scientific method, and therefore is probably pseudoscience. And a theory that is not parsimonious will contain extraneous elements that limit the scope of its explanatory power, liable to be disregarded in favor of a model with less assumptions (Occam's Razor).
___________
THE SPEED OF LIGHT
The speed of light in a vacuum is constant [1]. A lightyear is a measure of distance. If we can measure light that is 10 million light years away, then that light necessarily had to travel 10 million years to get to us.
PGA2.0, you made a couple of critical errors with the following statements:
" We 1) see the stars out there and 2) measure the speed of light to and back from the stars for accuracy. You can't measure it accurately from one direction is the point here."
Response:
1. We see the stars as they were when their light was emitted, not as they are right now. That is a consequence of light having a finite speed.
2. We do not measure the speed of light to and back from the stars; we measure the speed of light in a vacuum experimentally, such as the experiment I provided.
We can measure the distance to galaxies far away by determining their recessional velocity. Their recessional velocity is Hubble's Law. According to my debate source [2]:
"Radial velocities are relatively easy to measure. Once we measure v for a galaxy, we can compute
d = v / H0 .
For instance, suppose a galaxy is moving away from us at 14,000 km/sec. Its distance, using the Hubble Law, is thus
d = (14,000 km/sec) / (70 km/sec/Mpc) = 200 Mpc.
The galaxy is 200 megaparsecs away (652 million light years), beyond the region where Cepheids can be used to compute distances."
PGA2.0:
"On top of that, it is assumed that the speed of light we witness now from an expanding Universe (matter in motion) is the same it was at the beginning of the Universe, or at least calculable (always the same constant - no miracles allowed, which creation week was said to be), AND that the current supposed rate accurately calculates the rate of/from expansion at the BB."
Science is inductive, and therefore will never deal in epistemic certainty. However, it does construct hypotheses to test, which can either be vindicated into a working theory, or falsified and discarded in favor of a more explanatory model.
That’s really the point, to construct models that can make predictions about reality as we experience it. The best inductive model for lights speed, that has been verified without exception, in innumerable tests, is the speed of light in a vacuum is approx. 300,000 km/sec. As for the Big Bang model, see this debate for my constructive.
The speed of light is so well known in fact that the standard unit of length (Metre) is based on light's speed [3]: "Since 1983, the metre has been internationally defined as the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second. This definition can be realised simply and accurately using modern techniques and the speed of light is regarded to be a universal constant, making it ideal as the basis for a length standard."
The speed of light is not assumed, it is experimentally confirmed. The expansion rate of the Universe has been experimentally confirmed. These go into calculating cosmic distances. If you are going to suggest that laws of physics were different in the past, then you need to predicate that on something other than conjecture.
Miracles aren't unnecessarily interjected into the model, because that would necessarily make it less parsimonious, by virtue of the many assumptions that claiming a "miracle" makes. Sure, technically they can be allowed, but you have to establish that this happened with some kind of verifiability, or else the explanation that works better and makes less assumptions (that light travels at a constant speed in a vacuum) will always be accepted instead. Side note, cosmic distances are adjusted for the effects of gravity on the light.
" With all the paradigm shifts in thinking will the currently thought of age of the Universe remain what it is now?"
The accepted age of the Universe has been getting nailed down as the error bars become smaller and smaller, but the age has always been calculated within a margin of error. So the accepted age will probably change a little as we zero down, but the answer is just getting more accurate.
Like here in 1998 [4], the age was calculated to be (tU ≥ 9.5Gyr). Gyr stands for gigayears, or, one billion years.
And in 2020, we get even more accurate measurements [5]: "We find that the average age of the oldest globular clusters is tGC=13.32 0.1 (stat.) 0.5 (sys.), at 68% confidence level, including systematic uncertainties from stellar modeling. These measurements can be used to infer the age of the Universe, largely independently of the cosmological parameters: we find an age of the Universe tU=13.5+0.16−0.14 (stat.) 0.5 (sys.) at 68% confidence level, accounting for the formation time of globular clusters and its uncertainty. This value is compatible with 13.8±0.02 Gyr, the cosmological model-dependent value inferred by the Planck mission assuming the ΛCDM model."
Notice how the older calculation is also correct, it's just less precise than the newer one.
__________
AQUINAS
As for the Aquinas arguments, please see this debate for objections I have to his argument from motion. But I'll throw some objections out there to all of them: they have no evidence, and assume what nobody actually knows. I can go more in depth If you'd like
__________
I hope that covers everything and there aren't too many spelling errors.
Created:
Posted in:
Is a (synthetic A Priori proposition = Impure A Priori proposition)?
Created:
Posted in:
I've been doing this for a few months now, and I would like some feedback on where my strengths an weaknesses are; and what I could improve on. Your opinions are appreciated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
why do so many still work in high pressure and dangerous unskilled labor positions?That's really gonna be up to the individual. You'll find as many reasons as there are people.
What do you propose as a mechanism of providing for people's basic needs? And how would it be more efficient than the current system of working for a living?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Yes that's why I'm asking for solutions, I've proposed two possible methods of implementing this idea: government or charity.
People have the ability to find another job if theirs is too stressful. And if working conditions are detestable, then they may have to appeal to the government.
My point Is that even if you automate meat packing, you have to have repair technicians, circuit board builders, steel workers, etc.
I don't think it's realistic to expect post-scarcity of basic necessities anytime soon.
Created: