(September 1, 2012 at 5:50 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote:

(September 1, 2012 at 5:03 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: The concept of the metaphysical by its very nature defys proof. Mathmatics is a system that is applicable in the real world and its results can be recreated time after time. Thats proof that its more than the imaginings of any one man. If I take one apple and put it in a basket with three apples I apply the numerical value of four apples to the contents of that basket. Thats basic mathematics. Its a system we use in our day to day lives and it demonstrably works. Would you debate this?
Until we find an instance in which it does not work and cannot be applied to a physical, tangible situation then why should such a tried and tested system be cast aside?

The concept of the metaphysicals chief characteristic is that it requires no proof because it is supposedly beyond our means of detecting it. I am not for one second saying this is an acceptable standard to go by but that is part of its definition.

If we follow your logic we must deduce your definition of the metaphysical entails anything conceptual goes under its header. This is evidently not the case and it would be sheer nonsense to claim as such.

So I put it to you once again; what metaphysical assumptions are made by science?

See the part I bolded? That's the important part. Repeatability is NOT a measure of validity.

You might observe 100 white swans every time you look at a lake. You may observe one million white swans every time you look across a lake. You may observe a quadrillion white swans wading across a hypothetical lake.

But that IN NO WAY justifies an assumption that the very next swan will be white, nor does it justify an assumption that there are only white swans in the universe.

This is precisely the problem I am referring to. The problem of induction. Look it up.

Repeatability may not be a measure of validity but this isn't a mere issue of repeatability. The fact of the matter is that we base almost everything we do on mathematics because we have not come across an instance it has failed.
To your knowledge as mathematics ever failed as a system?
Yes or no.

I mean how far do you take this? Do we start questioning whetherin normal circumstances extreme heat burns us? I mean after all there might be the one occasion when it doesn't. We've never come across it but we can't be certain it won't happen. The idea of using this as a standard to live by is sheer nonsense.
Until we do come across such an occasion and thoroughly test it we must be at least partially open to the concept it might happen but not assume it can or will happen.

So once again, do you have any valid examples of science relying on metaphysical assumptions?

(September 1, 2012 at 7:16 pm)Faith No More Wrote: My question for this whole subject is how far down the foundation of the link between mathematics, logic, and science do we have to formally prove before we can deem it practical? If reapeatability can prvoide useable results that allow us to manipulate reality for our own benefit, is it so necessary that a formal proof of why it works be developed? At what point to questions like this simply become academic?

We would have to find some kind of unified theory that incorporates everything under one umbrella.

In physics, the unified field theory is the holy grail for this reason. It brings together all these various, diverse subsets into one coherent system.

A simple way to think of it is to imagine if monetary denominations could not be exchanged. So 100 cents can never be used in place of a dollar. These two denominations would be separate, inexchangable and we would really struggle. Finally facilitating an exchange between dollars and cents would be an amazing experience and become a Nobel-prize worthy achievement that would lead to economic growth (or rather stability) skyrocketing.

Unfortunately, physics itself hasn't accomplished this feat, and it becomes incredibly difficult for trans-conceptual unification to even be conceivable.

In theoretical physics this hump can sometimes be gotten over by just pretending, or imagining that there is a way to perform this exchange. But it's not real. It's just semiotic substitution. But it's a viable trick, like algebraic substitution of numbers and variables.

Until then, we are just pretending. And as long as the pretense can bring us LED TVs, hex-core CPUs, rocket ships and all sorts of neat little doodads, we can't complain.

But for people who are interested in the truth and reality, in metaphysics, and the foundations of science, this is a deep problem. Like waking up one day and realizing you don't love your wife anymore.

---

(September 2, 2012 at 4:02 am)RaphielDrake Wrote:

(September 1, 2012 at 5:50 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: See the part I bolded? That's the important part. Repeatability is NOT a measure of validity.

You might observe 100 white swans every time you look at a lake. You may observe one million white swans every time you look across a lake. You may observe a quadrillion white swans wading across a hypothetical lake.

But that IN NO WAY justifies an assumption that the very next swan will be white, nor does it justify an assumption that there are only white swans in the universe.

This is precisely the problem I am referring to. The problem of induction. Look it up.

Repeatability may not be a measure of validity but this isn't a mere issue of repeatability. The fact of the matter is that we base almost everything we do on mathematics because we have not come across an instance it has failed.
To your knowledge as mathematics ever failed as a system?
Yes or no.

I mean how far do you take this? Do we start questioning whetherin normal circumstances extreme heat burns us? I mean after all there might be the one occasion when it doesn't. We've never come across it but we can't be certain it won't happen. The idea of using this as a standard to live by is sheer nonsense.
Until we do come across such an occasion and thoroughly test it we must be at least partially open to the concept it might happen but not assume it can or will happen.

So once again, do you have any valid examples of science relying on metaphysical assumptions?

I told you to look up the problem of induction. You're more interested in arguing with me than learning and growing your mind. I'm not interested in arguing for argument's sake.

Go look up the problem of induction. Go look up what I'm talking about. Learn something about em and challenge me on specifics. I'm honestly not interested in making a case for this.

It's like trying to argue for the belief that the earth is round. Or 2+2=4.

Not fun.

(September 2, 2012 at 4:53 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote:

(September 1, 2012 at 7:16 pm)Faith No More Wrote: My question for this whole subject is how far down the foundation of the link between mathematics, logic, and science do we have to formally prove before we can deem it practical? If reapeatability can prvoide useable results that allow us to manipulate reality for our own benefit, is it so necessary that a formal proof of why it works be developed? At what point to questions like this simply become academic?

We would have to find some kind of unified theory that incorporates everything under one umbrella.

In physics, the unified field theory is the holy grail for this reason. It brings together all these various, diverse subsets into one coherent system.

A simple way to think of it is to imagine if monetary denominations could not be exchanged. So 100 cents can never be used in place of a dollar. These two denominations would be separate, inexchangable and we would really struggle. Finally facilitating an exchange between dollars and cents would be an amazing experience and become a Nobel-prize worthy achievement that would lead to economic growth (or rather stability) skyrocketing.

Unfortunately, physics itself hasn't accomplished this feat, and it becomes incredibly difficult for trans-conceptual unification to even be conceivable.

In theoretical physics this hump can sometimes be gotten over by just pretending, or imagining that there is a way to perform this exchange. But it's not real. It's just semiotic substitution. But it's a viable trick, like algebraic substitution of numbers and variables.

Until then, we are just pretending. And as long as the pretense can bring us LED TVs, hex-core CPUs, rocket ships and all sorts of neat little doodads, we can't complain.

But for people who are interested in the truth and reality, in metaphysics, and the foundations of science, this is a deep problem. Like waking up one day and realizing you don't love your wife anymore.

---

(September 2, 2012 at 4:02 am)RaphielDrake Wrote: Repeatability may not be a measure of validity but this isn't a mere issue of repeatability. The fact of the matter is that we base almost everything we do on mathematics because we have not come across an instance it has failed.
To your knowledge as mathematics ever failed as a system?
Yes or no.

I mean how far do you take this? Do we start questioning whetherin normal circumstances extreme heat burns us? I mean after all there might be the one occasion when it doesn't. We've never come across it but we can't be certain it won't happen. The idea of using this as a standard to live by is sheer nonsense.
Until we do come across such an occasion and thoroughly test it we must be at least partially open to the concept it might happen but not assume it can or will happen.

So once again, do you have any valid examples of science relying on metaphysical assumptions?

I told you to look up the problem of induction. You're more interested in arguing with me than learning and growing your mind. I'm not interested in arguing for argument's sake.

Go look up the problem of induction. Go look up what I'm talking about. Learn something about em and challenge me on specifics. I'm honestly not interested in making a case for this.

It's like trying to argue for the belief that the earth is round. Or 2+2=4.

Not fun.

I already am aware and versed in that philosophical line of reasoning. Don't try to patronise me, you're not very good at it.
It implies that it is conceivable that might be the case, your statement outright declares it. You seem to think this type of philosophy has an absolute answer in terms of what is and you are sorely mistaken. There is no room for your type of dogma in any philosophical debate. Yes it is true we can never display absolute certainty about any one thing or any one system but to ignore evidence based on that is a ridiculous proposition. If you don't think so feel free to throw away your PC that relies on binary code to carry out its function due to the fact you can't be certain of its continued relevance. The fact of the matter is that the laws its design is based on hold true and continue to do so. Until we encounter a circumstance it does not your argument holds very little sway. If we did encounter such a circumstance it would be the subject of much study which would no doubt require us to re-evaluate our views, which is of course a very reasonable approach. Evalutating things based on the information we do have as opposed to the information we don't.
Mathematics is in no way, shape or form "metaphysical" and if you think so you badly need to look up the definition of metaphysical. Metaphysical is supposedly beyond our realm of reality or our reasoning which mathematics clearly is not, it is present in almost everything we do with self-evident results as is the reasoning by which we use it. Employing the problem of induction does very little to change mathematics definition to one that includes the metaphysical.


Now please stop embarrassing yourself with this rather see-through charade in which you attempt to shamelessly sidetrack the subject and retreat.
Come up with a valid example of a metaphysical assumption science makes. Mathematics is not it.

Vinny "Vincenzo" G Wrote:We would have to find some kind of unified theory that incorporates everything under one umbrella.

In physics, the unified field theory is the holy grail for this reason. It brings together all these various, diverse subsets into one coherent system.

A simple way to think of it is to imagine if monetary denominations could not be exchanged. So 100 cents can never be used in place of a dollar. These two denominations would be separate, inexchangable and we would really struggle. Finally facilitating an exchange between dollars and cents would be an amazing experience and become a Nobel-prize worthy achievement that would lead to economic growth (or rather stability) skyrocketing.

Unfortunately, physics itself hasn't accomplished this feat, and it becomes incredibly difficult for trans-conceptual unification to even be conceivable.

In theoretical physics this hump can sometimes be gotten over by just pretending, or imagining that there is a way to perform this exchange. But it's not real. It's just semiotic substitution. But it's a viable trick, like algebraic substitution of numbers and variables.

Until then, we are just pretending. And as long as the pretense can bring us LED TVs, hex-core CPUs, rocket ships and all sorts of neat little doodads, we can't complain.

But for people who are interested in the truth and reality, in metaphysics, and the foundations of science, this is a deep problem. Like waking up one day and realizing you don't love your wife anymore.

But wasn't the whole point of bringing up this subject is that this is something in need of an answer we should all be striving to find? I agree that it is an interesting idea, but how is someone like myself, who has only a year of community college, supposed to work towards finding a unified theory? I am interested in the truth and reality and have been starting to do some reading, but it seems to me that my interest is not going to further the subject beyond where others are able to take it. So, what do you have that will convince me that this is a very important for me personally to study beyond some sort of personal satisfaction derived from obtaining knowledge?

(September 2, 2012 at 4:40 pm)Faith No More Wrote:

Vinny "Vincenzo" G Wrote:We would have to find some kind of unified theory that incorporates everything under one umbrella.

In physics, the unified field theory is the holy grail for this reason. It brings together all these various, diverse subsets into one coherent system.

A simple way to think of it is to imagine if monetary denominations could not be exchanged. So 100 cents can never be used in place of a dollar. These two denominations would be separate, inexchangable and we would really struggle. Finally facilitating an exchange between dollars and cents would be an amazing experience and become a Nobel-prize worthy achievement that would lead to economic growth (or rather stability) skyrocketing.

Unfortunately, physics itself hasn't accomplished this feat, and it becomes incredibly difficult for trans-conceptual unification to even be conceivable.

In theoretical physics this hump can sometimes be gotten over by just pretending, or imagining that there is a way to perform this exchange. But it's not real. It's just semiotic substitution. But it's a viable trick, like algebraic substitution of numbers and variables.

Until then, we are just pretending. And as long as the pretense can bring us LED TVs, hex-core CPUs, rocket ships and all sorts of neat little doodads, we can't complain.

But for people who are interested in the truth and reality, in metaphysics, and the foundations of science, this is a deep problem. Like waking up one day and realizing you don't love your wife anymore.

But wasn't the whole point of bringing up this subject is that this is something in need of an answer we should all be striving to find? I agree that it is an interesting idea, but how is someone like myself, who has only a year of community college, supposed to work towards finding a unified theory? I am interested in the truth and reality and have been starting to do some reading, but it seems to me that my interest is not going to further the subject beyond where others are able to take it. So, what do you have that will convince me that this is a very important for me personally to study beyond some sort of personal satisfaction derived from obtaining knowledge?

No I think somebody was under the assumption that science is the holy grail and will lead to a utopia if we just follow science and reason.

But this is too charitable an understanding of the truth-providing values of science. The real accomplishments of science is in giving us the foundational theories on which to master our environment. We can work with chemistry, we can work with physics, electronics. We can predict the weather, send things into space, calculate the trajectory of objects, build nifty little gadgets.

But this is altogether a different issue from the question of ultimate truth.

The jump from classical physics to quantum physics was a mindboggling mental leap. Yet, did you know that theoretical physics suggests that we may have as many as ten different dimensions in our universe itself? Forget about 3-D, or the space-time block (4 dimensions). Imagine ten freakin dimensions!

And we know heads nor tails about any of these other dimensions. Heck we don't even fully grasp the nature of time and how it fits into physics. And quantum mechanics physics? Let me just quote theoretical physicist Richard Feynman: ""Anyone who says that they understand Quantum Mechanics does not understand Quantum Mechanics"

We don't know nothing! All we have are these nifty little doodads and some very tentative theories about the world we live in. We're like sitting ducks, waiting to learn something that will turn everything we believe upside down.

So people who put all their trust in the current status of science and think it gives them all the truth they need are like flat-earthers who are just waiting to face the uppercut of the curvature of the earth's surface.

It's a different kind of religion. A different kind of worship. The only irony is that these are the people who think they are too cool for religion and think they know better.

(September 2, 2012 at 5:37 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote:

(September 2, 2012 at 4:40 pm)Faith No More Wrote: But wasn't the whole point of bringing up this subject is that this is something in need of an answer we should all be striving to find? I agree that it is an interesting idea, but how is someone like myself, who has only a year of community college, supposed to work towards finding a unified theory? I am interested in the truth and reality and have been starting to do some reading, but it seems to me that my interest is not going to further the subject beyond where others are able to take it. So, what do you have that will convince me that this is a very important for me personally to study beyond some sort of personal satisfaction derived from obtaining knowledge?

No I think somebody was under the assumption that science is the holy grail and will lead to a utopia if we just follow science and reason.

But this is too charitable an understanding of the truth-providing values of science. The real accomplishments of science is in giving us the foundational theories on which to master our environment. We can work with chemistry, we can work with physics, electronics. We can predict the weather, send things into space, calculate the trajectory of objects, build nifty little gadgets.

But this is altogether a different issue from the question of ultimate truth.

The jump from classical physics to quantum physics was a mindboggling mental leap. Yet, did you know that theoretical physics suggests that we may have as many as ten different dimensions in our universe itself? Forget about 3-D, or the space-time block (4 dimensions). Imagine ten freakin dimensions!

And we know heads nor tails about any of these other dimensions. Heck we don't even fully grasp the nature of time and how it fits into physics. And quantum mechanics physics? Let me just quote theoretical physicist Richard Feynman: ""Anyone who says that they understand Quantum Mechanics does not understand Quantum Mechanics"

We don't know nothing! All we have are these nifty little doodads and some very tentative theories about the world we live in. We're like sitting ducks, waiting to learn something that will turn everything we believe upside down.

So people who put all their trust in the current status of science and think it gives them all the truth they need are like flat-earthers who are just waiting to face the uppercut of the curvature of the earth's surface.

It's a different kind of religion. A different kind of worship. The only irony is that these are the people who think they are too cool for religion and think they know better.

Nobody was under that assumption. Not one person here has made the claim of infallibility or omnipotence. Science is always a work in progress that uses the information and evidence we have to work with at the time. No-one here has made the claims you are accusing us of. Scientists would be the first people to say we need to learn more. Theories are formulated through what little information they have and then tested for validity. None of them are approached with absolute certainty. The highest degree of certainty a scientist can ever have is sigma 7 which is a degree of 99.9999981% certainty. That would be applied to the most basic and proven things like gravity. Theories are not dogmatic statements. They are ideas formulated with what evidence and information we have to be tested and tested and tested.
What someone did was make a claim that science uses metaphysical assumptions and then provided mathematics as a rather stupid answer.

Mathematics lest we forget being a system of logic that is used in economics, computers, maps, sending people into space or just adding up how much this weeks groceries are going to cost.
The evidence supporting it as a valid system is in abundance and the evidence against it is nil. It has real world results that can be replicated time and time again. It is very clearly not an assumption let alone a metaphysical one. The day it has no evidence supporting it or even evidence against it will be the day that argument has any weight whatsoever.
If you're going to carry on this "discussion" please don't lie your bollocks off about its origins.


"Too cool for religion"? Yeah, thats the reason we don't buy into the whole man in the sky thing. Well done. Yeah, science is *totally* like a religion. I remember just the other day in that laboratory where Professor Hawking was preaching to us from his stand and we all sat on pews nodding like a novelty car toy. He was telling us we didn't need things like evidence or reasoning because God was going to take care of u- oh WAIT. I almost forgot that science creates theories subject to change based on what information and evidence they have as opposed to dogmatic nonsense.
Silly me. :-)

Oh, by the way;
the·o·ry   [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA
noun, plural the·o·ries.
1.
a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
2.
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.
3.
Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4.
the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5.
a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles: conflicting theories of how children best learn to read.

You obviously needed help of some kind but I couldn't find a suitable carer so this will have to do.

(September 3, 2012 at 5:31 am)RaphielDrake Wrote:

(September 2, 2012 at 5:37 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: No I think somebody was under the assumption that science is the holy grail and will lead to a utopia if we just follow science and reason.

But this is too charitable an understanding of the truth-providing values of science. The real accomplishments of science is in giving us the foundational theories on which to master our environment. We can work with chemistry, we can work with physics, electronics. We can predict the weather, send things into space, calculate the trajectory of objects, build nifty little gadgets.

But this is altogether a different issue from the question of ultimate truth.

The jump from classical physics to quantum physics was a mindboggling mental leap. Yet, did you know that theoretical physics suggests that we may have as many as ten different dimensions in our universe itself? Forget about 3-D, or the space-time block (4 dimensions). Imagine ten freakin dimensions!

And we know heads nor tails about any of these other dimensions. Heck we don't even fully grasp the nature of time and how it fits into physics. And quantum mechanics physics? Let me just quote theoretical physicist Richard Feynman: ""Anyone who says that they understand Quantum Mechanics does not understand Quantum Mechanics"

We don't know nothing! All we have are these nifty little doodads and some very tentative theories about the world we live in. We're like sitting ducks, waiting to learn something that will turn everything we believe upside down.

So people who put all their trust in the current status of science and think it gives them all the truth they need are like flat-earthers who are just waiting to face the uppercut of the curvature of the earth's surface.

It's a different kind of religion. A different kind of worship. The only irony is that these are the people who think they are too cool for religion and think they know better.

Nobody was under that assumption. Not one person here has made the claim of infallibility or omnipotence. Science is always a work in progress that uses the information and evidence we have to work with at the time. No-one here has made the claims you are accusing us of. Scientists would be the first people to say we need to learn more. Theories are formulated through what little information they have and then tested for validity. None of them are approached with absolute certainty. The highest degree of certainty a scientist can ever have is sigma 7 which is a degree of 99.9999981% certainty. That would be applied to the most basic and proven things like gravity. Theories are not dogmatic statements. They are ideas formulated with what evidence and information we have to be tested and tested and tested.
What someone did was make a claim that science uses metaphysical assumptions and then provided mathematics as a rather stupid answer.

Mathematics lest we forget being a system of logic that is used in economics, computers, maps, sending people into space or just adding up how much this weeks groceries are going to cost.
The evidence supporting it as a valid system is in abundance and the evidence against it is nil. It has real world results that can be replicated time and time again. It is very clearly not an assumption let alone a metaphysical one. The day it has no evidence supporting it or even evidence against it will be the day that argument has any weight whatsoever.
If you're going to carry on this "discussion" please don't lie your bollocks off about its origins.


"Too cool for religion"? Yeah, thats the reason we don't buy into the whole man in the sky thing. Well done. Yeah, science is *totally* like a religion. I remember just the other day in that laboratory where Professor Hawking was preaching to us from his stand and we all sat on pews nodding like a novelty car toy. He was telling us we didn't need things like evidence or reasoning because God was going to take care of u- oh WAIT. I almost forgot that science creates theories subject to change based on what information and evidence they have as opposed to dogmatic nonsense.
Silly me. :-)

Oh, by the way;
the·o·ry   [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA
noun, plural the·o·ries.
1.
a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
2.
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.
3.
Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4.
the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5.
a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles: conflicting theories of how children best learn to read.

You obviously needed help of some kind but I couldn't find a suitable carer so this will have to do.

The simple question is this:

Is it necessarily true, that science will one day be omniscient, given enough time?

This is the question. Because this is what your scientism boils down to. That science will one day be omniscient, give you omnipotence and lead to some utopia.

I don't see how scientism is any different from a religion, that believes a messiah will one day become omniscient and omnipotent and lead you to heaven. How is religion different from scientism?

All I'm telling you is you need to be skeptical of the omniscience of science.

Who isn't?

I want to be more specific in my previous claim: It's not necessarily that I think science is currently omniscient. It's that I think a lot of people believe it is GOING to be omniscient. But with quantum mechanics I truly believe we have faced a dead end barring an entire paradigm shift in science that will have to involve, as I said before, a try at a unified theory. I could go into more detail, but it'll just give me a headache.

Disregarding your belief that "a lot of people believe" this for the moment: since science is the process by which phenomena are investigated, then it becoming omniscient is going to make it rather redundant, n'est-ce pas? To quote the wise philosopher Dara Ó Briain again, "Science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop."