Play "Cards Against Atheist Forums" online now!
Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: 23rd June 2017, 23:44

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
(20th January 2017, 07:57)Khemikal Wrote:
(20th January 2017, 07:49)bennyboy Wrote: I wish I could remember.  I think it was in an introductory video on QM, specifically the ones where you check your detector AFTER the photon has already passed the slit, with the result that detecting spookily affects the resultant interference pattern anyway.  Super spooky, amirite?
Not really, that's another thing that Bohmian mechanics does away with, lol.  
Yes, but it also seems to do away with testability.

Quote:So, just as a point of interest, why do you tend to focus on photons when the issue is apparently common to..well...everything?  What is it about photons that jumps out at you and makes itself the constant source of comment.  Long wondered this.
Probably because it was through reading about photons that I first became acquainted with some of the spookiness of QM. After that, because photons are so fundamental to the interactions among things in the universe. Buckyballs, however beautiful and interesting, aren't fundamental to my understanding of reality.


Quote:
Quote:There's no conceivable real-world framework that is conceivable at least to me in which you could say, "The buck stops here.  For sure there's no other framework, no greater context of which all this is a subset, and which must be accounted for in determining that some truths are actually global."
Nor for me.  If we're still talking about qm.  For all we know there's something under that as well...and we aren't really talking about waves -or- particles, but some third wholly unexpressed thing which exhibits the qualities some of us associate as being exclusively the domain of one or the other.  Yet another possible way that a potential paradox is resolved.
No doubt. If something further about light, or what's under light, comes up, then that new info defines a new context. You'd be dumb to say something like, "In the context where light isn't as we just discovered it to be, it's totally ambiguous."

My current position is that modern science tends to add complexity, paradox, and ambiguity. But I'm willing for sure to let go of mystery when mysteries are actually solved. That being said, much of what you call my "woo" comes from a deep mistrust of reality, and much of that from too many minds blown studying physics.
Reply
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
(20th January 2017, 09:14)bennyboy Wrote: Yes, but it also seems to do away with testability.
Not sure why you'd think that.  The common criticism is that it makes no testable predictions -that differ- from the standard model..but why would it, it's an interpretation.  

Quote:Probably because it was through reading about photons that I first became acquainted with some of the spookiness of QM.  After that, because photons are so fundamental to the interactions among things in the universe.  Buckyballs, however beautiful and interesting, aren't fundamental to my understanding of reality.
Rgr that.

Quote:No doubt.  If something further about light, or what's under light, comes up, then that new info defines a new context.
What's under anything, everything...remember, light isn't a qm snowflake.  Wink

Quote:You'd be dumb to say something like, "In the context where light isn't as we just discovered it to be, it's totally ambiguous."
Thankfully I'd say no such thing regardless, lol.  

Quote:My current position is that modern science tends to add complexity, paradox, and ambiguity.  But I'm willing for sure to let go of mystery when mysteries are actually solved.  That being said, much of what you call my "woo" comes from a deep mistrust of reality, and much of that from too many minds blown studying physics.
That's an interesting position on what science does.  How would studying physics give you a deep mistrust of reality?
 “I can’t even go to a goddamn potluck without having to thank some space fairy for the broccoli casserole!” -Trae Crowder


Reply
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
(20th January 2017, 18:09)Khemikal Wrote: That's an interesting position on what science does.  How would studying physics give you a deep mistrust of reality?
I caught that, too, but after the edit time window was over. I meant studying physics gave me a deep mistrust in my ability to perceive or comprehend reality.

(20th January 2017, 18:09)Khemikal Wrote:
Quote:No doubt.  If something further about light, or what's under light, comes up, then that new info defines a new context.
What's under anything, everything...remember, light isn't a qm snowflake.  Wink

It depends what comes up, I suppose. If something comes up that underlies QM, then that would certainly define a new context for photons and probably everything else, as well, at least on that primitive level. Whether it would change whether we'd call my claim that there's a dragon around the corner "true," or the OP proposition, seems unlikely.
Reply
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
(20th January 2017, 18:48)bennyboy Wrote: I caught that, too, but after the edit time window was over.  I meant studying physics gave me a deep mistrust in my ability to perceive or comprehend reality.
I can feel that.....my own mistrust of my senses came earlier, as a kid.  Magic tricks, lol. I was obessessed, spent all my money on them, not because I wanted to perform them...I just wanted to know how they were done. Payed off though, the wife appreciates quick fingers. Wink

Quote:It depends what comes up, I suppose.  If something comes up that underlies QM, then that would certainly define a new context for photons and probably everything else, as well, at least on that primitive level.  Whether it would change whether we'd call my claim that there's a dragon around the corner "true," or the OP proposition, seems unlikely.
OFC, since your claim regarding dragons is neither scientific nor evidentiary, but semantic. Nothing new or novel would necessarily make you change your assessment of that claims truth status if the mundane doesn't already. It's just bound up in how you word and such. It's an interesting thing, the way that the words we use can form/inform our thought and positions on a matter.
 “I can’t even go to a goddamn potluck without having to thank some space fairy for the broccoli casserole!” -Trae Crowder


Reply
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
(20th January 2017, 20:53)Khemikal Wrote: OFC, since your claim regarding dragons is neither scientific nor evidentiary, but semantic.  Nothing new or novel would necessarily make you change your assessment of that claims truth status if the mundane doesn't already.  It's just bound up in how you word and such.  It's an interesting thing, the way that the words we use can form/inform our thought and positions on a matter.
You could argue that both the forms we perceive in "real" life and in a computer game hold more than semantic similarity: we know that they are representative, and that the things in question do not really exist as we represent them. It doesn't really matter if our representations come via computer bits or QM particles, because knowledge of either of those building blocks is separate from what we think we know about the things being presented. The only difference, really, is that one vehicle of presentation has a mechanism which is known and controlled by us (humans), and one seems to originate as a product of some other entity, quantity or framework.

The dragon exists-- as a collection of ideas encoded in the states of magnetic bits. "Mom" exists-- as a collection of ideas encoded in the states of quantum particles.
Reply
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
Hey guys. I'm going to have another break from the thread to get my head down a bit more on my course. Everything I cover is fascinating like I watched a little taster youtube video about epistemology, comparing Empiricists Locke (Tabula Rasa - blank slate) and Hume, Rationalist Descartes (concepts not requiring experience... such as maths etc), and neither empiricist nor rationalist, Kant and gotta say that based on first impressions, I totally identify with Kant's position (though the others make good points too... they just neither represent the whole picture imo)... Kant arguing for certain innate concepts such as causality. I couldn't agree more because specifics aside, there are two principle things any NN does... or indeed even just a single neuron connected up to many inputs let alone millions of them chained together... just by virtue of their structure; extract patterns and associate coincidences... and that's all that's needed to represent causality. So specific nervous system evolutions aside (different species etc) imo all brains have that innate bias of being causality detectors just by virtue of using neurons. So as it stands I'm looking forward to reading more of what Kant has to say.

Anyway, you guys seems to be having fun talking inexplicable (to me) quantum shit Wink So I'll leave you to it and catch up with you sometime down the line... laters Smile
Reply
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
(20th January 2017, 22:07)bennyboy Wrote: You could argue that both the forms we perceive in "real" life and in a computer game hold more than semantic similarity: we know that they are representative, and that the things in question do not really exist as we represent them.
You could. I'd argue that what we -do- know leaves little room to disaagree,

Quote:It doesn't really matter if our representations come via computer bits or QM particles, because knowledge of either of those building blocks is separate from what we think we know about the things being presented.  The only difference, really, is that one vehicle of presentation has a mechanism which is known and controlled by us (humans), and one seems to originate as a product of some other entity, quantity or framework.
Well, at least there's that one difference by which we differentiate.

Quote:The dragon exists-- as a collection of ideas encoded in the states of magnetic bits.  "Mom" exists-- as a collection of ideas encoded in the states of quantum particles.

OFC the dragon exists. Momma and the dragon are still different, unique.
 “I can’t even go to a goddamn potluck without having to thank some space fairy for the broccoli casserole!” -Trae Crowder


Reply
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
(10th December 2016, 00:16)Mudhammam Wrote: If this is ultimately question-begging, then what is the non-question-begging point from which to start?


IMO, this is a pretty neat thread. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that I do not have an answer.  However, your op motivated me to consider the following idea:

Suppose a non-question-begging point has been established regarding some human idea or concept.  Then what is the question-begging point from which to start?  For example, if humanity reached a consensus on a given concept and ultimately accepted it as true, then what were the questions, (or even the initial question) that lead them to this consensus? Must there be an answer or non question-begging point from the beginning? Are non question-begging points ultimately derived from points of question-begging uncertainty?



Thanks. Live long and prosper, Mudhammam.
"I'm fearful when I see people substituting fear for reason." Klaatu, from The Day The Earth Stood Still (1951)














Reply
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
I think it's easy to over complicate things when it comes to philosophy. There's certainly truths that we can all agree, like say the color blue, or the color red. We use these words because they relate the same experience to a thing which exists objectively outside of our "sensory processor". Although, I think it depends on the depth of the question you want to make. Perhaps human beings can agree that something is red, but if you ask what is red, then that leaves more questions. You could say red is a primary color, but then you could ask what is the process of reflecting light off of the particles that reflect that color red, which make them reflect the color red? It just gets more complicated the more you specific your questions get, and at that point it becomes a matter of magnifying the details with science. 

But strangely, although there's things that people can agree on, and truths that we all seem to share because they relate to things outside of our selves, perhaps you could say that no one truly knows anything. We know that there's things with vague words attached to them, which we all can recognize and mutually agree that they exist, but the ultimate nature of reality of these things is something which is unknown.

I thought it was interesting, reading about Bertrand Russell's principia mathmatica, in which he tried to encapsulate all of mathematical knowledge in an absolute, final form. When it turned out that he could not encapsulate all mathematical knowledge, he fell victim to an ancient paradox of looping statements. It's as though he ran into the inescapable truth, that the ultimate nature of reality can't be known, and his failed attempt at encapsulating it is a testament to that unknowable 'in the absolute' nature of reality.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
Video Do we live in a universe where theism is likely true? (video) Jörmungandr 36 929 28th May 2017, 01:53
Last Post: bennyboy
  Is it true that there is no absolute morality? WisdomOfTheTrees 260 4612 23rd March 2017, 18:12
Last Post: Hammy
  Anecdotal Evidence RoadRunner79 395 11669 14th December 2016, 14:53
Last Post: downbeatplumb
  What philosophical evidence is there against believing in non-physical entities? joseph_ 150 5104 3rd September 2016, 11:26
Last Post: downbeatplumb
  Afterlife, I'd be happy if it were true..... maestroanth 35 2121 12th June 2016, 03:13
Last Post: Little lunch
  The nature of evidence Wryetui 150 5967 6th May 2016, 06:21
Last Post: ignoramus
  Witness Evidence RoadRunner79 248 18673 17th December 2015, 19:23
Last Post: bennyboy
  Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence RoadRunner79 184 12219 13th November 2015, 12:17
Last Post: Khemikal
  Does a "True Self" Exist? Salacious B. Crumb 68 7853 17th July 2015, 06:11
Last Post: chasbanner
  Miracles are useless as evidence Pizza 0 631 15th March 2015, 19:37
Last Post: Pizza



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)