Cause-and-Effect. Is Causality necessarily true?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mentat
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Causality
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the philosophical question of whether causality is necessarily true. Participants explore various examples, such as flipping a coin and the presence of a mosquito, to illustrate the complexities of attributing cause and effect. The consensus suggests that correlation does not imply causation without a direct link supported by evidence. Some argue that causality is fundamentally tied to the concept of time, while others point to quantum mechanics (QM) as a challenge to classical notions of causality, where effects can occur simultaneously with their causes, complicating traditional definitions. The dialogue highlights the need for careful consideration of causal relationships, emphasizing that many observed correlations may not reflect true causative links. Ultimately, the discussion raises significant questions about the nature of reality, determinism, and the implications of quantum theory on our understanding of causality.
  • #51
Originally posted by drag
I don't think I understand what you're
talking about here and how it's related ?

I'm talking about the fact that we can only communicate using some kind of language, and if we are using language, we are confined to it's rules - one of which is that words have meaning. So, if you ask me to define each word, and then define the words I used to define that word, and so on, you are just negating the use of language to describe phenomena, you are not negating my proof (as it exists within the confines of language).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
Originally posted by Mentat
I'm talking about the fact that we can only communicate using some kind of language, and if we are using language, we are confined to it's rules - one of which is that words have meaning. So, if you ask me to define each word, and then define the words I used to define that word, and so on, you are just negating the use of language to describe phenomena, you are not negating my proof (as it exists within the confines of language).
We use language in order to be able to communicate
concepts. We can agree/disagree about concepts,
can't we ? Further more, some concepts are
not rigorously defined, they are approximations
of observation that we use for simplification
of otherwise very complex ideas, like love, thrill,
awareness and so on. So, when you attempt to provide
such approximations with exact meaning (consciousness ?),
I must ask for your rigorous proof. And, like I
suspected to begin with :wink:, you don't have one.

Peace and long life.
 
  • #53
Originally posted by drag
We use language in order to be able to communicate
concepts. We can agree/disagree about concepts,
can't we ? Further more, some concepts are
not rigorously defined, they are approximations
of observation that we use for simplification
of otherwise very complex ideas, like love, thrill,
awareness and so on. So, when you attempt to provide
such approximations with exact meaning (consciousness ?),
I must ask for your rigorous proof. And, like I
suspected to begin with :wink:, you don't have one.

Peace and long life.

I have proof, but explaining it relies on the use of words, and you seem bent on side-stepping my argument by quibbling about the undefined nature of words.
 
  • #54
Originally posted by Mentat
I have proof, but explaining it relies on the use
of words, and you seem bent on side-stepping my
argument by quibbling about the undefined nature of words.
You have proof of causality ?!
 
  • #55
Originally posted by drag
You have proof of causality ?!

You said "consciousness", in your last post. That's what I have proof of. I can't prove cause-and-effect - as is evident by the very existence of this thread.
 
  • #56
Originally posted by Mentat
You said "consciousness", in your last post. That's what I have proof of. I can't prove cause-and-effect - as is evident by the very existence of this thread.
No ! I just used it as an example in brackets.
Now it's your turn to get confused between the 2 threads...
 
  • #57
Originally posted by drag
No ! I just used it as an example in brackets.
Now it's your turn to get confused between the 2 threads...

Well, the point is the same: Any proof that I offer, on any subject, will require that you take words for their inherent meaning, as stipulated by either a dictionary, or a textbook on the subject.
 
  • #58
Greetings Mentat !
Originally posted by Mentat
Well, the point is the same: Any proof that I offer, on any subject, will require that you take words for their inherent meaning, as stipulated by either a dictionary, or a textbook on the subject.
And I tell you again that meaning of words
is not a precise definition because we have
many words with no precise definition. If you
want to prove something you should use words
that make sense according to some type
of reasoning system connected with observation
(preferably the seemingly most successful one - science).

Statements like "I'm conscious because I'm aware." or
"I think, therefor I am." have no concrete meaning
that is in consensus and thus none that we can discuss
and reason with together.

Anyway, what's your proof ?

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #59
Originally posted by drag
And I tell you again that meaning of words
is not a precise definition because we have
many words with no precise definition. If you
want to prove something you should use words
that make sense according to some type
of reasoning system connected with observation
(preferably the seemingly most successful one - science).

Why?

Statements like "I'm conscious because I'm aware." or
"I think, therefor I am." have no concrete meaning
that is in consensus and thus none that we can discuss
and reason with together.

Not true. "I think therefore I am" was discussed rather rigorously, by Manuel_Silvio and I, and the words need not be rigorously defined for us to do so.

Anyway, what's your proof ?

My proof is the empirical data, taken from my own personal experience of consciousness. If you like science, you should respect empirical data taken from your own personal experience.
 
  • #60
Greetings Mentat !
Originally posted by Mentat
Why?
Because words are a part of language and
that in turn is a means of COMMUNICATION. :wink:
If we can not agree upon the precise meaning
of the words then we can not communicate efficiently.
Originally posted by Mentat
Not true. "I think therefore I am" was discussed rather
rigorously, by Manuel_Silvio and I, and the words need
not be rigorously defined for us to do so.
Did he agree with you ? And in case he did - did others ? :wink:
Originally posted by Mentat
My proof is the empirical data, taken from my own
personal experience of consciousness. If you like
science, you should respect empirical data taken
from your own personal experience.
Science operates in a different way. Science
adepts a reasoning system to the observed data
and then tries to make sense of it by translating
the data accordingly.

If you can define a reasoning system of some sort
(that is not unlikely - opposed by observation) and
then define the consciousness accordingly then
I'll adress your "empirical data".

The simple fact is that you (personally and at this time,
at least)can't formalize this piece of observation
in any clear manner. Remember that science does not
adress what it can not define and since consciousness
is not defined in science - there's no problem here.
I mean, you could say that science ignores it, but
that would in turn question all of the scientific
interpretations we have and throw them out the window.
I personally think it's better to leave consciousness
outside of science, as part of the PoE, rather than
throw away science because of this problem and
crack our heads at how we can define a type of
reasoniong compatible with consciousness (seemingly
complete lack of causality ).

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #61
Originally posted by drag
Because words are a part of language and
that in turn is a means of COMMUNICATION. :wink:
If we can not agree upon the precise meaning
of the words then we can not communicate efficiently.

We could agree on their meaning, if you were willing to do so.

Did he agree with you ? And in case he did - did others ? :wink:

I don't think anyone else has even read our posts, as no one has commented for or against any of them. I really wish you would read some of it. Perhaps you could copy it and paste it on a word processor, and then you could read it in your spare time.

Science operates in a different way. Science
adepts a reasoning system to the observed data
and then tries to make sense of it by translating
the data accordingly.

You see, it assumes that there are data to be observed (as opposed to just "Mindul perceptions", to borrow a lifegazer term), and that there is sense to be made out of them.

If you can define a reasoning system of some sort
(that is not unlikely - opposed by observation) and
then define the consciousness accordingly then
I'll adress your "empirical data".

How about the fact that you are thinking about what I have typed here? I've used this kind of argument before, and it's undoubtedly true - if you know what I have posted here, you are conscious of it.

The simple fact is that you (personally and at this time,
at least)can't formalize this piece of observation
in any clear manner. Remember that science does not
adress what it can not define and since consciousness
is not defined in science - there's no problem here.
I mean, you could say that science ignores it, but
that would in turn question all of the scientific
interpretations we have and throw them out the window.

I don't think Science ignores it. We have such fields as Psychology and Psychiatry (and even much of Sociology) which deal with the conscious actions of human beings.
 
  • #62
Greetings Mentat !
Originally posted by Mentat
We could agree on their meaning, if you were willing to do so.
Now that's a good approach - "agree to my meaning".
No, thanks. Not to mention that you can't even
explain your meaning (for a very good reason - it
has no satisfactory scientific explanation or definition).
Originally posted by Mentat
I don't think anyone else has even read our posts, as no one
has commented for or against any of them. I really wish you
would read some of it. Perhaps you could copy it and paste it
on a word processor, and then you could read it in your spare time.
That would indeed require a lot of spare time. :wink:
How about a short sum up(I'm pretty skeptical about this) ?
Originally posted by Mentat
You see, it assumes that there are data to be observed
(as opposed to just "Mindul perceptions", to borrow a lifegazer
term), and that there is sense to be made out of them.
It assumes nothing. We get some data and we deal
with it. We do not deal with data if we don't get
any. We make probable asumptions by applying
various types of reasoning and theories to the data.
If some reasoning appears to apply and show consistentcy
according to the data then it would appear that it
"makes sense" of the data.
If you wan'na show that science is a belief
you can start a separate thread on this.
(And don't use Alexander's views as an example.:wink:)
Originally posted by Mentat
How about the fact that you are thinking about what I have typed here?
I've used this kind of argument before, and it's undoubtedly true - if
you know what I have posted here, you are conscious of it.
Perhaps you need to learn a bit about definitions.
One, amongst others, interesting aspect of a definition
is that it should not contain itself. Another is
that it should have content.
Originally posted by Mentat
I don't think Science ignores it. We have such fields as
Psychology and Psychiatry (and even much of Sociology) which
deal with the conscious actions of human beings.
These fields deal with physical approximations of
a complex system of the specific - human type.
These fields use consciousness as an approximation
to direct discription according to physical laws.
That is, instead of explaining how is it that I
require food and how the whole procedure goes on in
the body and the environment, the approximation just
notes - I want to eat. That is the basic info input
that we appear to have while physics is a reasoning
frame we apply to it and interpret it through.
The info itself has no characterization (except the
self-referential maybe) out of the context of our reasoning.

Peace and long life.
 
  • #63
Originally posted by drag
Greetings Mentat !

Now that's a good approach - "agree to my meaning".
No, thanks. Not to mention that you can't even
explain your meaning (for a very good reason - it
has no satisfactory scientific explanation or definition).

What has no satisfactory scientific explanation or definition? Consciousness or Causality? It's really hard to keep up with both of these threads at the same time, without "losing thread" of what you were arguing.

That would indeed require a lot of spare time. :wink:
How about a short sum up(I'm pretty skeptical about this) ?

I can try to do a short sum-up. Just know that it's not the whole thing, and I'm probably missing more than one important point.

"Uncertainty" (with a capital "U", which is how Manuel and I agreed to refer to the uncertainty of all things) does not allow one to take anything for granted, correct? However, one must first take Uncertainty for granted, before deciding not to take anything for granted. This means that there is a paradox at the heart of Uncertainty (the paradox of taking for granted that one should take nothing for granted). With this paradox at it's heart, it become quite unusable, as one could not possibly give it a use (without running into it's paradoxicality (if that's actually a word).

Anyway, that's the shortest sum-up I could think of. I'll post more on that, if it becomes necessary.

It assumes nothing.

Remember, to assume that you assume nothing is a paradox :wink:.

We get some data and we deal
with it.

Oh yes? So we assume that we are "getting some data" (which is an assumption of an objective Universe), and we assume that we are capable of "dealing with it".

We do not deal with data if we don't get
any. We make probable asumptions by applying
various types of reasoning and theories to the data.
If some reasoning appears to apply and show consistentcy
according to the data then it would appear that it
"makes sense" of the data.

And whether or not it's showing consistency isn't left to assumption?

If you wan'na show that science is a belief
you can start a separate thread on this.
(And don't use Alexander's views as an example.:wink:)

I'm not saying that Science is a belief, I'm saying it's based on a few of them (much like any other branch of Philosophy).

Perhaps you need to learn a bit about definitions.
One, amongst others, interesting aspect of a definition
is that it should not contain itself. Another is
that it should have content.

I wasn't defining, I was pointing out a bit of reasoning that proves that you are conscious.

These fields deal with physical approximations of
a complex system of the specific - human type.
These fields use consciousness as an approximation
to direct discription according to physical laws.
That is, instead of explaining how is it that I
require food and how the whole procedure goes on in
the body and the environment, the approximation just
notes - I want to eat. That is the basic info input
that we appear to have while physics is a reasoning
frame we apply to it and interpret it through.
The info itself has no characterization (except the
self-referential maybe) out of the context of our reasoning.

I must point out that this is your assumption, and nothing more, as there are many reputable scientists who believe otherwise.
 
  • #64
Greetings Mentat !
Originally posted by Mentat
What has no satisfactory scientific explanation or definition? Consciousness or Causality? It's really hard to keep up with both of these threads at the same time, without "losing thread" of what you were arguing.
I think we're talking about consciousness in both now,
aren't we ?
Originally posted by Mentat
"Uncertainty" (with a capital "U", which is how Manuel and I agreed to refer to the uncertainty of all things) does not allow one to take anything for granted, correct? However, one must first take Uncertainty for granted, before deciding not to take anything for granted. This means that there is a paradox at the heart of Uncertainty (the paradox of taking for granted that one should take nothing for granted). With this paradox at it's heart, it become quite unusable, as one could not possibly give it a use (without running into it's paradoxicality (if that's actually a word).
Yeah, I know. A paradox, remember ? :wink:
Originally posted by Mentat
Remember, to assume that you assume nothing is a paradox :wink:.
What I said is not a scientific assumption,
it's part of the philosophical background of science.
Originally posted by Mentat
Oh yes? So we assume that we are "getting some data" (which is an assumption of an objective Universe), and we assume that we are capable of "dealing with it".
We ARE getting data. That is the only absolute we
have - existence, characterized by what we experience.
I did not say we were capable of dealing with it.
It is one of many possibilities that we just try.
If it gives us anything - alright, if not - then not.
Originally posted by Mentat
And whether or not it's showing consistency isn't left to assumption?
Of course not. Consistency is judged according to
invented abstract reasoning systems that are by
themselves absolute and axiomatic (at least, all
our abstract reasoning systems so far used axioms).
Originally posted by Mentat
I'm not saying that Science is a belief, I'm saying it's based on a few of them (much like any other branch of Philosophy).
Science is NOT a branch of philosophy.
Science deals with observation. Philosophy is the
background "below", "above" and to the "sides".
Originally posted by Mentat
I wasn't defining, I was pointing out a bit of reasoning
that proves that you are conscious.
Your "reasoning" is self-referential and with no
additional to that content. It reasons nothing and
proves nothing. Sorry.
(This is like Alexander saying that he discribes a
wave using mathematics so mathematics must've created it.)
Originally posted by Mentat
I must point out that this is your assumption, and nothing more, as there are many reputable scientists who believe otherwise.
Any quotes of scientists on consciousness ?

Doubt or shout !

Peace and long life.
 
  • #65
Originally posted by drag
Greetings Mentat !

I think we're talking about consciousness in both now,
aren't we ?

Alright then.

Yeah, I know. A paradox, remember ? :wink:

Thus a dead-end in a rational line of reasoning, as that's what a paradox really is.

What I said is not a scientific assumption,
it's part of the philosophical background of science.

Are we going to discuss Science, or it's Philosophical background. The difference is important, as you are taking the stance of someone who believes in Science (thus, as is my nature, I must take the opposite stance, no matter how much I agree with you), and you cannot just leave it (for it's philosophical background) whenever you wish.

We ARE getting data. That is the only absolute we
have - existence, characterized by what we experience.

Existence may be the only absolute we have (Wuliheron had an excellent thread about this), but existence doesn't equal "getting data".

I did not say we were capable of dealing with it.
It is one of many possibilities that we just try.
If it gives us anything - alright, if not - then not.

But you did say that we try. And if we always try to deal with the data that we get, isn't the logical conclusion that we believe (assume) it is right (and possible) to do so?

Of course not. Consistency is judged according to
invented abstract reasoning systems that are by
themselves absolute and axiomatic (at least, all
our abstract reasoning systems so far used axioms).

How many things are you going to declare absolute, before realizing that absolutes are all assumptions?

Science is NOT a branch of philosophy.
Science deals with observation. Philosophy is the
background "below", "above" and to the "sides".

Philosophy is the love and pursuit of Wisdom/Knowledge/Understanding. Science is one of the ways to pursue Wisdom/Knowledge/Understanding. There was a whole thread dedicated to this point.

Your "reasoning" is self-referential and with no
additional to that content.

It doesn't matter that it's self-referential, as the clause against self-reference is only toward definitions and deductions. If I tell you that you are thinking about that which I have typed at this time, I am telling you the simple, demonstrable, scientific, truth.

Any quotes of scientists on consciousness ?

There is a book by the [great] Philosopher, Daniel Dennet, called "Consciousness Explained". In it (as well as in "The Mind's I") there are numerous insights - with regard to consciousness - that are based on the studies of neurologists and psychologists (both of which are branches of Science, obviously).
 
  • #66
Greetings Mentat !
Originally posted by Mentat
Thus a dead-end in a rational line of reasoning, as
that's what a paradox really is.
Indeed.
Originally posted by Mentat
Are we going to discuss Science, or it's Philosophical background. The difference is important, as you are taking the stance of someone who believes in Science (thus, as is my nature, I must take the opposite stance, no matter how much I agree with you), and you cannot just leave it (for it's philosophical background) whenever you wish.
Science deal with applying some reasoning to
observation. Philsophy deals with applying (often
the same) type of reasoning to any abstract thought.

I do not "believe" in science, I "think" it's correct
BECAUSE it's probable.

I do not see why you should take any side but your own.
Originally posted by Mentat
Existence may be the only absolute we have (Wuliheron had an excellent thread about this), but existence doesn't equal "getting data".
I think it does, these are seemingly all connected,
basic and self-referential concepts (in this context).
Originally posted by Mentat
But you did say that we try. And if we always try to deal with the data that we get, isn't the logical conclusion that we believe (assume) it is right (and possible) to do so?
Well, we could also try to cook it for dinner
or simply ignore it, the possibilities are infinite
I think and some people try to pursue those that
appear usefull (while others don't... ).
Originally posted by Mentat
How many things are you going to declare absolute,
before realizing that absolutes are all assumptions?
What ?!
That's supposed to be my line for you. :wink:
(Is this delibarate or did you seriously fail to
understand me, or perhaps I failed to explain myself,
so badly ? )
Originally posted by Mentat
Philosophy is the love and pursuit of Wisdom/Knowledge/Understanding. Science is one of the ways to pursue Wisdom/Knowledge/Understanding. There was a whole thread dedicated to this point.
Science are likely perspectives upon contents of existence.
Philosophy are all perspectives upon existence - everything.
I guess I should correct myself, you could say that
science is a sub-field of philosophy. It's just that
their roles in modern society slightly obscure this
in terms of semantics.
Originally posted by Mentat
It doesn't matter that it's self-referential, as the clause against self-reference is only toward definitions and deductions. If I tell you that you are thinking about that which I have typed at this time, I am telling you the simple, demonstrable, scientific, truth.
No, a scientific truth in modern times is defined as
a mathematical discription. Please, provide one. :wink:
Originally posted by Mentat
There is a book by the [great] Philosopher, Daniel Dennet, called "Consciousness Explained". In it (as well as in "The Mind's I") there are numerous insights - with regard to consciousness - that are based on the studies of neurologists and psychologists (both of which are branches of Science, obviously).
I'm terribly sorry but I do not regard philosophers
as scientists. :smile:
Anyway, the examples are not that important and are
not a real indication anyway so it's unfair of me
to ask you to do this as some sort of proof. I believe
you are mistaken about this, but let's leave it at that.
(We could post a poll - "Consciousness - something
special according to modern science ?" :wink:)

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #67
Mind if I join drag and mentat. I have a question.
WHAT IS A DEFINITION?
 
  • #68
Greetings sage !
Originally posted by sage
Mind if I join drag and mentat.
Not at all, I think the two of us could certainly
use some air considering this tight discussion.
Originally posted by sage
I have a question. WHAT IS A DEFINITION?
The use of other concepts to explain a specific
concept.

Preferably, the other concepts and their
use in this case should be in consensus amongst the
people deriving the definition since it would
otherwise be considered a subjective rather than
a correct definition by these people as a whole.

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #69
Originally posted by drag
Science deal with applying some reasoning to
observation. Philsophy deals with applying (often
the same) type of reasoning to any abstract thought.

Philosophy deals with applying some type of reasoning to anything. Science limits itself to observable phenomena.

I do not "believe" in science, I "think" it's correct
BECAUSE it's probable.

Why do you think it's probable?

I do not see why you should take any side but your own.

That's the point. The true devil's advocate (who has a truly open mind) doesn't have a "side of his/her own", and can thus take whichever "side" they wish, whenever they wish.

I think it does, these are seemingly all connected,
basic and self-referential concepts (in this context).

Not really so. In one direction, yes - as, in order to take in input, one must exist. But in the other direction, no - as one can exist without taking in input.

Well, we could also try to cook it for dinner
or simply ignore it, the possibilities are infinite
I think and some people try to pursue those that
appear usefull (while others don't... ).

Don't you realize that Scientists all fall into the category of "people who try to pursue those that appear useful"?

What ?!
That's supposed to be my line for you. :wink:
(Is this delibarate or did you seriously fail to
understand me, or perhaps I failed to explain myself,
so badly ? )

I don't think I misunderstood. You said:

Of course not. Consistency is judged according to
invented abstract reasoning systems that are by
themselves absolute and axiomatic (at least, all
our abstract reasoning systems so far used axioms).

And I say that that's an assumption. Well, isn't it?

Science are likely perspectives upon contents of existence.
Philosophy are all perspectives upon existence - everything.
I guess I should correct myself, you could say that
science is a sub-field of philosophy. It's just that
their roles in modern society slightly obscure this
in terms of semantics.

I fully agree with you here (and commend you on a succinct way of describing the problem).

No, a scientific truth in modern times is defined as
a mathematical discription.

Bull. Scientific truth is only verified by mathematical descriptions/predictions.

I'm terribly sorry but I do not regard philosophers
as scientists. :smile:

I don't either, I regard Scientists as Philosophers.

Besides, you do agree that neurology, cognitive science, and psychology are all Sciences, right?

I believe
you are mistaken about this, but let's leave it at that.
(We could post a poll - "Consciousness - something
special according to modern science ?" :wink:)

Fine, if you wish to agree to disagree, I can do that.

And I like this idea for a thread. You should post it, as it is your idea.
 
  • #70
Originally posted by sage
Mind if I join drag and mentat.

Not at all, good buddy, go right ahead :smile:.

I have a question.
WHAT IS A DEFINITION?

Hmm. I'd say that a definition is a way that we (humans) describe something, so as to make another human aware of it's meaning.
 
  • #71
Greetings Mentat !
Originally posted by Mentat
Philosophy deals with applying some type of reasoning to anything. Science limits itself to observable phenomena.
Isn't that what I said ?
Originally posted by Mentat
Why do you think it's probable?
We apply various types of reasoning to observation.
Some of the results appear to be self-consistent.
We then use this reasoning until it fails us or
we find a better one. We can't prove that our solution
is correct or incorrect absolutely, we just see
that it applies for now and consider it likely,
or not see it apply and thus consider it unlikely.

To consider science incorrect is a denial of its
consistency when it comes to explaining observation.
To consider it fully correct is a denial of the
lack of proof for such a claim - a proof neccessetated
by the reasoning systems science itself uses (today
at least) as well as a denial of the history of science
which experienced a number of such changes in reasoning
systems.
Originally posted by Mentat
That's the point. The true devil's advocate (who has a truly open mind) doesn't have a "side of his/her own", and can thus take whichever "side" they wish, whenever they wish.
I'm not quite certain what you're saying.
If you wish to form an optimal opinion on
something then you should clear everything
that's unclear to you and argue against the things
you disagree with, then decide. A true
"devil's advocate" is a person who doesn't form personal
opinions at all - a cynic, who just critisizes others.
Can't see anything good or usefull about that.
Originally posted by Mentat
Not really so. In one direction, yes - as, in order to take in input, one must exist. But in the other direction, no - as one can exist without taking in input.
What do you mean ?
The most basic notion of existence is everything.
You're implying things that require
assumptions - like people who are "vegtables" or
something if I got your meaning.
But again, existence (as I meant it here) as a whole is
just everything. So, everything is also the input
according to this seemingly most basic perspective.
Originally posted by Mentat
Don't you realize that Scientists all fall into the category of "people who try to pursue those that appear useful"?
So ?
I do not see how that implies an assumption on their part ?
Originally posted by Mentat
I don't think I misunderstood. ...
And I say that that's an assumption. Well, isn't it?
I don't think so. As far as I'm aware all of our
reasoning systems so far had been axiomatic and
ussualy absolute.
Originally posted by Mentat
Bull. Scientific truth is only verified by mathematical descriptions/predictions.
Excuse me, I'll correct myself.
Modern science accepts the abstract reasoning system
of mathematics as the seemingly most basic
system avalible because it seemingly has the most
basic axioms which correspond to the most basic
reasoning that science strives for, and also can include
all other reasoning systems that we're so far aware of.
As such science is fomalised through the use of mathematics
while the rest is regarded as interpretations of this
formalism.

Unfortunetly, science is unable (so far at least) to
mathematicly formalise ideas like thought, consciousness
and so on. Further more, it doesn't seem to require
these ideas and appears to be capable of fully formalising
their source as a direct consequence of physical laws,
thus seemingly abandoning the need for them at all.

So, what I'm basicly saying is that if you want to
scientificly prove consciousness or thought you have
to formalise it scientificly just like the theories
of BHs, oranges, planets and normal grey walking ellephants.:wink:
Originally posted by Mentat
I don't either, I regard Scientists as Philosophers.
Nicely formalised response ! :smile:
Originally posted by Mentat
Besides, you do agree that neurology, cognitive science, and psychology are all Sciences, right?
Yes.
Originally posted by Mentat
You should post it, as it is your idea.
O.K.

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #72
Originally posted by DrChinese
Causality is NOT true, at least in some universal sense.

The definition, as previously mentioned, requires that causes precede the effect in time. When a "cause" does not precede the effect, it is - by definition - not a cause.

Since quantum events occur for which there is no predecessor cause (such as when quantum observables do not take on discrete values until the wave state is collapsed by observation), the candidate event cannot be an effect. The effect (value of the observable) occurs simultaneously to the observation (when the wave function collapses). Because cause and effect occur simultaneously in such cases, causality does not apply. QED.

QED is only a model. Taking it for universal truth is pretty narcissistic :)
 
  • #73
Originally posted by drag
Isn't that what I said ?

No, you said to "any abstract thought".

We apply various types of reasoning to observation.
Some of the results appear to be self-consistent.
We then use this reasoning until it fails us or
we find a better one. We can't prove that our solution
is correct or incorrect absolutely, we just see
that it applies for now and consider it likely,
or not see it apply and thus consider it unlikely.

This is the fundamental flaw of Science: It is entirely based on the Inductive method of reasoning, and is thus unprovable (that's why it formulates theories, but can never arrive at facts).

I'm not quite certain what you're saying.
If you wish to form an optimal opinion on
something then you should clear everything
that's unclear to you and argue against the things
you disagree with, then decide.

Perhaps this is the way you would do it, but it is not mine (at least, not Mentat's, as I'm not exactly like this in normal-life situations). If I wish to form an optimal opinion on something, I will debate it with someone else (thus bouncing ideas off of that other person), clear up what is unclear, and then continue to debate against the side of the other person (which is the same as bouncing ideas off of them, provided they can deal with my way of debating).

A true
"devil's advocate" is a person who doesn't form personal
opinions at all - a cynic, who just critisizes others.

That's a contradiction. How can you form no personal opinions, and yet be cynical?

Can't see anything good or usefull about that.

Neither can I, it's a paradox .

What do you mean ?
The most basic notion of existence is everything.
You're implying things that require
assumptions - like people who are "vegtables" or
something if I got your meaning.

I never implied that things required assumptions. I said that science requires assumptions. It does. It requires the distinction between subjective "things" and objective "things" (how many times must I repeat this?).

So ?
I do not see how that implies an assumption on their part ?

They have to assume what is and is not useful. You cannot even define "useful" (it's a "basic term", as you put it, and thus undefinable), and yet they rely on the concept.

I don't think so. As far as I'm aware all of our
reasoning systems so far had been axiomatic and
ussualy absolute.

Rephrase that please. I don't quite understand.

Excuse me, I'll correct myself.
Modern science accepts the abstract reasoning system
of mathematics as the seemingly most basic
system avalible because it seemingly has the most
basic axioms which correspond to the most basic
reasoning that science strives for, and also can include
all other reasoning systems that we're so far aware of.
As such science is fomalised through the use of mathematics
while the rest is regarded as interpretations of this
formalism.

That's not true. Science itself is the product of Inductive methods (as I've already shown; it is at Science's very heart: the scientific method).

So scientific theories are not based on mathematical assumptions, but on Inductive (empirically patterned) ones; mathematics is just used describe these empirical patterns.

Unfortunetly, science is unable (so far at least) to
mathematicly formalise ideas like thought, consciousness
and so on.

I'll have to get back to you on this point, after I finish reading this book on consciousness.

Further more, it doesn't seem to require
these ideas and appears to be capable of fully formalising
their source as a direct consequence of physical laws,
thus seemingly abandoning the need for them at all.

I know that their source is a direct consequence of physical laws. I'd have to be a mystic fool (no offense to any mystics out there) not to. However, I happen to know that cognitive science, psychology, neurology, etc all take for granted the existence of "thought" and "consciousness".

Nicely formalised response ! :smile:

Thanks.

Yes.

Then how can you disagree with calling consciousness a real, physical, phenomenon?
 
  • #74
Greetings Mentat !
Originally posted by Mentat
No, you said to "any abstract thought".
Which sure sounds like anything to me. :wink:
Originally posted by Mentat
This is the fundamental flaw of Science: It is entirely based on the Inductive method of reasoning, and is thus unprovable (that's why it formulates theories, but can never arrive at facts).
Well, that's what we've got. Further more,
any reasoning that is deductive in its basis
is also thus unprovable at its basis.
That's why we have the PoE (for now at least). :wink:
Originally posted by Mentat
Perhaps this is the way you would do it, but it is not mine (at least, not Mentat's, as I'm not exactly like this in normal-life situations). If I wish to form an optimal opinion on something, I will debate it with someone else (thus bouncing ideas off of that other person), clear up what is unclear, and then continue to debate against the side of the other person (which is the same as bouncing ideas off of them, provided they can deal with my way of debating).
Hmm... If I compare this to what I said, the
difference you appear to indicate is this -
Even when Mentat forms an optimal opinion he
will keep bothering people for no reason...:wink:
Originally posted by Mentat
That's a contradiction. How can you form no personal
opinions, and yet be cynical?
LOL
Try talking about the subject we're discussing here,
for example, with some of the people you know (not
through the web). :wink:
Originally posted by Mentat
I never implied that things required assumptions. I said that science requires assumptions. It does. It requires the distinction between subjective "things" and objective "things" (how many times must I repeat this?).
How is that an assumption ?
It's an internal rule again deduced as a seemingly
likely deduction from observation. It's one of the more
basic reasoning principles science got from observation.
Originally posted by Mentat
They have to assume what is and is not useful. You cannot even define "useful" (it's a "basic term", as you put it, and thus undefinable), and yet they rely on the concept.
Ah... I see what you enitially meant now. What you
enitially sayd is just social stuff, not some universal
science related thing.
Originally posted by Mentat
Rephrase that please. I don't quite understand.
I'm not certain what's unclear. It's pretty much a fact
that all reasoning systems mankind invented so far
included axioms and were absolute in some manner - with
absoluteness being defined as some absolute states within
the system that can not allow everything that we could
concieve of (again, basicly due to the axioms).
So, when I say that it's not really an assumption, just
a historical note.
Originally posted by Mentat
That's not true. Science itself is the product of Inductive methods (as I've already shown; it is at Science's very heart: the scientific method).

So scientific theories are not based on mathematical assumptions, but on Inductive (empirically patterned) ones; mathematics is just used describe these empirical patterns.
Unfortunetly, you forget that while observation is
the ultimate induction of science, it is meaningless
without some reasoning applied to it.

For example, it is meaningless for science if I say that
I see a bird fly until I discribe this using math -
translate it into the basic reasoning principles science
currently adepts and then see how much "sense" it makes
within science. This should not be mistaken for the
interpretations we ourselves create. The interpretation,
although limmited in its possibility range, is still
arbitrary while the math is supposed to convey the
basic and solid facts of observation.
Originally posted by Mentat
I'll have to get back to you on this point, after I finish reading this book on consciousness.
Please do.
Originally posted by Mentat
I know that their source is a direct consequence of physical laws. I'd have to be a mystic fool (no offense to any mystics out there) not to. However, I happen to know that cognitive science, psychology, neurology, etc all take for granted the existence of "thought" and "consciousness".
Let's try this again. What I keep telling you is
that these are approximations.

Why are they used ?
Because there is no technologicly reasonable way,
for now, to model the behaviour of all the particles
in the body. However, the above approximations do help
us because they can also explain why I take and eat
a banana in front of me - they say I "want" it. Which
is just an approximation of the physics of the situation
(at least that's the likely conclusion for now).
Originally posted by Mentat
Then how can you disagree with calling consciousness a real, physical, phenomenon?
Purhaps because as far as I'm aware they do not
regard it as such. :wink:

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #75
Originally posted by drag
Which sure sounds like anything to me. :wink:

Not everything is an abstract though, some things are physical, right? That's why I disagreed with you on this point - it seemed as though you were saying that Philosophy was just a realm of abstracts, and didn't deal with physical things.

Well, that's what we've got. Further more,
any reasoning that is deductive in its basis
is also thus unprovable at its basis.
That's why we have the PoE (for now at least). :wink:

You are, of course, aware of the inherent inability of the PoE to be declared existent, as you are attempting, right?

Hmm... If I compare this to what I said, the
difference you appear to indicate is this -
Even when Mentat forms an optimal opinion he
will keep bothering people for no reason...:wink:

Only if it bothers people to help both parties reach a mutual, and optimal, opinion.

LOL
Try talking about the subject we're discussing here,
for example, with some of the people you know (not
through the web). :wink:

No offense, but try answering my question.

How is that an assumption ?
It's an internal rule again deduced as a seemingly
likely deduction from observation. It's one of the more
basic reasoning principles science got from observation.

Yes, it trusts observation (=assumption). It has an "internal rule" that is utterly unprovable (=assumption). You are not proving your point.

Ah... I see what you enitially meant now. What you
enitially sayd is just social stuff, not some universal
science related thing.

What do you mean?

I'm not certain what's unclear. It's pretty much a fact
that all reasoning systems mankind invented so far
included axioms and were absolute in some manner - with
absoluteness being defined as some absolute states within
the system that can not allow everything that we could
concieve of (again, basicly due to the axioms).
So, when I say that it's not really an assumption, just
a historical note.

But axioms must be assumed to be absolute, surely you understand this (being in favor of the great PoE).

Unfortunetly, you forget that while observation is
the ultimate induction of science, it is meaningless
without some reasoning applied to it.

That's what I'm saying. They are taking something that they believe to be an observation (=assumption), and trying to reason on it, using their method that is based on an axiom (=assumption of absoluteness).

For example, it is meaningless for science if I say that
I see a bird fly until I discribe this using math -
translate it into the basic reasoning principles science
currently adepts and then see how much "sense" it makes
within science.

Well, that's obviously dead wrong. I mean, honestly, a scientist would accept the "mosquito on the window-sil" observation as an example of Causality. They only use math later, when attempting to describe how it happened.

This should not be mistaken for the
interpretations we ourselves create. The interpretation,
although limmited in its possibility range, is still
arbitrary while the math is supposed to convey the
basic and solid facts of observation.

Again, assumptions.

Please do.

Let's try this again. What I keep telling you is
that these are approximations.

Why are they used ?
Because there is no technologicly reasonable way,
for now, to model the behaviour of all the particles
in the body. However, the above approximations do help
us because they can also explain why I take and eat
a banana in front of me - they say I "want" it. Which
is just an approximation of the physics of the situation
(at least that's the likely conclusion for now).

Well, now I understand your stance. I disagree, however, and it seems that a good majority of scientists (in the fields I mentioned and others) disagree as well. They don't see consciousness as an approximation of anything, but rather as something real, that is produced through biological/chemical functions.
 
  • #76
Greetings Mentat !
Originally posted by Mentat
Not everything is an abstract thought, some things are physical, right?
Not as far as I'm aware...
Please, define physical ? :wink:
Originally posted by Mentat
That's why I disagreed with you on this point - it seemed as though you were saying that Philosophy was just a realm of abstracts, and didn't deal with physical things.
I meant science and all other observed data = everything.
Originally posted by Mentat
You are, of course, aware of the inherent inability of the PoE to be declared existent, as you are attempting, right?
I am aware (as I said many times) and I'm not attempting.
I'm only showing the limmits.
Originally posted by Mentat
Only if it bothers people to help both parties reach a mutual, and optimal, opinion.
Hmm... O.K. thanks then ! :smile:
Originally posted by Mentat
No offense, but try answering my question.
You mean I didn't ?
Originally posted by Mentat
Yes, it trusts observation (=assumption).
It doesn't. It just does things with it.
If it had other things maybe it would try to
do things with them too, but there does not appear
to be anything else.
Originally posted by Mentat
It has an "internal rule" that is utterly unprovable (=assumption).
Why unprovable ?
It would seem according to observation that the
observed entities called humans apparently result
in data inputs of (amongst others) two types that
supposedly deal with their observation data.

One type is the data that is confirmed and explained
internally by the likely reasoning systems these
entities adopt and others that are not. Hence, the likely
rule is to accept the first type and reject the second
type because the first's likely and the second is not,
according to supposedly previously observed data -
experience - which is the measure of "likeliness".

That is of course, if the likely reasoning systems
these observed entities adopt are good enough for you
and you got no potentialy better ones for now. :wink:
Originally posted by Mentat
What do you mean?
"Usefulness" is just a subjective term.
Originally posted by Mentat
But axioms must be assumed to be absolute, surely you understand this (being in favor of the great PoE).
THAT IS WHAT I'M SAYING !
I'm just making a historical note about all the
reasoning we've used so far !
What's so unclear about that ?!
Originally posted by Mentat
That's what I'm saying. They are taking something that they believe to be an observation (=assumption), and trying to reason on it, using their method that is based on an axiom (=assumption of absoluteness).
For the phousand's time - OBSERVATION IS NOT AN ASSUMPTION !
It is existence itself. All that you have - thoughts,
desires, the "outside" world as you call it - EVERYTHING !
Originally posted by Mentat
Well, that's obviously dead wrong. I mean, honestly, a scientist would accept the "mosquito on the window-sil" observation as an example of Causality. They only use math later, when attempting to describe how it happened.
You're denying the basic mathematical logic that
leads to that assumption in the first place.
Like I said above - "likeliness" is also just an
assumption that we define as part of our reasoning
according to previous roughly quantified and estimated
experience. Purhaps to an "intellegent" alien the fact
that the mosquito bit it a phousand times and it hurt
everytime would not reault in any reasonable connection
(though it's one dumb alien if that's the case ).
Originally posted by Mentat
Again, assumptions.
Nope, that's modern science.
Originally posted by Mentat
They don't see consciousness as an approximation of anything,
but rather as something real, that is produced through biological/chemical functions.
In that case these are scientists that disagree with science.

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #77
Originally posted by drag
Not as far as I'm aware...
Please, define physical ? :wink:

Are we going to remain scientific, or is the Mind idea (or Solipsism) allowed?

I meant science and all other observed data = everything.

Alrighty then. I agree.

I am aware (as I said many times) and I'm not attempting.
I'm only showing the limmits.

Which is equally impossible. Oh well, I'll just leave that alone.

Hmm... O.K. thanks then ! :smile:

By which you mean that you prefer not to reach the optimal conclusion?

You mean I didn't ?

Pretty obvious that that's what I meant.

No, you didn't answer my question. You told me to discuss it with someone else.

It doesn't. It just does things with it.
If it had other things maybe it would try to
do things with them too, but there does not appear
to be anything else.

And thus science must take for granted that there is nothing else. A scientist doesn't leave him/herself open to the idea that perhaps God is witholding the information from them, for example. A scientist cannot be a Solipsist.

Why unprovable ?

Because it's Inductive.

I'm sorry, I really must go now. I will continue my response later.
 
  • #78
Greetings !
Originally posted by Mentat
Are we going to remain scientific, or is the
Mind idea (or Solipsism) allowed?
I think I already said that in my opinion the Mind
idea is not contradicting science or the other way
around. They have no problem with each other as far
as I'm concerned. Also, in my opinion, if someone tells
you otherwise it means that his "science" is one that
includes assumptions and thus not, in my opinion, real science.
Originally posted by Mentat
Which is equally impossible. Oh well, I'll just leave that alone.
Now you know why wuli likes that poetry so much...:wink:
Originally posted by Mentat
By which you mean that you prefer not to reach the optimal conclusion?
On the contrary ! I thanked you since it is potentialy
beneficial for all parties involved. :smile:
Originally posted by Mentat
Pretty obvious that that's what I meant.

No, you didn't answer my question. You told me to discuss it with someone else.
Purhaps there's been a slight misunderstanding here.
I've provided an example of people who can be cynical
although they do not even have an opinion on the
relevant matter. For example, you ask someone what does
he/she think of consciosness as a scientific concept
and weather it is one at all. While such a question
may be respected on PF, a "normal" person will ussualy
try to joke his/her way out of such a discussion.
Further more, aspecialy older or somehow superior
feeling males would often make cynical responses
to try to maintain "face". It is in fact less common
I think to hear such responses for knowlegable experts
in the relevant field rather than from people who have
no idea of what you're talking about.
Originally posted by Mentat
And thus science must take for granted that there is nothing else. A scientist doesn't leave him/herself open to the idea that perhaps God is witholding the information from them, for example. A scientist cannot be a Solipsist.
Again, not true in my opinion. That's why I added
the word "apparently". :wink:
That is, it's not like the absense of anything else
but observation is a basic scientific principle, it's
just what appears to be the case. Further more,
since observation is enitially defined as everything -
existence, it kin'na defies the definition.

That's why science doesn't deal with God or FPEs, they
are seemingly not observed.
Originally posted by Mentat
Because it's Inductive.
No, it's both deductive and inductive.
It's deductive from observation and inductive
from reasoning applied to it. Observation and
the reasoning applied to it are like a circle.
The circle itself is all - existence. Any protrusions
that we draw from this circle are absolute assumptions.
(Damn ! I hate poetry ! )

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #79
Originally posted by drag
I think I already said that in my opinion the Mind
idea is not contradicting science or the other way
around.

How about the fact that Quantum Mechanics doesn't allow any individual particle to have a determined state, while the Mind hypothesis states that the Mind of God is conscious of all things?

Also, in my opinion, if someone tells
you otherwise it means that his "science" is one that
includes assumptions and thus not, in my opinion, real science.

Real science is based on the scientific method (as I've said numerous times before) and thus upholds the distinction between the observer (or scientist) and that which the scientist is observing.

Also, as I've pointed out (above), Quantum Uncertainty appears to have a real problem with Mind ideas.

Now you know why wuli likes that poetry so much...:wink:

Good point.

On the contrary ! I thanked you since it is potentialy
beneficial for all parties involved. :smile:

Oh, alright, please forgive my misunderstanding.

Purhaps there's been a slight misunderstanding here.
I've provided an example of people who can be cynical
although they do not even have an opinion on the
relevant matter. For example, you ask someone what does
he/she think of consciosness as a scientific concept
and weather it is one at all. While such a question
may be respected on PF, a "normal" person will ussualy
try to joke his/her way out of such a discussion.
Further more, aspecialy older or somehow superior
feeling males would often make cynical responses
to try to maintain "face". It is in fact less common
I think to hear such responses for knowlegable experts
in the relevant field rather than from people who have
no idea of what you're talking about.

No, I think you may be confusing "having an opinion on the matter" with "having knowledge of the matter".

Again, not true in my opinion. That's why I added
the word "apparently". :wink:
That is, it's not like the absense of anything else
but observation is a basic scientific principle, it's
just what appears to be the case. Further more,
since observation is enitially defined as everything -
existence, it kin'na defies the definition.

That's why science doesn't deal with God or FPEs, they
are seemingly not observed.

You are wrong here. Science is dependent on the observation of empirical patterns (which is why I call it Inductive).

No, it's both deductive and inductive.
It's deductive from observation and inductive
from reasoning applied to it.

Actually you have it backward, but you are right. Inductive reasoning gives them the observed "pattern", and Deductive reasoning let's them "reason on it" or try to understand it. However, if they hadn't observed the empirical pattern (Inductive reasoning) they would have nothing to reason on (Deductive reasoning), and - since Inductive reasoning is inherently flawed (since you can never try something an infinite amount of times) - thus, science is based on a flawed assumption.
 
  • #80
Greetings !
Originally posted by Mentat
How about the fact that Quantum Mechanics doesn't allow any individual particle to have a determined state, while the Mind hypothesis states that the Mind of God is conscious of all things?
Eh... The "Mind of God" ? I thought we were just
talking about LG's mind hypothesys. In relation
to LG's mind hypothesys the above is not relevant or a
problem at all. But, it seems that we were talking
about different things.
Originally posted by Mentat
Real science is based on the scientific method (as I've said numerous times before) and thus upholds the distinction between the observer (or scientist) and that which the scientist is observing.
What do you mean ?
Originally posted by Mentat
No, I think you may be confusing "having an opinion on the matter" with "having knowledge of the matter".
Well, first of all I would certainly prefer that
such a distinction would not exist. :wink:

Second, the "normal" people do not just often lack
knowledge on such issues but they also even lack
opinions on such issues as well. They just never wonder
about these thing and they don't care. Thus they can be
cynical because they consider you to be abnormal and
thus, in their view, negative. (aah... stupidity... )
Originally posted by Mentat
You are wrong here. Science is dependent on the observation of empirical patterns (which is why I call it Inductive).
Really ? So, what's an empirical pattern ? :wink:
Again, even empiricism is just likely and subjective
according to relevant reasoning being applied.
Originally posted by Mentat
Actually you have it backward, but you are right.
No, you have it backwards and you are wrong. :wink:
Originally posted by Mentat
Inductive reasoning gives them the observed
That is why you are wrong. Like I said here many
times before obsevation is what we see and call
existence itself and that's not an assumption.
Originally posted by Mentat
"pattern"
That is also not an assumption, it is the result
of various types of reasoning being applied and some
of these types providing internally consistent
results according to that specific reasoning. And,
further more some of those types with the internally
consistent results are relevant when further applied
to many other types of observation and thus
called science.

Or, in other words, what you do is that you take
observation and take one or many assumptions - some
abstract reasoning system and you apply it to
observation and see if they appear to match somehow.
If they do then you can add that reasoning type
to what is called science (by calling it a theory),
which is a collection of such internally consistent
r. s.s.

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #81
Originally posted by drag
Eh... The "Mind of God" ? I thought we were just
talking about LG's mind hypothesys. In relation
to LG's mind hypothesys the above is not relevant or a
problem at all. But, it seems that we were talking
about different things.

In case you've forgotten, his big threads on the Mind hypothesis (back in the old PFs and more recently) have been "rational arguments
for the existence of God". He clearly said that he was arguing for the existence of an omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent God, whose Mind was the producer of all perceived reality.

What do you mean ?

Ok, the Scientist observes a phenomenon, he then forms hypotheses... You see, the first step was observation of some phenomenon. The phenomenon had to be occurring objectively, otherwise it would not be an "observation" but a "thought" or "dream" or "hallucination".

Well, first of all I would certainly prefer that
such a distinction would not exist. :wink:

You mean that you'd prefer for all knowledgeable people to also be directly opinionated?

Second, the "normal" people do not just often lack
knowledge on such issues but they also even lack
opinions on such issues as well. They just never wonder
about these thing and they don't care. Thus they can be
cynical because they consider you to be abnormal and
thus, in their view, negative. (aah... stupidity... )

I see. So, they can be cynical about the people who study a topic, while having no opinion on the topic itself? I still disagree. Why would someone form a bad opinion of you, simply because you study something, that they have absolutely no opinion on?

Really ? So, what's an empirical pattern ? :wink:
Again, even empiricism is just likely and subjective
according to relevant reasoning being applied.

How is this not making my point? I was the one who said that Science was an Inductive system of reasoning, and that thus it is only likely and subjective.

No, you have it backwards and you are wrong. :wink:

That is why you are wrong. Like I said here many
times before obsevation is what we see and call
existence itself and that's not an assumption.

I'm not saying that the Inductive reasoning is what gives them the observed phenomenon itself, but rather it gives them the assumption that certain things will repeat themselves.

Let's take gravity, for example: It is considered a Law, by scientists, and is not questioned (though it's source is up for theorizing). However, gravity itself is just an observation based on empirical patterns that have been observed. If, one sad day, it was found that all occurances of gravity were, in fact, coincidence, it would be discovered to never have been a "law" in the first place. Do you see what I'm getting at?

That is also not an assumption, it is the result
of various types of reasoning being applied and some
of these types providing internally consistent
results according to that specific reasoning. And,
further more some of those types with the internally
consistent results are relevant when further applied
to many other types of observation and thus
called science.

Or, in other words, what you do is that you take
observation and take one or many assumptions - some
abstract reasoning system and you apply it to
observation and see if they appear to match somehow.
If they do then you can add that reasoning type
to what is called science (by calling it a theory),
which is a collection of such internally consistent
r. s.s.

Do you actually believe this (no offense)? I mean honestly, after all of my posting of the Scientific Method you still think that someone can just apply some reasoning system to an observation, and call it "science"? This is what you do in "Philosophy", but Science is based on one (and only one) reasoning system - and that reasoning system is the Scientific Method.
Live long and prosper. [/B][/QUOTE]
 
  • #82
Greetings Mentat !
Originally posted by Mentat
In case you've forgotten, his big threads on the Mind hypothesis (back in the old PFs and more recently) have been "rational arguments
for the existence of God". He clearly said that he was arguing for the existence of an omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent God, whose Mind was the producer of all perceived reality.
I don't know about the more recent discussions but
I remember that originally he was just talking
about the Mind - our mind.
Originally posted by Mentat
Ok, the Scientist observes a phenomenon, he then forms hypotheses... You see, the first step was observation of some phenomenon. The phenomenon had to be occurring objectively, otherwise it would not be an "observation" but a "thought" or "dream" or "hallucination".
I see no apparently absolutely provable and precise
distinction between the types of observation we have -
the "physical" world as you call it, thoughts, dreams
and whatever. Science deals with all. For now, only
some actually provided results - a possible simple technicality.
Originally posted by Mentat
You mean that you'd prefer for all knowledgeable people to also be directly opinionated?
The same but with the main words reversed.
Not too hard to guess... :wink:
Originally posted by Mentat
I see. So, they can be cynical about the people who study a topic, while having no opinion on the topic itself? I still disagree. Why would someone form a bad opinion of you, simply because you study something, that they have absolutely no opinion on?
I'm getting that feeling of "arguing just for the
sake of arguing" thingy again. You're still in
high-school, for example, now do you wan'na tell me
that if you talked to most other teenage students there
about some of the things you disuss on PF you won't get
smart-ass cynical responses of boys and gals who have
no real idea of what you're talking about ? Com'mon ! :wink:
Originally posted by Mentat
How is this not making my point? I was the one who said that Science was an Inductive system of reasoning, and that thus it is only likely and subjective.
You assumed that there are some kind of defined
stuff called empirical patterns that science deals
with and that there are other things that science
doesn't, as a rule, deal with. That is not the case.
Originally posted by Mentat
I'm not saying that the Inductive reasoning is what gives them the observed phenomenon itself, but rather it gives them the assumption that certain things will repeat themselves.

Let's take gravity, for example: It is considered a Law, by scientists, and is not questioned (though it's source is up for theorizing). However, gravity itself is just an observation based on empirical patterns that have been observed. If, one sad day, it was found that all occurances of gravity were, in fact, coincidence, it would be discovered to never have been a "law" in the first place. Do you see what I'm getting at?
That "law" is a theory - which in turn means it's
likely not absolute. Further more, like I said
before likeliness itself is just a pattern deduced
by applying some reasoning. Maybe some aliens will
call things "likely" if they are big and "unlikely"
if they are small because that's how they decided
to reason and that's how they appear to get the most
results, while they give no importance to the repetition
of patterns.
Originally posted by Mentat
Do you actually believe this (no offense)? I mean honestly, after all of my posting of the Scientific Method you still think that someone can just apply some reasoning system to an observation, and call it "science"? This is what you do in "Philosophy", but Science is based on one (and only one) reasoning system - and that reasoning system is the Scientific Method.
Unfortunetly I am not familiar with such a reasoning system
nor do I agree that it exists at all. If it does then it would
indeed mean that Science is based upon assumption, but I
do not think that that is the case. (Though I can't prove that
either. All I can do is deny the objections by explaining
their fallacies. :wink:)

Doubt or shout !

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #83
Originally posted by drag
I don't know about the more recent discussions but
I remember that originally he was just talking
about the Mind - our mind.

Well I remember the recent discussions rather vividly, as I was his archenemy in most of them. The fact of that matter was (as he had come to realize), if all of reality was in "our" minds, then there is more than one person. But how can that be, if all of reality is supposed to be in each one person's mind? If all of reality is in my mind, for example, then you do not really exist, except as a "percieved object that my subconscious mind projects on my awareness" (Man I mis lifegazer sometimes), but that means that all of reality is just a product of my mind, since there are no other people.

In the end, lifegazer had refined it to the point where his premise was that everything was a product of the subconscious Mind of God (capital "M", because it was God's mind). However, God was not as most theists believe "him" to be, it (lifegazer's God) was an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, singularity - whose mind produced all of his (God's) perceived reality.

Basically, the reasoning of a 0 dimensional being (for you "Flatland" readers out there).

I see no apparently absolutely provable and precise
distinction between the types of observation we have -
the "physical" world as you call it, thoughts, dreams
and whatever. Science deals with all. For now, only
some actually provided results - a possible simple technicality.

So, basically, Science can work in a Solipsistic universe. I suppose you are mainly right, though I don't see why anyone would go through the trouble trying to learn about that which their own mind is producing, and I don't see why many theories of Science (such as Relativity) would make a distinction between one observer and another.

The same but with the main words reversed.
Not too hard to guess... :wink:

The point is not the same when you switch the main words. "I'd prefer all opinionated people to be directly knowledgeable" is not the same point as "I'd prefer all knowledgeable people to be directly opinionated". This should be obvious.

I'm getting that feeling of "arguing just for the
sake of arguing" thingy again. You're still in
high-school, for example, now do you wan'na tell me
that if you talked to most other teenage students there
about some of the things you disuss on PF you won't get
smart-ass cynical responses of boys and gals who have
no real idea of what you're talking about ? Com'mon ! :wink:

It doesn't matter that they have no idea what I'm talking about, they still have an opinion about it. If I start talking about Relativity to most of the closed-minded fools that got to high school (though I am home-schooled now, I still remember what they were like, when I was in public school), I'd only get a cynical response from those that had formed a negative opinion about studying "all that Science stuff".

You assumed that there are some kind of defined
stuff called empirical patterns that science deals
with and that there are other things that science
doesn't, as a rule, deal with. That is not the case.

Yes it is, and we can go back and forth on this as much as you'd like, but I've already shown you that the Scientific Method (which is at the heart of Science itself) requires repeated experimentation, with the goal of obtaining repeated results (empirical patterns).

That "law" is a theory - which in turn means it's
likely not absolute.

Not true. Gravity itself is a Law, not a theory. I had a big problem accepting this when I read it the first time, but after looking up the scientific definitions of "Law" and "theory" it makes sense.

Further more, like I said
before likeliness itself is just a pattern deduced
by applying some reasoning.

It is not "deduced", it is based on "inductive" reasoning. There is a huge difference, which you should be aware of, after my having posted it so many times.

Maybe some aliens will
call things "likely" if they are big and "unlikely"
if they are small because that's how they decided
to reason and that's how they appear to get the most
results, while they give no importance to the repetition
of patterns.

No, no, no, "likely" (as a word) has it's own definition, and it's own meaning. If some aliens produce the same sound with their vocal systems as we do when we speak the word "likely", then they can apply whatever definition they want to that sound (which is what "word" is, just a sound that you make with your mouth/throat/etc). But, if they are going to use the word "likely" as it is defined for us English-speaking humans, then they will also be observing empirical patterns.

Unfortunetly I am not familiar with such a reasoning system
nor do I agree that it exists at all. If it does then it would
indeed mean that Science is based upon assumption, but I
do not think that that is the case. (Though I can't prove that
either. All I can do is deny the objections by explaining
their fallacies. :wink:)

Have you ever read a single Science textbook? I don't mean to offend (so please don't take offense), but have you ever really learned the basics of Science, before trying to understand complicated things (like QM and GR)? Any high school textbook on Science will explain to you (very near the beginning, usually) what the Scientific Method is.
 
Last edited:
  • #84
Greetings Mentat !
Originally posted by Mentat
Well I remember the recent discussions rather vividly, as I was his archenemy in most of them. The fact of that matter was (as he had come to realize), if all of reality was in "our" minds, then there is more than one person. But how can that be, if all of reality is supposed to be in each one person's mind? If all of reality is in my mind, for example, then you do not really exist, except as a "percieved object that my subconscious mind projects on my awareness" (Man I mis lifegazer sometimes), but that means that all of reality is just a product of my mind, since there are no other people.
Indeed, that is precisely his enitial Mind hypothesys
that I meant. It is seemingly unprovable even in a likely
manner and makes no sense because it includes all of
observation - existence. It is the directly opposed to
materialism - real existence of all, claim that is
equaly apparently unprovable and makes no sense because
it deals with everything - existence.
Originally posted by Mentat
So, basically, Science can work in a Solipsistic universe. I suppose you are mainly right, though I don't see why anyone would go through the trouble trying to learn about that which their own mind is producing, and I don't see why many theories of Science (such as Relativity) would make a distinction between one observer and another.
Well, QM doesn't, for example.
btw, no to sound ignorant, but what precisely does
Solipsistic mean ?
Originally posted by Mentat
The point is not the same when you switch the main words. "I'd prefer all opinionated people to be directly knowledgeable" is not the same point as "I'd prefer all knowledgeable people to be directly opinionated". This should be obvious.
Get off my back !
You know that's what I meant so don't be a nerd !
Originally posted by Mentat
It doesn't matter that they have no idea what I'm talking about, they still have an opinion about it. If I start talking about Relativity to most of the closed-minded fools that got to high school (though I am home-schooled now, I still remember what they were like, when I was in public school), I'd only get a cynical response from those that had formed a negative opinion about studying "all that Science stuff".
Aah...
O.K. O.K. You ARE right ! You ARE the man !
You can start a thread on this for those that are interested. :wink:
Originally posted by Mentat
Yes it is, and we can go back and forth on this as much as you'd like, but I've already shown you that the Scientific Method (which is at the heart of Science itself) requires repeated experimentation, with the goal of obtaining repeated results (empirical patterns).
That doesn't mean that science will not deal with singal
events and not with all seemingly observable singular events.
In fact, it has to before the repeated experiments are carried out.
:wink:
The repetition is required by our forms of resoning which
include stuff like likeliness. But science doesn't ignore or
have a strict definition of such things and will not
ignore certain observations due to such things.
Originally posted by Mentat
Not true. Gravity itself is a Law, not a theory. I had a big problem accepting this when I read it the first time, but after looking up the scientific definitions of "Law" and "theory" it makes sense.
It is a law within the theories of GR, SR and Newtonian Mechanics.
Originally posted by Mentat
It is not "deduced", it is based on "inductive" reasoning. There is a huge difference, which you should be aware of, after my having posted it so many times.
No, it is deduced. If I did not reason that when I see
A then B will happen because it was so the last time then
likeliness will have no meaning. Thus it is a deduction
based upon certain types of causal and separate entity
reasoning being used.
Originally posted by Mentat
No, no, no, "likely" (as a word) has it's own definition, and it's own meaning. If some aliens produce the same sound with their vocal systems as we do when we speak the word "likely", then they can apply whatever definition they want to that sound (which is what "word" is, just a sound that you make with your mouth/throat/etc). But, if they are going to use the word "likely" as it is defined for us English-speaking humans, then they will also be observing empirical patterns.
And if they do not know or understand that meaning ?
You are creating an absolute truth of existence - observation,
but you can not apparently prove it anymore than you can
prove that the past actualy took place or was in the "same
status" = happened just like the apparent present (and so
you can apply the term likeliness).
Originally posted by Mentat
Have you ever read a single Science textbook? I don't mean to offend (so please don't take offense), but have you ever really learned the basics of Science, before trying to understand complicated things (like QM and GR)? Any high school textbook on Science will explain to you (very near the beginning, usually) what the Scientific Method is.
Of course. What science books say at their beginning
(no offense, btw, but I do not believe that high-school
level physics books at all make reference to this subject)
is that physics and science deal with the question "How ?".
Primarily, that is all they say. The rest is philosophy
and is dealt with by philosophy texts rather than science
texts. Science doesn't go backwards and tries to explore
its own roots or else it would either be rendered useless
because these roots do not exist or it will be based
upon assumptions because it will create these roots.
That's why they say it just deals with the question "How ?",
it explores what it can explore along the tracks that it
is set upon by philosophy, which is also why science itself
has no assumptions.

Doubt or shout !

Peace and long life.
 
  • #85
Originally posted by drag
Indeed, that is precisely his enitial Mind hypothesys
that I meant. It is seemingly unprovable even in a likely
manner and makes no sense because it includes all of
observation - existence. It is the directly opposed to
materialism - real existence of all, claim that is
equaly apparently unprovable and makes no sense because
it deals with everything - existence.

While I agree that they are unprovable, why does their dealing with existence make them non-sensical?

Well, QM doesn't, for example.

True, but it does allow for their to be an observer and an observation.

btw, no to sound ignorant, but what precisely does
Solipsistic mean ?

Solipsism is the belief that all of perceived reality is the product of my mind. There is no one else. There is no God, and there are no other minds (nor is there space or time, or anything else), these are just illusions of the singular mind. Sounds a lot like Lifegazer's hypothesis, right? But the one difference is that lifegazer never claimed to be the "Mind", but rather claimed himself to be just another product of the workings of the Mind.

Get off my back !
You know that's what I meant so don't be a nerd !

LOL! Alright, alright, I'll back off :smile:.

Aah...
O.K. O.K. You ARE right ! You ARE the man !
You can start a thread on this for those that are interested. :wink:

LMAO!

That doesn't mean that science will not deal with singal
events and not with all seemingly observable singular events.
In fact, it has to before the repeated experiments are carried out.
:wink:
The repetition is required by our forms of resoning which
include stuff like likeliness. But science doesn't ignore or
have a strict definition of such things and will not
ignore certain observations due to such things.

But a "certain observation" is usually something that can be readily repeated anyway, so they are still stuck in Inductive reasoning.

It is a law within the theories of GR, SR and Newtonian Mechanics.

Just so as not to antagonize you, I'll back away, and won't mention that there isn't a single theory of the physical Universe that isn't subject to that Law. In fact, I won't even mention that a scientific Law is not subject to any theory, but theories are formulated to explain the Law that is already taken for granted as certain.

No, I'll just be a good kid and leave the whole thing alone. :wink:

No, it is deduced. If I did not reason that when I see
A then B will happen because it was so the last time then
likeliness will have no meaning. Thus it is a deduction
based upon certain types of causal and separate entity
reasoning being used.

Fine, but likeliness was not invented through deductive or inductive reasoning, but rather was invented for the purpose of inductive reasoning.

And if they do not know or understand that meaning ?

Then they shouldn't use the word - obviously.

You are creating an absolute truth of existence - observation,
but you can not apparently prove it anymore than you can
prove that the past actualy took place or was in the "same
status" = happened just like the apparent present (and so
you can apply the term likeliness).

Hold on a minute, when did I say that observation was an absolute truth? In fact, as I recall, it has been you who has been saying that existence and observation are the only true absolutes.

Of course. What science books say at their beginning
(no offense, btw, but I do not believe that high-school
level physics books at all make reference to this subject)
is that physics and science deal with the question "How ?".
Primarily, that is all they say. The rest is philosophy
and is dealt with by philosophy texts rather than science
texts. Science doesn't go backwards and tries to explore
its own roots or else it would either be rendered useless
because these roots do not exist or it will be based
upon assumptions because it will create these roots.
That's why they say it just deals with the question "How ?",
it explores what it can explore along the tracks that it
is set upon by philosophy, which is also why science itself
has no assumptions.

*Looks back on his High School Biology, Chemistry, and even Psychology books*. Hmmm. *Notices that they all, at some point, make reference to the Scientific Method, and that the Biology and Chemistry books take you through each of the steps as a study exercise*...
Doubt or shout !

Peace and long life. [/B][/QUOTE]
 
  • #86
Greetings Mentat !
Originally posted by Mentat
While I agree that they are unprovable, why does their
dealing with existence make them non-sensical?
PoE, remember ?
Originally posted by Mentat
True, but it does allow an observer and an observation.
How's that ?
Originally posted by Mentat
But a "certain observation" is usually something that can be readily repeated anyway, so they are still stuck in Inductive reasoning.
Again, this is because we think that stuff like that
is GOOD REASONING. But, it is good reasoning because
of the specific type of reason that we use.

Reasoning itself is both inductive and deductive, it
is seemingly paradoxical(it's like the chicken and egg
argument) and in fact relates to all of existence.
That is, observation is existence (materialism) or
existence is observation (Solipsism as you defined it).
Calling it purely inductive or purely deductive is a
mistake and is seemingly unprovable. We like the word
abstract but what we consider abstract is also a part of
the same thing - observation/existence.

However, science does not include these problems. Science
takes a certain reasoning and uses it. The problems at the
basis of that use are not a part of science but rather of
philosophy.
Originally posted by Mentat
Just so as not to antagonize you, I'll back away, and won't mention that there isn't a single theory of the physical Universe that isn't subject to that Law. In fact, I won't even mention that a scientific Law is not subject to any theory, but theories are formulated to explain the Law that is already taken for granted as certain.

No, I'll just be a good kid and leave the whole thing alone. :wink:
Please, I have no problem whatsoever with continuing
the discussion on this issue. (Though I'm pretty much
certain that I am correct so I do not quite see the need,
unless you really got some good arguments. :wink:)

Anyway, that particular law and all other physical laws
are all parts of theories. This law is dicribed mathematicly
as part of a greater mathematical framework called a theory.
The laws are the basic constructs of the theory that appear
to discribe observation but so does the entire theory.
Interpretations of theories must not be mistaken for the
thing itself, which is just a collection of formulas - laws
and a mention of the type of phenomena that they supposedly
apply to. Sometimes the laws are formed before the theory
and sometimes afterwards as part of it.

As for being subject to that law and including it, the
theories of QM, thermodynamics or Maxwell's original
electromagnetism do not, as far as I know, include Newton's
law of gravity.
Originally posted by Mentat
Fine, but likeliness was not invented through deductive or inductive reasoning, but rather was invented for the purpose of inductive reasoning.
Actualy, since likeliness refers to using the many
to describe the one it's pretty much serving the
purpose of being a tool of deductive reasoning. :wink:
Originally posted by Mentat
Then they shouldn't use the word - obviously.
That's not what I'm talking about you are creating an
absolute truth called likeliness and further reason that
it leads to empirical (another absolute definition) patterns.
Originally posted by Mentat
Hold on a minute, when did I say that observation was an absolute truth? In fact, as I recall, it has been you who has been saying that existence and observation are the only true absolutes.
I'm sorry for not being sufficiently clear. Accordingly with
what I just said in the above response in my relevant
sentence to which you responded here I meant "an absolute
of existence/observation" as in "an absolute PART of existence/
observation" referring to likeliness which was what we
discussed.
Originally posted by Mentat
*Looks back on his High School Biology, Chemistry, and even Psychology books*. Hmmm. *Notices that they all, at some point, make reference to the Scientific Method, and that the Biology and Chemistry books take you through each of the steps as a study exercise*...
"Looks back" ?
As for the Scientific Method described there - care
to ellaborate ? (Is it by any chance a bunch of
deductions from current accepted reasoning ? :wink:
btw, is there by any chance a mention of the fact
that that reasoning is currently apparently violated by QM
which was arrived at as a result of that reasoning ? )

Doubt or shout !

Live long and prosper.
 
Last edited:
  • #87
Originally posted by drag
PoE, remember ?

But apply it directly please.

How's that ?

Schrodinger's principle.

Again, this is because we think that stuff like that
is GOOD REASONING. But, it is good reasoning because
of the specific type of reason that we use.

Say what?

Reasoning itself is both inductive and deductive, it
is seemingly paradoxical(it's like the chicken and egg
argument) and in fact relates to all of existence.

Reasoning can be either inductive or deductive. A certain reasoning system can make use of either or both, but the reasoning system itself is either inductive or deductive at it's center.

That is, observation is existence (materialism) or
existence is observation (Solipsism as you defined it).
Calling it purely inductive or purely deductive is a
mistake and is seemingly unprovable.

No, no, I said that making any conclusion from an observed "pattern" is purely inductive. It requires no deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is added afterward, to try to explain the "pattern", but calling it a pattern, instead of just a coincidence, is purely inductive.

Please, I have no problem whatsoever with continuing
the discussion on this issue. (Though I'm pretty much
certain that I am correct so I do not quite see the need,
unless you really got some good arguments. :wink:)

Nice to see you, drag's ego, where have you been this whole time, while I was proving his reasoning faulty? :wink:

Anyway, that particular law and all other physical laws
are all parts of theories.

No, this is backward. A theory is used to explain observation. A Law is the observation. Observation that is shared by all, and readily reproducable is a Law, but theories are devised to explain how the observed phenomenon works.

As for being subject to that law and including it, the
theories of QM, thermodynamics or Maxwell's original
electromagnetism do not, as far as I know, include Newton's
law of gravity.

No, but if they ever attempt to deal with large objects, then they must take gravity into account. That's why there's all that hype about finding a quantum theory of gravity.

Actualy, since likeliness refers to using the many
to describe the one it's pretty much serving the
purpose of being a tool of deductive reasoning. :wink:

How's that?

That's not what I'm talking about you are creating an
absolute truth called likeliness and further reason that
it leads to empirical (another absolute definition) patterns.

I'm doing no such thing. I'm merely explaining that scientists who think of something as likely, are observing an empirical pattern.

"Looks back" ?

Yes, I passed those subjects already (that's how it works in homeschooling, one subject at a time), and so I had to "look back" at the textbooks that I had been using.

As for the Scientific Method described there - care
to ellaborate ?

I think I did in another post (possibly another thread), but I'll explain it again: First, a scientist observes a phenomenon. Second, s/he forms a hypothesis, to try and explain it. Third, s/he compiles data on the topic. Fourth, s/he tests his/her hypothesis rigorously, and sees if all experiments yield the expected result. Fifth, if the hypothesis "passed the test" of those experiments, it graduates to "theory".

btw, is there by any chance a mention of the fact
that that reasoning is currently apparently violated by QM
which was arrived at as a result of that reasoning ? )

It is not violated by QM, until you can prove otherwise. In case you've forgotten, and "observer" (anything that can exchange energy) can collapse the wave-function of that which it "observes" (interacts with).
 
  • #88
Greetings Mentat !

Please, see my PM.
Originally posted by Mentat
Schrodinger's principle.
What do you mean ? I'm not sure you know what you're talking about.
Originally posted by Mentat
I think I did in another post (possibly another thread), but I'll explain it again: First, a scientist observes a phenomenon. Second, s/he forms a hypothesis, to try and explain it. Third, s/he compiles data on the topic. Fourth, s/he tests his/her hypothesis rigorously, and sees if all experiments yield the expected result. Fifth, if the hypothesis "passed the test" of those experiments, it graduates to "theory".
That is indeed the scientific method.
What does it mean to "observe a phenomenon", what is a test/
hypothesys/data/result/theory ? :wink:
You are ridiculing yourself, no offense:
Originally posted by drag
Or, in other words, what you do is that you take
observation and take one or many assumptions - some
abstract reasoning system and you apply it to
observation and see if they appear to match somehow.
If they do then you can add that reasoning type
to what is called science (by calling it a theory),
which is a collection of such internally consistent
r. s.s.
Originally posted by Mentat
Do you actually believe this (no offense)? I mean honestly, after all of my posting of the Scientific Method you still think that someone can just apply some reasoning system to an observation, and call it "science"? This is what you do in "Philosophy", but Science is based on one (and only one) reasoning system - and that reasoning system is the Scientific Method.

Originally posted by Mentat
It is not violated by QM...
Yes it is. QM shows us that the tiniest scale pieces of which
the Universe is made do not have individuality or one-sided time
or space. These concepts do not have meaning or have
different meaning in the building blocks of all the Universe
we know and they do not make sense to us for precisely the
same reason - because we do not use reasoning that is
supposed to make sense of them.
------------------------------------------------------

I believe I advised you this before once (when you were asking wuli
why he talked to you in the manner that he did): You really
should stop posting for a while and think through precisely
what your philosophical perspective is.

This is apparently the primary reason for the problems I have
with your posts. A further seemingly clear sign of that is
the fact that after we've been through all that I still
do not see precisely where you agree or disagree with me.
Ussualy it doesn't take long before such discussions reach
this point and people understand where they stand and why.
But, I still do not know what your positions are exactly
except that they are for the most part seemingly opposed
to whatever I say(most of these, without real reason as I see it).

Peace and long life.
 

Similar threads

Prob/Stats The Causal Revolution and Why You Should Study It
Replies
6
Views
3K
I The Actual Sleeping beauty Problem
Replies
45
Views
5K
I Are Coin Flips Truly Random Like Quantum Systems?
Replies
3
Views
1K
Is True Randomness Just an Illusion?
Replies
3
Views
2K
How would the world be different if only the WLLN were true?
Replies
1
Views
2K
I Is there any interpretation of QM that doesn't clash with intuition?
Replies
35
Views
507
I Why don't we bury Schrodinger's Cat?
3
Replies
143
Views
10K
Expectation Value- Mean Time to Failure
Replies
8
Views
2K
Why does warping space time still violate causality?
Replies
2
Views
3K
I No relativistic Bohmian mechanics and superluminal causation
Replies
37
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top