Eternal Inflation and it's Philospohical implications

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Mentat
When I said that it didn't allow for anything to be below a Plancks length, I meant that it things just started to get bigger (in the "mirror world") when they get that small. Doesn't that release physicists from the need to find out what happens below a Planck's length?

Not at all. Their explanation must still fullfill two criteria, Occam's Razor and predictability. Either this explanation is the simplest one that explains what we observe and predicts phenomena nothing else can or it is not a physical theory.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Not at all. Their explanation must still fullfill two criteria, Occam's Razor and predictability. Either this explanation is the simplest one that explains what we observe and predicts phenomena nothing else can or it is not a physical theory.

Not all theories have to satisfy Occam's Razor, in order to be good. I could make something up like lifegazer's Mind hypothesis, and that would satisfy Occam's Razor much better than any scientific theories, but that doesn't mean that I (or lifegazer) would be correct.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Mentat
Not all theories have to satisfy Occam's Razor, in order to be good. I could make something up like lifegazer's Mind hypothesis, and that would satisfy Occam's Razor much better than any scientific theories, but that doesn't mean that I (or lifegazer) would be correct.

A good theory by scientific standards has to be falsifiable, which LG's theory most certainly is not. If by some strange chance you invented a useful theory around his, the scientific world would still trim off all the meaningless stuff and reduce it to its bare bones.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wuliheron
A good theory by scientific standards has to be falsifiable, which LG's theory most certainly is not. If by some strange chance you invented a useful theory around his, the scientific world would still trim off all the meaningless stuff and reduce it to its bare bones.

Falsification can not be the only standard, cause the theory itself lacks falsification.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by heusdens
Falsification can not be the only standard, cause the theory itself lacks falsification.

Like I said, If it turned out to be useful they'd trim down to bare essentials and then try to falsify it. In the mean time, it might as well be a bad hollyweird screen play as far as science is concerned.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
A good theory by scientific standards has to be falsifiable, which LG's theory most certainly is not. If by some strange chance you invented a useful theory around his, the scientific world would still trim off all the meaningless stuff and reduce it to its bare bones.

How do we know that LG's hypothesis isn't falsifiable?

 

[Eh]

Because it was designed to be unfalsifiable. There is no finding from physics, biology, cosmology or any other science that could ever refute the mind hypothesis, because hey, those findings would simply have been a result of the mind at work. See some of the past threads with LG about that.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Eh
Because it was designed to be unfalsifiable. There is no finding from physics, biology, cosmology or any other science that could ever refute the mind hypothesis, because hey, those findings would simply have been a result of the mind at work. See some of the past threads with LG about that.

Oh *smacks self on head (head starting to hurt, after such numerous mistakes)*, I thought of that right after I posted before. I'm sorry. Yes, I guess it is empirically unfalsifiable (much like the religious idea of God's existence), however it seems to be falsifiable by reason.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Eh
Because it was designed to be unfalsifiable. There is no finding from physics, biology, cosmology or any other science that could ever refute the mind hypothesis, because hey, those findings would simply have been a result of the mind at work. See some of the past threads with LG about that.

In general one can say, that anything that is not existing, has lack of falsification. If something doesn't exist, doesn't mean that one can proof that it doesn't exist. The inability to disproof something does not mean that it can constitute proof.

 

[Eh]

Correct, absence of evidence does mean evidence of absence. But what it does is make such a hypothesis completely useless. Since it can never be verified, so long as it is logically consistant we can never know if it is correct. That is the problem with ideas such as the mind hypothesis, as whether or not the idea is right will have no effect on our attempts to understand how the world works.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Eh
Correct, absence of evidence does mean evidence of absence. But what it does is make such a hypothesis completely useless. Since it can never be verified, so long as it is logically consistant we can never know if it is correct. That is the problem with ideas such as the mind hypothesis, as whether or not the idea is right will have no effect on our attempts to understand how the world works.

Right. The hypothesis asks us to throw away all of our knowledge, and start again, based on nothing more as an assumption. The idea can never be prooved. It can only be proved there is absolutely no evidence for it. So we should just drop the idea all together.

 

[Eh]

Just try explaining it to LG.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Eh
Just try explaining it to LG.

My reply to all of this chat about my argument can be found within my current thread. Read my last post to heusdens, made today.
It begins: ""I can promise the readers that not one single argument can be formulated, using logic, to show that an external reality exists."
Furthermore, my argument is founded upon an absolute fact about existence: we all experience existence via inner sensation. Anybody who thinks this is an 'assertion', is just kidding themselves. But they aren't kidding the sincere debaters within this forum.
And finally; my response to this: "Right. The hypothesis asks us to throw away all of our knowledge, and start again.", is that this statement is absolute nonsense. Everything we know has its own value. I ask the readers to discard of no knowledge and start again. I ask the readers to discard of their beliefs pertaining to materialistic philosophy. Science is not killed by my philosophy. Materialism is.

Any response to this post is welcomed within my thread. I don't want to spoil the original subject-matter. But my response here was justified, given the recent chat. Thanks.

 

[FZ+]

Let's repeat that again. You are assuming that the absence of proof for external reality is proof of absence. This is fundamentally incorrect. To work on that assumption is to go beyond the limits to which reason is applicable. So, your post cannot represent a proof, but is a belief in itself.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
My reply to all of this chat about my argument can be found within my current thread. Read my last post to heusdens, made today.
It begins: ""I can promise the readers that not one single argument can be formulated, using logic, to show that an external reality exists."
Furthermore, my argument is founded upon an absolute fact about existence: we all experience existence via inner sensation. Anybody who thinks this is an 'assertion', is just kidding themselves. But they aren't kidding the sincere debaters within this forum.
And finally; my response to this: "Right. The hypothesis asks us to throw away all of our knowledge, and start again.", is that this statement is absolute nonsense. Everything we know has its own value. I ask the readers to discard of no knowledge and start again. I ask the readers to discard of their beliefs pertaining to materialistic philosophy. Science is not killed by my philosophy. Materialism is.

Any response to this post is welcomed within my thread. I don't want to spoil the original subject-matter. But my response here was justified, given the recent chat. Thanks.

You are wrong here. You say that no argument can be used to prove an external reality. There are good few points made that contradict your idea, in the Hudles to the Mind hypothesis thread - which is why, I suspect, you stopped posting on that thread - and you have yet to present any reason for us to abandon belief in an external reality.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
My reply to all of this chat about my argument can be found within my current thread. Read my last post to heusdens, made today.
It begins: ""I can promise the readers that not one single argument can be formulated, using logic, to show that an external reality exists."
Furthermore, my argument is founded upon an absolute fact about existence: we all experience existence via inner sensation. Anybody who thinks this is an 'assertion', is just kidding themselves. But they aren't kidding the sincere debaters within this forum.
And finally; my response to this: "Right. The hypothesis asks us to throw away all of our knowledge, and start again.", is that this statement is absolute nonsense. Everything we know has its own value. I ask the readers to discard of no knowledge and start again. I ask the readers to discard of their beliefs pertaining to materialistic philosophy. Science is not killed by my philosophy. Materialism is.

Any response to this post is welcomed within my thread. I don't want to spoil the original subject-matter. But my response here was justified, given the recent chat. Thanks.

Materialism is not founded on belief. the very essence of materialism is that it is effectively grounded on scientific knowledge of the world. There is only one possibility: either accept science or belief in god (religion). That is what this whole discussion is all about. One cannot establish science without materialism.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
Materialism is not founded on belief. the very essence of materialism is that it is effectively grounded on scientific knowledge of the world. There is only one possibility: either accept science or belief in god (religion). That is what this whole discussion is all about. One cannot establish science without materialism.

You don't have to sweat-it anymore. They locked my thread.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
You don't have to sweat-it anymore. They locked my thread.

It was obviously leading to nowhere. I hope you don't mind that scientific minded people don't see any reason to leave materialism and replace it with belief in God.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Lifegazer...

What was the title of the thread?

And what do you mean "they locked it"?

Tell me what your point was in 20 words or less. Thanks.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
What was the title of the thread?

"An argument for the existence of God?"

And what do you mean "they locked it"?

They put a lock on the thread so nobody could post anything else.

Tell me what your point was in 20 words or less. Thanks.

Existence is God.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
"An argument for the existence of God?"

They put a lock on the thread so nobody could post anything else.

Existence is God.

What a profound and deep insight this is. Existence is God.
One merely replaces the definition of existence with some other term, and there one has a new philosophy established!

This is just a deep and very profound well, you are digging into. Now one can establish any other philosophy one wants, providing in last instance one claims : "Existence is X" (substitute any X for this).

With that method any foolish theory can be claimed to be true of course.

 

[quantumdude]

Guys:

The god thread is kaput. This thread is for discussing eternal inflation, not for continuing the other thread. Gaspar, if you have questions for LG about his thread, please send him a Private Message.

 

[heusdens]

LG logic

"I can promise the readers that not one single argument can be formulated, using logic, to show that an external reality exists."

Using logic, the above statement is really true, but which then does not lead to the conclusion that no such reality exist, but that the instrument of logic in itself is not sufficient to proof this.

Sometimes one needs to actually dig into reality itself, to conclude anything...

If I lock myself up in my house, and persist in never leaving my house, I will never find out evidence that for instance Sydney (20.000 km from here) exists. How can I ever testify then that Sydney really exists?