Everything is a Computer

  • Thread starter ogb p
  • Start date
  • #51
199
0
I can't see how it could be any other way
LOL
 
  • #52
3,762
2
Originally posted by Mumeishi
You know... THE Truth - the one that cannot be apprehended by reason alone.

[squeak, squeak, squeak - sound of me winding you up]
Foul Play! 30-yard penalty and an atomic wedgy!
 
  • #53
3,762
2
Originally posted by ogb p
Funny, but i meant human theories are open to human error.
Sure enough, except there are no "human theories"...

Just lettin' that sink in for a while...

Theories are formulated as dictated by the Scientific Method. That a human is using the Method, and no some alien, is irrelevant. The Method is only subject to logical error, and new theories formed therein are subject only to either being modified or being replaced.

There is a trickly bit of semantics here. I consider the process of model building to be creative. But there is also a process of 'discovery' when data is collected and compared to the models; In the pocess of data collection it is 'discovered' wheter a model is truely reflect nature. String Theory, for example, is at this point it is still just a mathematical creation. But, if enough data is collected to verify it, it is possible that it could be 'discovered' to be more than just math.
We are building a "model" to explain that which was discovered.

I think the basic difference between you and russ's position and mine is that I consider scientific theories as being valuable because of their pragmatic usefulness whereas you suggest that it is about what is [absolutely] real.
I never said anything was absolutely real, merely that that is what Science assumes (and, by that, I mean that Science assumes the ability to discover Inductive validity through empirical data, gathered from the "actual reality").

But my main dissagreement with russ was his initial statement that "determinism is dead". As studies in Dynamical Systems and Chaos Theory, and in books like Wolfram's New Science, it has been shown that not just probablistic, but full blown choatic systems can be modeled using a few very simple determinist formulas. Determinism isn't just alive: its making a comeback. The site http://digitalphysics.org/ that Glenn provided is also a good example.
Alright, I'll agree that it isn't wise to just say that some idea "is dead", but (IMO) it wouldn't need to "come back" unless it was at some point "gone" :wink:.
 
  • #54
3,762
2
Originally posted by Another God
Wooohoo! Go determinism!

(Closet determinist)

(truth being: I can't see how it could be any other way)
LOL!

Are you saying you've come "out of the closet", now?
 
  • #55
27
0
Originally posted by Mentat
Sure enough, except there are no "human theories"...
How about "human knowledge"? Let's see how it fits with your arguements:

[knowledge] can be discovered using the Scientific Method. That a human [has certain knowledge], and not some alien, is irrelevant. [Knowledge] is only subject to logical error, and new [knowledge discovered using the Scientific Method is] subject only to either being modified or being replaced.

Therefore there is no "human knowledge".

You might rightfully complain that this an unfair substitution, but I am only trying to make a semantic point: when we say "human knowledge" what we really mean is "[what] humans [have] knowledge [of]". And when I say "human theories", I really mean "[things] humans [have] theories [about]". Knowledge and Theories can be known or formulated by aliens (and there is nothing wrong with the hypothetical idea of aliens:wink:). Furthermore, knowledge and theories have no dependance on whether humans (or aliens) exist. (I think this was your underlying point which I agree with.)

We are building a "model" to explain that which was discovered.
This is a difference between Mathematicians and Physiscts: Mathematicians build models for the pure pleasure of building models, and they think to themselves, "let someone else deal with the tedious process of figuring out which ones are useful in the 'actual world'".

I never said anything was absolutely real, merely that that is what Science assumes (and, by that, I mean that Science assumes the ability to discover Inductive validity through empirical data, gathered from the "actual reality").
This is an excellent description of the metaphysics of Science. A-god did a good job classifying this thread.

Alright, I'll agree that it isn't wise to just say that some idea "is dead", but (IMO) it wouldn't need to "come back" unless it was at some point "gone" :wink:.
Please forgive me for one last bit of semantic nit picking: Determinism was 'down', but not out (or "gone"). Fate brought it back :wink:.
 
Last edited:
  • #56
27
0
Of course, I'm not suggesting you shouldn't look for alternative explanations though Ogb. What sort of name is that anyway?
[/quote]

my handle is just intitials. I relized recently that the letters could be rearranged to spell God. but they could also spell Dog. Either way I had no ideas about god or dogs when I choose it (All the good handles are alwayse taken so I get frustrated fast and stop trying to get a cool handle.)
 
  • #57
Another God
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
976
3
Originally posted by ogb p

my handle is just intitials. I relized recently that the letters could be rearranged to spell God. but they could also spell Dog. Either way I had no ideas about god or dogs when I choose it (All the good handles are alwayse taken so I get frustrated fast and stop trying to get a cool handle.)
actually, there is no d in your name.
You could spell bog, but thats probably not a good idea. Gob is also less appealing
 
  • #58
3,762
2
Originally posted by ogb p
How about "human knowledge"? Let's see how it fits with your arguements:

[knowledge] can be discovered using the Scientific Method.
Knowledge is not discovered, it is held. Our "knowledge" is a collection of our beliefs and preconceptions.

But I see your point now (from having read the rest of the paragraph, which I did not quote), and I pretty much agree.

This is a difference between Mathematicians and Physiscts: Mathematicians build models for the pure pleasure of building models, and they think to themselves, "let someone else deal with the tedious process of figuring out which ones are useful in the 'actual world'".
This is true, but physicists are the ones who make observations, and then reach into the mathematicians bag of goodies to see if there's anything that fits.

This is an excellent description of the metaphysics of Science. A-god did a good job classifying this thread.
Yeah, it's basically a matter of both it's "metaphysics" and its epistemology, and so it fits :smile:.

Please forgive me for one last bit of semantic nit picking: Determinism was 'down', but not out (or "gone"). Fate brought it back :wink:.
Very nice.
 

Related Threads on Everything is a Computer

  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
5K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
32
Views
8K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
43
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
4K
Top