Pissing off the atheists/naturalists

[Will Bouwman]

I believe that the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand was a factor in the events leading to WW1, for example.

Sure. And I believe that The Big Bang was a factor in the events leading to WW1.

Your belief is vacuous of information.

Yet you call it a belief, despite the fact that no calculations/predictions are performed, as per your

Use is belief.

thesis.

I might change my mind about the Archduke, but it won't make a lot of difference to any calculations/predictions.

What does changing your mind entail exactly? Believing that the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand was NOT a factor in the events leading to WW1?

Well duh!

Now that's a belief containing some information. Maybe you think WW1 would've happened with or without him getting assassinated?

What predictions/calculations can I suddenly do with that information that you assume I haven't already done?

So, according to you, by keeping "all theories" in his head, Feynman believes only the one he is using at any given time.

Well duh! Did you not even entertain the competing hypothesis when you settled on your current belief?

e.g the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand was NOT a factor in the events leading to WW1?

Whether there would have been a war without the assassination of Ferdinand is a moot point. I think the consensus among historians is that there would. But I do believe that the assassination was a factor contributing to the actual WW1 which happened when and how it did.

Scientists are human beings. They believe things for probably incalculable, and certainly currently incalculable reasons: their background, education, a hunch or just a wild guess. There are different research teams, sometimes in the same university or company, using different approaches to try and tackle the same issues. It's just some human's nature to have more commitment to something they think is true; that doesn't necessarily make them any less a scientist. James Clerk Maxwell believed in the luminiferous ether: Einstein believed in a 'spacetime' with mechanical properties.

None of which addresses the point that even though you might commit your life to it; you have to bite the bullet on maybe the premises of your paradigm are wrong.

That's why we design concurrent systems in comp-sci.

And it's why some philosophers of science insist that all hypotheses are theory laden.

One team works on A.
One team works on not-A.

If either one gets a result - let the other bunch know.

And in your view one team believes A, and another believes not-A.

Probably incalculable reasons, but one influence was Bertrand Russell, probably in his introductory Problems of Philosophy, claiming that anything that is not logically impossible might be true.

That's not a very good scale for choosing which one is most probable amongst allt he true options...

It is completely useless in that regard, not being designed for it.

Yeap... that dichotomy doesn't fly. Maybe the universe did come about 5 minutes ago. 5 human minutes; or 5 universal minutes?

What's your unit of time?

To define the age of the universe in terms of Earth laps around the Sun is that good ole' geocentrism again.

Well, Earth time is defined in seconds which are defined by the behaviour of caesium atoms. Who knows, perhaps caesium atoms behave differently everywhere other than Earth.

To define the age of the universe in terms of Earth laps around the Sun is that good ole' geocentrism again.

Yep, I do believe a lot of things. Some of those might have pre-fucked me; some, if certain theists are to be believed have post-fucked me too.

Is the belief in geocentric time a pre or a post-fuck according to you?

Sure sounds very 'Earth is 6000 years old" kinda vibe...

That's what some theists keep telling me.

So God = ANY useful scientific theory?

Que? Evidence-based choice of time-irreducible complexity over the competing hypothesis: reducible complexity.

Go for it.

So go then. I've told you what my selector is.

Irreducible complexity is evidence-based. Absent evidence of a successful reduction by reductionists doing reductionism the theory remains unfalsified.

If you are looking for evidence of a successful reduction by reductionists doing reductionism, you should ask a successful reductionist doing reductionism. From a philosophy of science point of view, irreducible complexity is unfalsified. So what?

[Skepdick]

Yet you call it a belief, despite the fact that no calculations/predictions are performed, as per your

Use is belief.

thesis.

There's at least one prediction I can make - WW1 wouldn't have happened if Big Bang didn't happen.

What predictions/calculations can I suddenly do with that information that you assume I haven't already done?

Calculating your own weights/thresholds for belief? Do you think the assassination was such a significant factor that if it hadn't happened - WW1 would've been avoided? Was is the root cause; or is it impossible to disentangle them?

Whether there would have been a war without the assassination of Ferdinand is a moot point. I think the consensus among historians is that there would. But I do believe that the assassination was a factor contributing to the actual WW1 which happened when and how it did.

Now there's a useless tautology.

I think the car in which he was assassinated was a contributing factor too...
And I think the factory manufacturing the gun with which he was murdered was a cotnributing factor.
And Gavrilo Princip's parents ever meeting was also a factor contributing to WW1.

If historians agree that the war would've happened anyway then the assassination was just a bee fart at 40 paces. And maybe it wasn't even a bee fart.

And it's why some philosophers of science insist that all hypotheses are theory laden.

All the more reason to suspend judgment and evaluate all of them concurrently.

And in your view one team believes A, and another believes not-A.

In my view you can have as many beliefs as you want. Run them concurrently.

If you reject some - explain why.
If you rank the remaining ones against each other - explain how.

It is completely useless in that regard, not being designed for it.

So design better?

Well, Earth time is defined in seconds which are defined by the behaviour of caesium atoms. Who knows, perhaps caesium atoms behave differently everywhere other than Earth.

Very very strange measurement unit that... Didn't cesium atoms of any kind only appear "380000 years" after the Big Bang?

So now we need a new word for this kind of centrism. Cesiocentrism?

Anyway... it's still circular.

That's what some theists keep telling me.

And what does your evidence-weighing function tell you?

If you are looking for evidence of a successful reduction by reductionists doing reductionism, you should ask a successful reductionist doing reductionism. From a philosophy of science point of view, irreducible complexity is unfalsified. So what?

So what?!?! It's the most important fucking question!

Is it unfalsified (just give us more time) or unfalsifiable (all the time in the world wouldn't be enough to reduce it)?

[Will Bouwman]

There's at least one prediction I can make - WW1 wouldn't have happened if Big Bang didn't happen.

Well aren't you the Nostradamus?

In my view you can have as many beliefs as you want. Run them concurrently.

If you reject some - explain why.

It doesn't work.

If you rank the remaining ones against each other - explain how.

I like it.

It is completely useless in that regard, not being designed for it.

So design better?

No need; it's perfectly adequate for its intended use.

That's what some theists keep telling me.

And what does your evidence-weighing function tell you?

Well, after carefully weighing the evidence, the idea that the Earth is 6000 years old is utter bollocks.

From a philosophy of science point of view, irreducible complexity is unfalsified. So what?

So what?!?! It's the most important fucking question!

Why's that then?

Is it unfalsified (just give us more time) or unfalsifiable (all the time in the world wouldn't be enough to reduce it)?

Who cares? Neither means it is true.

[Skepdick]

It doesn't work.

Why's that; and what would you need to make it work?

I like it.

More than simply picking any one at random? Why?

No need; it's perfectly adequate for its intended use.

So it works. What is its intended use then?

Well, after carefully weighing the evidence, the idea that the Earth is 6000 years old is utter bollocks.

Right!

And after carefully weighing the evidence, the idea that The Universe is 13.8 billion years old seems utter bollocks too.

For the exact same reasons too. It's a human-centric definition of time.

Who cares? Neither means it is true.

It's not true that the Earth is flat; and it's not true that the Earth's oblate, but I am thinking one of those is less not-true than the other.

[Will Bouwman]

It doesn't work.

Why's that; and what would you need to make it work?

Probably a bunch of ad hoc fudges.

I like it.

More than simply picking any one at random? Why?

Picking something because you like it isn't random.

No need; it's perfectly adequate for its intended use.

So it works. What is its intended use then?

Well, both Parmenides and Descartes were rationalists. Their aim was to build a body of knowledge based on sound premises. Both invoked gods, in the case of Parmenides, this is thought to be Hemera, the Greek goddess of day. She was brought in to add weight to Parmenides' assertion that something exists; it doesn't actually take a god to prove that, but Parmenides knew his audience. Parmenides inference that the universe is an eternal and perfect sphere is flawed, but if you were to bring him forward by two and a half thousand Earth rotations, or however many shakes of caesium that is, there are parallels with modern block universe theories. Descartes' god was the regular Vatican approved example. This god was brought in after Descartes had arrived at 'I think, therefore I am', because without God, Descartes realised there was absolutely nothing that follows from 'therefore I am'.
Hat's off to both of them though; they both achieved step one of their programs. Analytic a posteriori too; something Kant said was self-contradictory and therefore couldn't exist.

Well, after carefully weighing the evidence, the idea that the Earth is 6000 years old is utter bollocks.

Right!

And after carefully weighing the evidence, the idea that The Universe is 13.8 billion years old seems utter bollocks too.

For the exact same reasons too. It's a human-centric definition of time.

So you don't like the units. One story involves a couple of mysteries plus time. The other is straightforward magic and a lot less time.

Who cares? Neither means it is true.

It's not true that the Earth is flat; and it's not true that the Earth's oblate, but I am thinking one of those is less not-true than the other.

That the Earth is oblate is true enough for me. What age do you think irreducible complexity puts on the Earth? Pick our own units if you wish.

[Skepdick]

It doesn't work.

Why's that; and what would you need to make it work?

Probably a bunch of ad hoc fudges.

I'm thinking you don't want to ad hoc fudge anything.

So... what do you need to make it work without fudging?

Picking something because you like it isn't random.

It's as good as random if you didn't pick your likes and dislikes.

Well, both Parmenides and Descartes were rationalists. Their aim was to build a body of knowledge based on sound premises. Both invoked gods, in the case of Parmenides, this is thought to be Hemera, the Greek goddess of day. She was brought in to add weight to Parmenides' assertion that something exists; it doesn't actually take a god to prove that, but Parmenides knew his audience. Parmenides inference that the universe is an eternal and perfect sphere is flawed, but if you were to bring him forward by two and a half thousand Earth rotations, or however many shakes of caesium that is, there are parallels with modern block universe theories. Descartes' god was the regular Vatican approved example. This god was brought in after Descartes had arrived at 'I think, therefore I am', because without God, Descartes realised there was absolutely nothing that follows from 'therefore I am'.
Hat's off to both of them though; they both achieved step one of their programs. Analytic a posteriori too; something Kant said was self-contradictory and therefore couldn't exist.

Reciting material from historybooks doesn't come any closer to answering the question of how and why you did something.

So you don't like the units. One story involves a couple of mysteries plus time. The other is straightforward magic and a lot less time.

You seem confused about the Oxford meaning of "magic".

All stories require magic.
All stories have mysteries about time.

I am simply gauging the mysteriousness of the ad-hoc time fudge.

That the Earth is oblate is true enough for me.

So NOT being true is "true enough" for you? That's so peculiar.

How have you chosen between the two non-truths?

What age do you think irreducible complexity puts on the Earth? Pick our own units if you wish.

That depends on how you want to measure "age". Relative to which event?

Seeming as you are an atheist, and you probably reject the event which is signified by the the 1BC / 1AD nomenclature; what year is it according to you?

[Will Bouwman]

I'm thinking you don't want to ad hoc fudge anything.

Ad hoc fudges are part of science. Thomas Kuhn pointed this out in his characterisation of 'normal' science, part of which involves 'problem solving'. If a model works for most purposes, there is no need to abandon it because of some anomalies. Stick a patch on it and carry on.

So... what do you need to make it work without fudging?

Whether you need a fudge depends on your constraints.

Picking something because you like it isn't random.

It's as good as random if you didn't pick your likes and dislikes.

Well, if you couple that with your daft claim that your decision making is based infinitesimal calculations, it raises an interesting question: if AI becomes conscious, would it be conscious of the processes that make it conscious? Could AI ever simply like something and not know why?

Reciting material from historybooks doesn't come any closer to answering the question of how and why you did something.

Of course it does. If you have lost your way, follow the thread back and you'll find your original question was:

How have you chosen which processing framework (theory!) to use?

That the Earth is oblate is true enough for me.

So NOT being true is "true enough" for you? That's so peculiar.

Only to people who don't understand science, history nor humans.

What age do you think irreducible complexity puts on the Earth? Pick our own units if you wish.

That depends on how you want to measure "age". Relative to which event?

Seeming as you are an atheist, and you probably reject the event which is signified by the the 1BC / 1AD nomenclature; what year is it according to you?

2023 fits very comfortably within my constraints, and I'm quite happy to use any of the 2023 orbits of Earth since the claimed event as a unit of time. How many times would you suggest we unwind Earth to find the first irreducibly complex structure?

[Skepdick]

I'm thinking you don't want to ad hoc fudge anything.

Ad hoc fudges are part of science. Thomas Kuhn pointed this out in his characterisation of 'normal' science, part of which involves 'problem solving'. If a model works for most purposes, there is no need to abandon it because of some anomalies. Stick a patch on it and carry on.

Removing fudges down the line is also part of cleaning up technical debt.
As our understanding improves; as theories are unified and as our fudges become unnecessary.

So you are dodging the question. Again.

Whether you need a fudge depends on your constraints.

I know. But you are still dodging the question.

So... what do you need to make it work without fudging?

Well, if you couple that with your daft claim that your decision making is based infinitesimal calculations, it raises an interesting question: if AI becomes conscious, would it be conscious of the processes that make it conscious? Could AI ever simply like something and not know why?

Which has what to do with the randomness of the choices?

My choice to use infinitesimals merely defines randomness. monad(0.5).
Anything outside of this threshold is NOT random.

Reciting material from historybooks doesn't come any closer to answering the question of how and why you did something.

Of course it does. If you have lost your way, follow the thread back and you'll find your original question was:

How have you chosen which processing framework (theory!) to use?

He says "of course it does" when it's clear that it doesn't. Telling me how other people have chosen which processing framework (theory!) to use doesn't tell me how YOU have chosen which processing framework (theory!) to use.

You want me to tell you how and why I chose monad(0.5) and infinitesimals?
Because it helps delineate underdetermined, determined and over-determined theories.

Three categories - not two.

Only to people who don't understand science, history nor humans.

Now there's an exception to your rule...

I am none of those. And yet here I am - confused.

2023 fits very comfortably within my constraints, and I'm quite happy to use any of the 2023 orbits of Earth since the claimed event as a unit of time.

That's a peculiar mode of thinking. Which claimed event are you talking about? The one you don't believe happened?

How many times would you suggest we unwind Earth to find the first irreducibly complex structure?

I'm thinking after about 4.5 billion earth-years of unwinding your unit-time would stop making sense...

[Will Bouwman]

So... what do you need to make it work without fudging?

If a theory doesn't work without fudging, it doesn't work without fudging.

2023 fits very comfortably within my constraints, and I'm quite happy to use any of the 2023 orbits of Earth since the claimed event as a unit of time.

That's a peculiar mode of thinking. Which claimed event are you talking about? The one you don't believe happened?

Yup.

How many times would you suggest we unwind Earth to find the first irreducibly complex structure?

I'm thinking after about 4.5 billion earth-years of unwinding your unit-time would stop making sense...

Do you have a unit of time, some cyclical event perhaps, that you would prefer? If so, is there any reason they could not be converted into what we call years? If you find counting too difficult, could you at least confirm whether, in your belief, there were no irreducibly complex organisms, and then the next infinitesimal moment there were?

[Skepdick]

So... what do you need to make it work without fudging?

If a theory doesn't work without fudging, it doesn't work without fudging.

You appear to be stuck in a half-tautology.

And if a theory does work without fudging, then it does work without fudging.

So why do you need to fudge some theories and what do you think is necessary to get to a scientific paradigm without fudging?

2023 fits very comfortably within my constraints, and I'm quite happy to use any of the 2023 orbits of Earth since the claimed event as a unit of time.

That's a peculiar mode of thinking. Which claimed event are you talking about? The one you don't believe happened?

Yup.

So you don't believe the event marking the start of your calendar happened, but you believe it's 2023.

OK, good to know.

Do you have a unit of time, some cyclical event perhaps, that you would prefer?

Does it have to be cyclical? Some of your fellow philosophers keep insisting that circularity is bad.

If so, is there any reason they could not be converted into what we call years? If you find counting too difficult, could you at least confirm whether, in your belief, there were no irreducibly complex organisms, and then the next infinitesimal moment there were?

Oh, my problem's with the contradictions. So many self-contradicting and incoherent constraints.

[Will Bouwman]

...what do you think is necessary to get to a scientific paradigm without fudging?

A mixture of luck and judgement.

Do you have a unit of time, some cyclical event perhaps, that you would prefer?

Does it have to be cyclical? Some of your fellow philosophers keep insisting that circularity is bad.

Well, cyclical doesn't imply circular, just anything regular that can be counted. But:

If you find counting too difficult, could you at least confirm whether, in your belief, there were no irreducibly complex organisms, and then the next infinitesimal moment there were?

Oh, my problem's with the contradictions. So many self-contradicting and incoherent constraints.

And hallelujah, God wipes away the fudges!

[Skepdick]

...what do you think is necessary to get to a scientific paradigm without fudging?

A mixture of luck and judgement.

Finally! We agree on something. Assuming we already have judgmen, how much luck?

Well, cyclical doesn't imply circular, just anything regular that can be counted.

Cyclical absolutely implies circular. Regularity comes from modular arithmetic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modular_arithmetic

And hallelujah, God wipes away the fudges!

Well, it kinda does. The fudges are precisely what cause the contradictions..

Or at least, the God-fudge causes far les sproblems than all the other fudges.

[Will Bouwman]

...what do you think is necessary to get to a scientific paradigm without fudging?

A mixture of luck and judgement.

Finally! We agree on something. Assuming we already have judgmen, how much luck?

What are your units?

Well, cyclical doesn't imply circular, just anything regular that can be counted.

Cyclical absolutely implies circular. Regularity comes from modular arithmetic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modular_arithmetic

There are languages other than modular arithmetic, dontcha know? Here's your favoured Oxford definition:
cyclical
/ˈsɪklɪkl,ˈsʌɪklɪkl/
adjective
occurring in cycles; recurrent.
"the cyclical nature of the cement industry"

And hallelujah, God wipes away the fudges!

Well, it kinda does. The fudges are precisely what cause the contradictions..

Or at least, the God-fudge causes far les sproblems than all the other fudges.

So your least problematic answer to this:

If you find counting too difficult, could you at least confirm whether, in your belief, there were no irreducibly complex organisms, and then the next infinitesimal moment there were?

is yes, God did it.

[Skepdick]

A mixture of luck and judgement.

Finally! We agree on something. Assuming we already have judgmen, how much luck?

What are your units?

Should we start with a continuum that's more familiar to you?

Bee fart on the left side.
0.5 over a bee fart squarely in the middle.
1 over bee fart on the rigth side.

Where would you pin the donkey's tail on that line?

There are languages other than modular arithmetic, dontcha know? Here's your favoured Oxford definition:

Changing the language doesn't change the meaning. English; or Mathematics - you are talking about the exact same phenomenon.

There are many descriptions/definitions for it.

If you find counting too difficult

There's counting I find easy and counting I find impossible.

Discrete counting? No problem! I know what comes after 0. It's 1.
Continuous counting? Huge problem! I have no idea what comes after 0.

could you at least confirm whether, in your belief, there were no irreducibly complex organisms, and then the next infinitesimal moment there were?

Look! He believes in Time a priori. I told you that you are no atheist...

See; I'd have no problem with believing in an uncaused universe. It's trivial - it's just infinite and eternal - it was always there.

But an uncaused universe with a beginning; like The Big Bang?

The beginning of infinity is confusing for me.

[Will Bouwman]

Finally! We agree on something. Assuming we already have judgmen, how much luck?

What are your units?

Should we start with a continuum that's more familiar to you?

Bee fart on the left side.
0.5 over a bee fart squarely in the middle.
1 over bee fart on the rigth side.

Where would you pin the donkey's tail on that line?

With relation to which theory?

could you at least confirm whether, in your belief, there were no irreducibly complex organisms, and then the next infinitesimal moment there were?

Look! He believes in Time a priori.

Calm down, Skepdick. I believe in sequential events purely a posteriori, having seen them happen. I also believe in cyclical events, some like Earth's orbit can only be confused with circular relative to the Sun, others like the swinging of a pendulum are clearly not circular; but any cyclical event can be counted and when cyclical events are counted between sequential events, you get a number that for convenience we call time. I see no need for any definition of time beyond that.
So what you believe is that there were no irreducibly complex organisms, then God caused an event which brought irreducibly complex organisms into being. After that the Earth continued to orbit the Sun up to this point, but you can't say how many times.