The Democrat Party Hates America

[Belinda]

How quickly you forget. This from 4 days ago:

Very, very vague...

Welcome to the real world. One thing you learn early on as a philosophy undergraduate, is that trying to demarcate almost any field of human endeavour is a fools errand. Most people can agree on some broad definition of the arts and sciences, but the deeper you look, the fuzzier it gets.

...you describe strategies of investigation, with which I agree: but you don't say what they are actually investigating.

So what is the subject matter of all these "mathematical descriptions"? What, exactly, are they "describing"? What "phenomena" are included in your understanding of physics? You don't say here. And that is what I wish to know.

Well, at a minimum, any phenomenon that is amenable to the strategies of investigation that you agree with.

I presume that what concerns Immanuel is not so much its content but is the ontological nature of what science is actually investigating: do scientists explore what is already reality, albeit perhaps in its entirety unknowable, or do scientists invent realities which usually harmonise with other extant invented realities.

Immanuel's persona is that of a believer in God, so he would favour scientific endeavour that aims to investigate what already exists.

[Immanuel Can]

How quickly you forget. This from 4 days ago:

Very, very vague...

Welcome to the real world. One thing you learn early on as a philosophy undergraduate,...

Charming.

So what is the subject matter of all these "mathematical descriptions"? What, exactly, are they "describing"? What "phenomena" are included in your understanding of physics? You don't say here. And that is what I wish to know.

Well, at a minimum, any phenomenon that is amenable to the strategies of investigation that you agree with.

You’re avoiding. What subject matters do YOU believe are included in “physics”?

[Will Bouwman]

I presume that what concerns Immanuel is not so much its content but is the ontological nature of what science is actually investigating...

Well, if he's still unclear about my view on that, he really hasn't been paying attention.
Mr Can, in my opinion, is as predictable as death and taxes, just not as much fun. His concern is his self esteem, which is so bloated that he cannot countenance anyone understanding anything better than he. The fact that I understand at least one thing, science, better than he eats at his soul; so he is asking for a list of things that physics deals with. Such a list could not possibly be exhaustive, nor uncontentious and he is hoping to exploit any chink to declare he knows something about physics which I don't, which will be victory enough to patch up his fragile self worth.*

...do scientists explore what is already reality, albeit perhaps in its entirety unknowable, or do scientists invent realities which usually harmonise with other extant invented realities.

Whatever reality is, that is what scientists explore, but since the Pre-Socratics, it has been known that different hypotheses can account for the same phenomena.
*

You’re avoiding. What subject matters do YOU believe are included in “physics”?

I rest my case.

[Immanuel Can]

*

You’re avoiding. What subject matters do YOU believe are included in “physics”?

I rest my case.

So...you're not going to answer? You accuse me of not understanding physics, but when asked for your understanding, you have none?

Just checking.

[Darkneos]

A 'society running on determinism' looks exactly like what we have

Not really, society today tuns on the belief in free will, hence why even if it might be an illusion (which is still unclear) it's still good for people to believe it.

The same way folks believe they'll survive the month, some beliefs are useful to have even if they aren't "True".

I don't think you understood my comment. Never mind.

Can you explain what you meant?

[Darkneos]

How quickly you forget. This from 4 days ago:

I agree with physics being a human construct, but the main point here is Mikes stance on Hard Determinism, which as has been pointed out would be a net negative for human society.

Darkneos—

You keep repeating that hard determinism is a “net negative for society,” but that’s not an argument against its truth. That’s just moral preference dressed up as metaphysics.

You’re basically saying: “If it makes us uncomfortable, it must be false.” But that’s not how truth works. Germ theory made people uncomfortable. Heliocentrism shattered religious cosmologies. Evolution undermined divine specialness. Yet we didn’t toss them aside because they were hard to swallow. We adjusted.

You say hard determinism would harm society. I say: not necessarily. In fact, accepting that behavior has causes—biological, social, psychological—might push us toward systems that heal rather than punish, educate rather than blame, and understand rather than moralize.

What’s harmful is clinging to outdated folk concepts like metaphysical free will, which props up retribution, shame, and the myth that people “just chose” to be who they are.

So let’s not confuse usefulness with truth. Let’s deal with the world as it is—caused, structured, lawful—and then decide how to make it more humane.

Because facing reality isn’t the danger.

Refusing to is.

Well I have argued against it's truth but you don't acknowledge it.

I'm not saying "if it makes us uncomfortable it must be false", more like arguing for the utility of perpetuating such a view. I explained why a sense of agency is vital to humans. I also explained already why you can't compare free will with Germ Theory and Geocentrism. Evolution also didn't undermine divine specialness, you have plenty of theists who support evolution.

But determinism is more about free will, not physics and biology being causes. And like I said, the evidence is up in the air about free will.

Without that belief there is nothing pushing people to do the things you suggest. There is no incentive to heal or educate or understand. Such things are motivated based on the belief we chose them. But also punishment, blame, and moralizing also work via determinism, so even with it it doesn't negate the need for those because they have a use. Punishment and blame can prevent misbehaving.

Again with the strawman against free will, you have no evidence for your claim. I gave several examples how removing that belief just hurts people, even showing how removing agency and choice hurts people. The belief that people chose to be who they are does far more good than harm, people are always going to weaponize anything to their ends, you have to look at the big picture. And that picture says treating everyone like robots is a net negative, full stop.

Again...you have no plan, it's just "trust me bro" like always. I gave evidence proving you wrong and you ignore it. You're the one not dealing with the world as is and ignore anything that doesn't suit your narrative. You aren't facing reality.

[Will Bouwman]

You accuse me of not understanding physics, but when asked for your understanding, you have none?

Just checking.

Well, I don't think compiling a list of the "subject matters" included in physics amounts to an understanding. It's a bit like saying that knowing all the notes in a scale means you understand music. Again:

...physics is a human construct, consisting of mathematical descriptions of phenomena.

Fundamentally physics studies movement, quantifies it and speculates about the causes and dimensions in which movement occurs. The particular phenomena that are studied include the movement of celestial objects, solids, liquids, gasses, plasmas and other exotic states of matter, and the particles involved. Each of the examples has its own name, so there's astrophysics, solid state physics, hydrodynamics, fluid dynamics, quantum mechanics. That is far from an exhaustive list, and each of those can be broken down into even more specific fields.

[Immanuel Can]

You accuse me of not understanding physics, but when asked for your understanding, you have none?

Just checking.

Well, I don't think compiling a list of the "subject matters" included in physics amounts to an understanding.

No. It only amounts to the most rudimentary familiarity with the general subject matter. So there's no way that should be remotely difficult.

Again:

...physics is a human construct, consisting of mathematical descriptions of phenomena.

Fundamentally physics studies movement, quantifies it and speculates about the causes and dimensions in which movement occurs. The particular phenomena that are studied include the movement of celestial objects, solids, liquids, gasses, plasmas and other exotic states of matter, and the particles involved. Each of the examples has its own name, so there's astrophysics, solid state physics, hydrodynamics, fluid dynamics, quantum mechanics. That is far from an exhaustive list, and each of those can be broken down into even more specific fields.

Let's start with "movement." What is "moving" in physics? Is it mind? Or is it materials? What are these "celestial objects" made of? Is it ideas? Or is it materials? What are "solids, liquids, gasses and plasmas"? Are they concepts? Or are they materials?

Again, you're only avoiding the obvious: that physics deals with physical things, and the dynamics thereof, and has neither methodology for nor interest in dealing with non-material reality.

Simple. Done.

[Will Bouwman]

Let's start with "movement." What is "moving" in physics? Is it mind? Or is it materials?

What difference would it make to the phenomena?

[Immanuel Can]

Let's start with "movement." What is "moving" in physics? Is it mind? Or is it materials?

What difference would it make to the phenomena?

Just answer the question. What's "moving"?

[Will Bouwman]

Just answer the question. What's "moving"?

Blimey. Okie dokie, let's try it in language you might understand: could your god have created a world from mental stuff that produces the same phenomena as one made of physical stuff?

[Immanuel Can]

Just answer the question. What's "moving"?

Blimey. Okie dokie, let's try it in language you might understand: could your god have created a world from mental stuff that produces the same phenomena as one made of physical stuff?

Well, help me out here. Since you believe I’m struggling to understand, just highlight the part of your answer above that’s supposed to answer my very, very, very simple question.

[Darkneos]

Just answer the question. What's "moving"?

Blimey. Okie dokie, let's try it in language you might understand: could your god have created a world from mental stuff that produces the same phenomena as one made of physical stuff?

I don't think whether it's mental or physical really affects how things behave, even if this world is mental and in the mind of God if physics works it works.

The issue is more about free will with determinism, or at least that's what I was getting at.

[Will Bouwman]

Just answer the question. What's "moving"?

Blimey. Okie dokie, let's try it in language you might understand: could your god have created a world from mental stuff that produces the same phenomena as one made of physical stuff?

Well, help me out here. Since you believe I’m struggling to understand, just highlight the part of your answer above that’s supposed to answer my very, very, very simple question.

It didn't help you understand the last time Ianswered the same question:

It depends on what you mean by physical. If you mean that everything that physics deals with is physical because that is what physics deals with, you're not saying anything worthwhile. On the other hand, if by physical you mean material, you have to include fields which are not material in the sense of atoms being little blobs of matter, much as Leucippus and Democritus supposed, but which are very much a part of physics.

Again, physics is a human construct. The humans that construct it are not all interested in the same things; some are probing at the fringes to see what else not yet considered to be physics can be explored using the "strategies of investigation" you agree with.
If your understanding of physics is "physics deals with physical things", congratulations, you do have an understanding of physics; one you share with the average 15 year old.

[Will Bouwman]

Just answer the question. What's "moving"?

Blimey. Okie dokie, let's try it in language you might understand: could your god have created a world from mental stuff that produces the same phenomena as one made of physical stuff?

I don't think whether it's mental or physical really affects how things behave, even if this world is mental and in the mind of God if physics works it works.

Try telling that to some people.

The issue is more about free will with determinism, or at least that's what I was getting at.

I'm with FlashDangerpants on this, insofar as I don't think it would make any appreciable difference to society if a bunch of neuro scientists demonstrate one thing or the other. You can't convince some people that the world isn't flat. In my view, people believe what suits them best for fundamentally aesthetic reasons. I don't see that changing.