Philosophy Now Forum

Obvious Leo wrote:

alpha wrote:is it impossible for us, or an utter logical impossibility?

It is an utter logical impossibility.

alpha wrote: i don't dispute the interconnectivity among all things in existence (not just the physical ones), but that doesn't change anything. it is logically, and theoretically possible for someone to know all the variables of all existing things at all times (including interconnective relationships between everything), giving him absolute knowledge to predict everything with absolute certainty and accuracy.

This statement is false and one which any physicist will confirm is false. The gravitational field is continuously variable all the way down to the Planck scale and it varies at the speed of light. Bear in mind that the Planck scale is a full 20 orders of magnitude smaller than the smallest subatomic particle and the speed of light is fucking fast. Even in principle what you suggest is utterly impossible.

i guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, then.

alpha wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:No, when I say the universe does not obey laws, I mean, i the sense that a lawgiver has laid them down, and it complies; we are only here to uncover them. I mean that the Universe does what it does, and "Laws" are a very human way of trying to describe the universe and to try to predict what it will do next. I do no think there can be true randomness - just a lack of observation and understanding which leads to apparent randomness too difficult for us poor humans to predict.

so you agree that there must exist certain laws that govern the universe, just that we may not discover -all of- them.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:But since we have a very good functioning science wholly reliant on a uniformitarian notion of deterministic forces, I see no reason to abandon that in the light of some stuff we are yet to understand (or maybe never will). I do not see a future where we accept that both determinism and randomness can co-exist.

i agree. it's either one or the other, and since true randomness is impossible, that only leaves determinism.

No, I do not think that there are pre-existing laws lying around waiting for us to discover them,

Laws are things that we imply about the universe as we try to use science to describe the universe. There are never enough laws to go around; they are not complete; they can only approximate the universe. Laws are inventions, not discoveries.
"Randomness" is an instance of insufficient data about events; not examples of indeterminism; but indeterminability. This might be due to a lack of understanding the mechanics; not having the right 'laws', or just a lack of information.

alpha wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Whilst I think that science can be a poor way to understand human experience, and offers only descriptive analysis of emotional, social and political matters: nonetheless there is nothing under the sun, or beyond it that is not a fit subject for scientific investigation.

you only say that because you're a materialist. if there are in fact immaterial things, then science (at least conventional science) isn't fit to investigate them.

No, I think science is perfectly capable of describing the universe, there is no boundary. It either happens or it does not; things exist or they do not. Materialism also considers energy. The physicality of the world is fully encompassed here.

Things that are "immaterial" such as concepts and ideas, all rely on their physical reality to be communicated, but cannot be understood in purely materialist terms: a memory is ultimately and reductively a brain structure - or could be passage in a book or diary.
So you cannot understand the Mona Lisa by examining the physical properties of the paint that was used: it has immaterial meanings too.
If this is the sort of thing you mean? then yes. But science can have a role to play even here.

If you want to bore me to tears with ghosts, spirits, and souls, then try someone else. These are immaterial things masquerading as real objects. These have no place outside a church.

alpha wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:... The only thing I prefer to state, is that since we empty the idea of randomness everyday, rather than claim there is no such thing, we ought to say exactly what we mean by it. So yeah you can't predict a roulette wheel in normal circumstances, and whilst I agree it's not conforming to some sort of law of randomness, it is reliably "random".

"reliably random"? what does that mean? i'm not a scientist, so i'm not sure what "reliably" means in scientific terms.

It means if you throw a dice 60,000, you are likely to have thrown around 10,000 sixes, or ones.

maybe you and i can't predict a roulette wheel, but make no mistake about it, given all existing data/variables (known and unknown), and unlimited calculating ability, we can predict anything and everything, with absolute certainty and accuracy. refer to laplace's demon.

If you know the velocity of the wheel, the wind resistance, the friction efficient between the ball and the surface of the wheel; the speed, vector and weight of the ball; the temperature of the objects; the radial position of the wheel and the disposition of the numbers, you might have a good idea of the sector where the ball is most likely to fall, but I think it highly unlikely that all this is a practical reality. Gathering this data is likely to be impossible and the gathering of the data likely to affect the outcome.
What appears quite simple is in fact a very complex system.

I've seen people "throw" dice to get more sixes than they deserve - but they more or less drop the dice.

So , on balance I'd have to disagree.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: No, I do not think that there are pre-existing laws lying around waiting for us to discover them,

This is the essential difference between the Newtonian and non-Newtonian world-views. There can be no such thing as "laws of nature" which are universally applicable because it is utterly impossible to consider the entire index of movable possibilities in any given physical process, and this applies as equally to the motion of stars and planets as it does to electrons and quarks. The so-called laws of physics are nothing more than convenient heuristics devised by physicists to probabilistically model such patterns of self-organising motion under a fixed set of external conditions which must first be explicitly specified. In other words the physicist can only make a claim such as: Under conditions A,B,C,D, etc, if we do X to system Y then Z will happen. A physicist can quite literally NEVER claim that this set of existing and allowed-for pre-conditions is complete because this is truly logically impossible. This fact does not diminish the notion of physical laws as useful epistemic tools in such a pre-defined scenario but it strips the notion of a law-derived reality of any ontological status in a holistic sense because it has no explanatory authority under all possible scenarios. A tiny tectonic rumble a thousand miles away from our casino can conceivably initiate a cascade of causal consequences which affect the outcome of any given spin of the roulette wheel.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Whilst I think that science can be a poor way to understand human experience, and offers only descriptive analysis of emotional, social and political matters: nonetheless there is nothing under the sun, or beyond it that is not a fit subject for scientific investigation.

alpha wrote:you only say that because you're a materialist. if there are in fact immaterial things, then science (at least conventional science) isn't fit to investigate them.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:No, I think science is perfectly capable of describing the universe, there is no boundary. It either happens or it does not; things exist or they do not. Materialism also considers energy. The physicality of the world is fully encompassed here.

Things that are "immaterial" such as concepts and ideas, all rely on their physical reality to be communicated, but cannot be understood in purely materialist terms: a memory is ultimately and reductively a brain structure - or could be passage in a book or diary.
So you cannot understand the Mona Lisa by examining the physical properties of the paint that was used: it has immaterial meanings too.
If this is the sort of thing you mean? then yes. But science can have a role to play even here.

If you want to bore me to tears with ghosts, spirits, and souls, then try someone else. These are immaterial things masquerading as real objects. These have no place outside a church.

not to bore you to tears or anything, but it seems that you're not even willing to consider the possibility of anything that science can't adequately examine, and that seems very narrow-minded.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:No, I do not think that there are pre-existing laws lying around waiting for us to discover them,

Laws are things that we imply about the universe as we try to use science to describe the universe. There are never enough laws to go around; they are not complete; they can only approximate the universe. Laws are inventions, not discoveries.

how do you know that?

Hobbes' Choice wrote:"Randomness" is an instance of insufficient data about events; not examples of indeterminism; but indeterminability. This might be due to a lack of understanding the mechanics; not having the right 'laws', or just a lack of information.

you're just messing with me, right? can't you see that you're contradicting yourself, man? here, you say that randomness is nothing more than a lack of data about events, which leads to indeterminability, and not indeterminism (actually, true randomness must lead to indeterminism, and not just indeterminability, as it's not merely a lack of data, but a complete absence of any governing laws). this contradicts your previous statement, that the universe doesn't abide by any laws, and laws are merely inventions, not discoveries (denying determinism in the process), while essentially proving it (determinism) here! the only thing that can replace (or nullify) determinism is indeterminism (due to actual randomness), not indeterminability. determinism and indeterminability can coexist (because something can be strictly deterministic, but we may still lack the means to predict outcomes accurately), but determinism and indeterminism can't coexist, as you said in a previous post (paraphrasing): "i can't see randomness and determinism coexisting".

alpha wrote:maybe you and i can't predict a roulette wheel, but make no mistake about it, given all existing data/variables (known and unknown), and unlimited calculating ability, we can predict anything and everything, with absolute certainty and accuracy. refer to laplace's demon.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:If you know the velocity of the wheel, the wind resistance, the friction efficient between the ball and the surface of the wheel; the speed, vector and weight of the ball; the temperature of the objects; the radial position of the wheel and the disposition of the numbers, you might have a good idea of the sector where the ball is most likely to fall, but I think it highly unlikely that all this is a practical reality. Gathering this data is likely to be impossible and the gathering of the data likely to affect the outcome.
What appears quite simple is in fact a very complex system.

I've seen people "throw" dice to get more sixes than they deserve - but they more or less drop the dice.

So , on balance I'd have to disagree.

who said anything about it being simple? it might be very complex for you or me, but you're completely dismissing the possibility of a much more powerful being who can do all of this, effortlessly, and infallibly.

alpha wrote:you're completely dismissing the possibility of a much more powerful being who can do all of this, effortlessly, and infallibly.

I'll remind you that this a philosophy forum and the above is not a philosophical statement. It is a statement of belief, and beliefs lie beyond the domain of scientific or philosophical enquiry by their very definition.

Obvious Leo wrote:

alpha wrote:you're completely dismissing the possibility of a much more powerful being who can do all of this, effortlessly, and infallibly.

I'll remind you that this a philosophy forum and the above is not a philosophical statement. It is a statement of belief, and beliefs lie beyond the domain of scientific or philosophical enquiry by their very definition.

frankly, my dear, i don't give a damn what lies beyond the domain of scientific inquiry. as to it being outside philosophical inquiry, that's the most ludicrous statement i've come across in quite some time. you may wanna take a look at the board index page to see that there are sections dedicated to this very topic. besides, the existence of such a being is by no means logically impossible, and saying something is logically possible, is not "a belief". like i suggested before, stick to so called science, and don't teach me about logic or philosophy.

Obvious Leo wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: No, I do not think that there are pre-existing laws lying around waiting for us to discover them,

This is the essential difference between the Newtonian and non-Newtonian world-views. There can be no such thing as "laws of nature" which are universally applicable because it is utterly impossible to consider the entire index of movable possibilities in any given physical process, and this applies as equally to the motion of stars and planets as it does to electrons and quarks. The so-called laws of physics are nothing more than convenient heuristics devised by physicists to probabilistically model such patterns of self-organising motion under a fixed set of external conditions which must first be explicitly specified. In other words the physicist can only make a claim such as: Under conditions A,B,C,D, etc, if we do X to system Y then Z will happen. A physicist can quite literally NEVER claim that this set of existing and allowed-for pre-conditions is complete because this is truly logically impossible. This fact does not diminish the notion of physical laws as useful epistemic tools in such a pre-defined scenario but it strips the notion of a law-derived reality of any ontological status in a holistic sense because it has no explanatory authority under all possible scenarios. A tiny tectonic rumble a thousand miles away from our casino can conceivably initiate a cascade of causal consequences which affect the outcome of any given spin of the roulette wheel.

you never cease to amaze me with such baseless statements. just because physicists aren't currently capable of doing this, how does that necessitate its impossibility at any point in the future? also, you keep insisting on the concept of "physical laws", as if there can't possibly be anything non-physical. this is a very ignorant and arrogant assumption on your part. science "has no explanatory authority" when it comes to whether something is logically possible, and philosophical matters; so it should know its place.

alpha wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Whilst I think that science can be a poor way to understand human experience, and offers only descriptive analysis of emotional, social and political matters: nonetheless there is nothing under the sun, or beyond it that is not a fit subject for scientific investigation.

alpha wrote:you only say that because you're a materialist. if there are in fact immaterial things, then science (at least conventional science) isn't fit to investigate them.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:No, I think science is perfectly capable of describing the universe, there is no boundary. It either happens or it does not; things exist or they do not. Materialism also considers energy. The physicality of the world is fully encompassed here.

Things that are "immaterial" such as concepts and ideas, all rely on their physical reality to be communicated, but cannot be understood in purely materialist terms: a memory is ultimately and reductively a brain structure - or could be passage in a book or diary.
So you cannot understand the Mona Lisa by examining the physical properties of the paint that was used: it has immaterial meanings too.
If this is the sort of thing you mean? then yes. But science can have a role to play even here.

If you want to bore me to tears with ghosts, spirits, and souls, then try someone else. These are immaterial things masquerading as real objects. These have no place outside a church.

not to bore you to tears or anything, but it seems that you're not even willing to consider the possibility of anything that science can't adequately examine, and that seems very narrow-minded.

I can't image you read what I said.
What do you think I meant by this then?
So you cannot understand the Mona Lisa by examining the physical properties of the paint that was used: it has immaterial meanings too.
If this is the sort of thing you mean? then yes.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Whilst I think that science can be a poor way to understand human experience, and offers only descriptive analysis of emotional, social and political matters: nonetheless there is nothing under the sun, or beyond it that is not a fit subject for scientific investigation.

alpha wrote:you only say that because you're a materialist. if there are in fact immaterial things, then science (at least conventional science) isn't fit to investigate them.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:No, I think science is perfectly capable of describing the universe, there is no boundary. It either happens or it does not; things exist or they do not. Materialism also considers energy. The physicality of the world is fully encompassed here.

Things that are "immaterial" such as concepts and ideas, all rely on their physical reality to be communicated, but cannot be understood in purely materialist terms: a memory is ultimately and reductively a brain structure - or could be passage in a book or diary.
So you cannot understand the Mona Lisa by examining the physical properties of the paint that was used: it has immaterial meanings too.
If this is the sort of thing you mean? then yes. But science can have a role to play even here.

If you want to bore me to tears with ghosts, spirits, and souls, then try someone else. These are immaterial things masquerading as real objects. These have no place outside a church.

alpha wrote:not to bore you to tears or anything, but it seems that you're not even willing to consider the possibility of anything that science can't adequately examine, and that seems very narrow-minded.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:I can't image you read what I said.
What do you think I meant by this then?
So you cannot understand the Mona Lisa by examining the physical properties of the paint that was used: it has immaterial meanings too.
If this is the sort of thing you mean? then yes.

i meant actual immaterial beings, not concepts; hence the "not to bore you to tears" comment.

alpha wrote:?
So you cannot understand the Mona Lisa by examining the physical properties of the paint that was used: it has immaterial meanings too.
If this is the sort of thing you mean? then yes.
i meant actual immaterial beings, not concepts; hence the "not to bore you to tears" comment.

HAHAHA.

Concepts are the only immaterial things.
The concept of god, spirits, souls. If you think there is ANYTHING more to them than that then PROVE IT!

Deomonstrate the evidence, action, or presence in what every way you can, of an immaterial thing, that is more than just a concept that has ANY effect or results in the slightest hint that such a thing is "real".
What the fuck do you even MEAN, by "ACTUAL IMMATERIAL"

Please ellaborate.

The rules of logic cannot be applied to that which is not physically real, for the simple reason that that which is not physically real has no information content. This is a basic principle of philosophy which any philosophy undergraduate would be expected to understand. "Immaterial beings" are abstractions of the human consciousness about which no verifiable truth statements can be made, even in principle, and thus lie beyond the reach of logical deduction. You can believe in ghosts if you wish but since no logical syllogism can be applied to them their existence can be neither proven nor dis-proven which means that their existence or non-existence is not a legitimate subject for philosophical enquiry. The same goes for leprechauns, gods and the tooth fairy. If you disagree with this proposition then you'll no doubt find plenty of more suitable forums on the internet where consenting adults of like mind congregate to share their fantasies. You draw a long bow if you seriously expect to find such folk in a philosophy forum.