ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 6th November 2018, 06:18 AM   #121
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 79,580
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
There is no distinction, because both parts are hard facts. That I don't understand is a hard fact. And that you understand differently is a hard fact.
No, you're wrong. You can believe in Narnia, and the belief is a real thing that resides in your neurons... BUT NARNIA DOESN'T EXIST.

The belief exists, but that's trivial and irrelevant.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2018, 06:22 AM   #122
Tony99
Muse
 
Tony99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Austin
Posts: 789
You've stuck your postmodernism in my science!
No!, you've stuck your science in my postmodernism!

It's Derrida-licious
Tony99 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2018, 06:42 AM   #123
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
No, you're wrong. You can believe in Narnia, and the belief is a real thing that resides in your neurons... BUT NARNIA DOESN'T EXIST.

The belief exists, but that's trivial and irrelevant.
And it is not trivial and irrelevant to other humans, as both variants exist in different brains and both are hard facts.
Existence as a word is a part of ontology and thus is philosophy and that is a hard fact.

BUT NARNIA DOESN'T EXIST is a hard fact. Everything including exist and doesn't exist are hard facts.

BTW It is a hard fact that I am wrong!
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2018, 06:44 AM   #124
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by Tony99 View Post
You've stuck your postmodernism in my science!
No!, you've stuck your science in my postmodernism!

It's Derrida-licious
Yeah, and both are hard facts according to Belz...
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2018, 06:48 AM   #125
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,550
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
More later.
Don't bother. Little of that rampant pontification has much to do with anything I've brought up. You cited an article written by two physicists for a popular audience. They are writing about the long-standing problem in physics of a grand unification theory. They correctly cited the problems with formulating such a theory -- in physics -- as the inability to reconcile the deductions arising from different disciplines of observation, and propose to stop trying.

To think they are talking about anything except theoretical physics is to misunderstand the point. They're not talking about "worldview" or any other way in which you might want to equivocate "reality."
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2018, 06:52 AM   #126
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 20,157
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
So now I am pragmatic. It works for me to believe that pragmatic is a case of:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/...atisscience_12
Some form of combination of morality, aesthetic and how to use knowledge.

Instrumentalism: a pragmatic philosophical approach which regards an activity (such as science, law, or education) chiefly as an instrument or tool for some practical purpose, rather than in more absolute or ideal terms.

A practical purpose is always to some human as what is practical to that human.
I just find it practical to do it differently that you.

Science is authoritative for the tests, experiments and observations, but it doesn't tell you how you should live all of your live and how that compares to other humans. To compare is not science as for good lives, a better world or how inter-human authority works in practice.
The authority of science is limited.
Pragmatism in science is measured in terms of predictive success. That does seem like common ground for all human beings, and other animals to boot. We share a lot of common goals that relate to finding food and staying out of harm. Being able to do x and predict seeing y happen is what perhaps all organisms are looking for in their models of the world. Its why Skinner boxes work as they do.

Sure science is descriptive and not normative. Not sure how that relates to notions of realism though. Could you be over extending notions of real and reality? We can push the whole Cartesian thinking subject looking out upon the physical world too far. Our experience of the world is shaped by a brain/mind that has evolved to experience it as we do - Kant’s Copurnican Revolution. Then there is the cultural/linguistic side that has evolved in parallel, which makes it very easy for us to overextended the meanings of words like real.- Heidegger and your postmodernists.

It is an illusion to think we can step outside of ourselves to see “objects” of the world as they “really” are. Scientific models and understandings beyond everyday experience do that to a point but we seem to be wanting to help ourselves to more in terms of greater metaphysical notions of reality, like those that occur when we pose questions about where scientific models are reality.
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman

Last edited by Sideroxylon; 6th November 2018 at 07:01 AM.
Sideroxylon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2018, 06:53 AM   #127
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 85,057
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
So brains and maps are physical, just as the belief in a god.
Everything is hard facts including the counter claim of "no".
There is nothing to explain in your model, because everything is the same.
Take these 2 sentences:
"Everything is hard facts."
"No!"

Both are hard facts themselves so we agree.
"Everything is meaningless" is a hard fact.
It is a fact in my brain and it is a fact as it is written.
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;

You are mistaking English sentences to be absolutes, when you say "everything is meaningless" the "fact" part of it is that you said that sentence, it is a fact you said it. But just because you said it doesn't make what the sentence *claims* a fact.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2018, 06:55 AM   #128
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 79,580
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
And it is not trivial and irrelevant to other humans
Maybe not, but it's still irrelevant, because your belief, while real, does not make the thing you believe in real.

Quote:
BTW It is a hard fact that I am wrong!
I'm not sure you're clear on what facts are.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2018, 07:05 AM   #129
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 79,580
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Yeah, and both are hard facts according to Belz...
Don't put words in my mouth; don't project your ignorance onto me.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2018, 07:08 AM   #130
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by Sideroxylon View Post
Pragmatism in science is measured in terms of predictive sucess. That does seem like common ground for all human beings, and other animals to boot. We share a lot of common goals that relate to finding food and staying out of harm. Being able to do x and predict seeing y happen is what perhaps all organisms are looking for in their models of the world. Its why Skinner boxes work as they do.
Give that one some thought and include evolution, tribal, what not and whether all of the human race needs to survive for some part to survive and reproduce.
As it stands it boarders on naive idealism in the non-ontological sense. The human race is not a source of morality and ethics, just because you think/believe so.
There is more to it than that.

Quote:
Sure science is descriptive and not normative. Not sure how that relates to notions of realism though.
Is realism descriptive or normative or both or neither?
If all are a part of reality, then how do they connect?

Quote:
Could you be over extending notions of real and reality? We can push the whole Cartesian thinking subject looking out upon the physical world too far. Our experience of the world is shaped by a brain/mind that has evolved to experience it as we do - Kantís Copurnican Revolution. Then there is the cultural/linguistic side that has evolved in parallel, which makes it very easy for us to overextended the meanings of words like real.
One human's real is another human's unreal.
The word "real" is not needed to do science. The word "real" is needed by those who believe in it.
If you remove all humans, there wouldn't be any real.

Try explaining reality as a set of different necessary aspects and then try to make the set sufficient. You can't. Not with logic, reason and evidence alone and when you add normative, it becomes at best intersubjective beliefs about good and bad.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2018, 07:14 AM   #131
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Don't put words in my mouth; don't project your ignorance onto me.
So there are non-hard facts or is everything hard facts?
What is it?
Is relevance and irrelevance both hard facts or are they non-hard facts?
If this question is relevant to you, is that a hard fact?
If this question is irrelevant to you, is that a hard fact?

There is no distinction between all hard facts, because they are all hard facts and everything is hard facts.
You can't have and don't have distinctions between hard facts, because if there is a distinction between hard facts other than being hard facts, then there is something else than hard facts.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2018, 07:16 AM   #132
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
...

I'm not sure you're clear on what facts are.
So there are non-hard facts???

Make up your mind. Either everything is hard facts or everything is more that hard facts.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2018, 07:19 AM   #133
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 79,580
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
So there are non-hard facts???

Make up your mind. Either everything is hard facts or everything is more that hard facts.
Tommy, perhaps it's time for you to slow down and consider the following: you are the one who's confused. Once you've considered and accepted that, it'll be easier for you to more forward with this discussion.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2018, 07:23 AM   #134
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
So basically we're just going to spend another 100 pages watching Tommy pretend he doesn't understand the difference between a physical thing and a conceptual thing and get carted off to AAH everytime we point that out.
So are a physical thing and a conceptual thing both hard facts and the same as hard facts go? Or is everything as case of different things, which are not the same?
What is a thing?
A rule to differentiate different experiences? What is a thing in itself? What is in itself, physical or conceptual?

I do understand the difference - physical things don't require humans and conceptual things do. If you removed all humans, conceptual things would cease to exist and the rest of physical things without humans would remain.
But that is maybe a form of dualism. Are you a dualist?
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2018, 07:45 AM   #135
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,550
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
So basically we're just going to spend another 100 pages watching Tommy pretend he doesn't understand the difference between a physical thing and a conceptual thing and get carted off to AAH everytime we point that out.
I guess it's an exercise to see how much mileage we can get out of the story of the blind men and the elephant, with the end goal being to deny the objective reality of the elephant. Physics can neither abandon its observations nor sew together the different models by which it systematizes those observations that were made in vastly different ways. For a century we've hoped that a simple unification is possible. Hawking and Mlodinow -- two celebrity physicists -- are simply regurgitating for the popular audience the notion that it doesn't appear to be simple and may not be important.

Engineers have no problem with contradictory models. We have two conceptually incompatible mathematical models, for example, for the stiffness of a beam. One is very predictive at one scale, under one set of assumptions. The other is equally predictive at a different scale, under totally different assumptions. Neither is especially predictive under the conditions for which the other is valid. When we deal with conditions that lie between the two, we use both and blend statistically between them. Statistics is almost certainly not how reality functions under the hood, but what we do is predictive and therefore -- to a legally liable extent -- real. Ironically this particular set of materials laws are why Samuel Pierpont Langley, one of the most celebrated physicists of his day, failed to make a working manned airplane while two bicycle mechanics from Ohio, who stuck with the notion of empirical verifiability, succeeded. That's an historical reality.

This is what our authors mean when they insinuate the futility of finding a model for theoretical physics (and nothing else) that works for all conditions, all assumptions, and predicts all observations. They're arguing that it ought to be considered a red herring in physics -- burning a lot of neurons for not much payoff except bragging rights. They certainly aren't trying to say there's no such thing as an elephant. They're trying to say that if your work involves primarily the front end of the elephant, it's okay to use the incomplete "It's like a snake" model of the elephant without fretting over a loss of rigor or generality.

The article has nothing to do with reality as discussed in philosophy. It's a pragmatic approach to doing theoretical physics, not a conceptual approach to life.

Last edited by JayUtah; 6th November 2018 at 07:47 AM.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2018, 05:17 PM   #136
Toontown
Philosopher
 
Toontown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,506
Reality is as reality does.
__________________
"I did not say that!" - Donald Trump
Toontown is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2018, 05:52 PM   #137
Apathia
Philosopher
 
Apathia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 5,046
Originally Posted by Toontown View Post
Reality is as reality does.
__________________
"At the Supreme Court level where we work, 90 percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections."
Justice William O. Douglas

"Humans aren't rational creatures but rationalizing creatures."
Author Unknown
Apathia is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2018, 08:00 AM   #138
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 43,414
This thread is not real.
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan
Ron_Tomkins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2018, 08:02 AM   #139
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 79,580
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
This thread is not real.
Prove that it's not a thread in a jar.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2018, 08:30 AM   #140
Apathia
Philosopher
 
Apathia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 5,046
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
This thread is not real.
It's just as real as the thread that got caught in my device driver.
__________________
"At the Supreme Court level where we work, 90 percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections."
Justice William O. Douglas

"Humans aren't rational creatures but rationalizing creatures."
Author Unknown
Apathia is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2018, 09:59 AM   #141
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
I found this:
https://books.google.com/books?id=fvmv2kU6PrYC&pg=PA427

If I understand correct model dependent realism apply within biology?

Any thoughts?
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2018, 10:31 AM   #142
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Jones, Andrew Zimmerman. "What Is Model-Dependent Realism?" ThoughtCo, Jun. 22, 2018, Model dependent realism

Quote:
"According to the idea of model-dependent realism ..., our brains interpret the input from our sensory organs by making a model of the outside world. We form mental concepts of our home, trees, other people, the electricity that flows from wall sockets, atoms, molecules, and other universes. These mental concepts are the only reality we can know. There is no model-independent test of reality. It follows that a well-constructed model creates a reality of its own."
Model dependent realism seems to be more that about QM and a physical theory of everything.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2018, 10:39 AM   #143
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,550
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Model dependent realism seems to be more that about QM and a physical theory of everything.
Only insofar as you keep ignoring the central theme of your authors' work and focus instead on the examples they use to illustrate the concept which they then apply to theoretical physics. The notion of treating a model only insofar as it explains and predicts observations is useful in any science that makes observations and predictions.

No, your authors are not talking about relativist philosophy.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2018, 10:42 AM   #144
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 17,006
I may be getting this wrong, but is the revelation:

"Models are just models."
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2018, 10:44 AM   #145
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Only insofar as you keep ignoring the central theme of your authors' work and focus instead on the examples they use to illustrate the concept which they then apply to theoretical physics. The notion of treating a model only insofar as it explains and predicts observations is useful in any science that makes observations and predictions.

No, your authors are not talking about relativist philosophy.
No, I will grant you that - they are talking about a variant of anti-realism and all the related variants.

Now since you understand reality, explain how a human can misunderstand something and only use science.
Example: You and I. We don't agree to the point where our claims of reality amounts to a contradiction. Explain how that is possible.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2018, 10:45 AM   #146
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
I may be getting this wrong, but is the revelation:

"Models are just models."
And there is no access to an observer independent reality, as far as I can tell.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2018, 10:52 AM   #147
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,550
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
I may be getting this wrong, but is the revelation:

"Models are just models."
Yes, that's essentially it. But it has special relevance in theoretical physics because there are models at different scales of observation, and the deductions that follow from those models are incompatible. Thus we know that some or all of those models are wrong in some way we have yet to discover. Reconciling them into one grand unified theory (GUT, or "the theory of everything," as it is facetiously spoken of in physics circles) has proven elusive and frustrating. Hawing and Mlodinow propose that the frustration arises in part from treating models as more than just descriptive, such that the problematic deductions may rely too much on the assumption that the models model behavior and not just outcome. This is especially true of quantum mechanics, which exists as nothing more than a mathematical abstraction, a probabilistic model.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2018, 10:52 AM   #148
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 17,006
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
And there is no access to an observer independent reality, as far as I can tell.
Sounds about right.

Whenever people start talking about the many worlds theory I always remember that there's a mathematical model for the effects of gyroscopes that can be tortured to produce reaction-less thrust.

Models are models. They come with weird artifacts.
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2018, 10:54 AM   #149
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,550
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
No, I will grant you that - they are talking about a variant of anti-realism and all the related variants.
No, they aren't.

This is why I asked you why you emphasized the identity of the authors. They are physicists writing for a lay audience on a particularly vexing problem in physics and explaining why it does not deserve as much attention as fans of theoretical physics give it. They are not philosophers writing on philosophy, as you seem to want to warp their work into.

Quote:
Now since you understand reality...
I made no such claim.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2018, 10:57 AM   #150
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,550
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Models are models. They come with weird artifacts.
Indeed, which is best illustrated several posts up the line where I talk about different models for materials in engineering.

Access to a model-independent reality is not the same as there not being an objective reality. The admonition from our physicist authors is exactly what you note: models come with weird artifacts, and the search for unification in physics is not helped by trying to bang the artifacts together.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2018, 11:04 AM   #151
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 17,006
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Indeed, which is best illustrated several posts up the line where I talk about different models for materials in engineering.

Access to a model-independent reality is not the same as there not being an objective reality. The admonition from our physicist authors is exactly what you note: models come with weird artifacts, and the search for unification in physics is not helped by trying to bang the artifacts together.

Having realised the thread was four pages long, and now read the post you refer to, I realise now that you said it first and better.
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2018, 11:24 AM   #152
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,550
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Having realised the thread was four pages long, and now read the post you refer to, I realise now that you said it first and better.
But you said it shorter, which is also a virtue. It's pointless to ask whether the statistical blending of engineering models is real. We know it isn't, in the sense of explaining what physically causes the beam strain in response to stress. Statistical models in general are not real, because those models explicitly showcase uncertainty, which means we don't know how it works. So it makes no sense to argue that "uncertainty" is the reality of how some underlying system really works. Quantum mechanics is just statistical probability writ small. Hence it makes no sense to ask, in the context of theoretical physics, whether quantum mechanics is "real." We know it isn't. That's not to say there isn't some objective reality there, and that it doesn't make sense to talk about it in whatever terms seem helpful. The authors simply say it doesn't make sense to talk about such objective reality in terms of the nuts and bolts of any of the present models.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2018, 11:53 AM   #153
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
No, they aren't.

This is why I asked you why you emphasized the identity of the authors. They are physicists writing for a lay audience on a particularly vexing problem in physics and explaining why it does not deserve as much attention as fans of theoretical physics give it. They are not philosophers writing on philosophy, as you seem to want to warp their work into.
By a biologist:
https://books.google.dk/books?id=fvm...page&q&f=false

Review of the book: Jones, Andrew Zimmerman. "What Is Model-Dependent Realism?" ThoughtCo, Jun. 22, 2018, thoughtco.com/what-is-model-dependent-realism-2699404.
Quote from the book as related to the first article quoted in the OP
Quote:
"According to the idea of model-dependent realism ..., our brains interpret the input from our sensory organs by making a model of the outside world. We form mental concepts of our home, trees, other people, the electricity that flows from wall sockets, atoms, molecules, and other universes. These mental concepts are the only reality we can know. There is no model-independent test of reality. It follows that a well-constructed model creates a reality of its own."
It says outside world, our home, trees, other people, the electricity that flows from wall sockets, atoms, molecules, and other universes.
It ends with: It follows that a well-constructed model creates a reality of its own.
That is philosophy as noted by the biologist and that model dependent realism applies within biology.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2018, 11:55 AM   #154
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
But you said it shorter, which is also a virtue. It's pointless to ask whether the statistical blending of engineering models is real. We know it isn't, in the sense of explaining what physically causes the beam strain in response to stress. Statistical models in general are not real, because those models explicitly showcase uncertainty, which means we don't know how it works. So it makes no sense to argue that "uncertainty" is the reality of how some underlying system really works. Quantum mechanics is just statistical probability writ small. Hence it makes no sense to ask, in the context of theoretical physics, whether quantum mechanics is "real." We know it isn't. That's not to say there isn't some objective reality there, and that it doesn't make sense to talk about it in whatever terms seem helpful. The authors simply say it doesn't make sense to talk about such objective reality in terms of the nuts and bolts of any of the present models.
No:
Quote:
"According to the idea of model-dependent realism ..., our brains interpret the input from our sensory organs by making a model of the outside world. We form mental concepts of our home, trees, other people, the electricity that flows from wall sockets, atoms, molecules, and other universes. These mental concepts are the only reality we can know. There is no model-independent test of reality. It follows that a well-constructed model creates a reality of its own."
It is philosophy.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2018, 12:11 PM   #155
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,550
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Quote from the book as related to the first article quoted in the OP.
Yes, you keep cherry-picking the same quotes. And you keep pretending that's what the rest of the book is about, and the rest of the Hawking/Mlodinow article. If someone starts out a book on gravity by telling the story of Newton and the apple, that doesn't mean the book is somehow also about horticulture.

Quote:
That is philosophy as noted by the biologist and that model dependent realism applies within biology.
Asked and answered. The principle espoused by Hawking and Mlodinow certainly has applications in the other empirical sciences. You keep insisting that biologists are really writing about philosophy when they are writing about biology, and that physicists are really writing about philosophy when they are writing about physics. You mistake their illustrations and analogies as if those were the main points.

Your reviewer Zimmerman is explicit on the role of philosophy in
Originally Posted by Zimmerman (emphasis added)
Model-dependent realism is a term for a philosophical approach to scientific inquiry which approaches scientific laws based on how well the model does at describing the physical reality of the situation.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2018, 12:19 PM   #156
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,550
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
It is philosophy.
You said so, so it must be true.

One can hardly speak of approaches to science without speaking of the philosophy of science. That is not the same as speaking philosophy. Your authors explicitly eschew the kind of philosophy you're trying to drag into this. Hawking is not talking about a mind-independent world. Telling us that a unified field theory is not likely so long as we try to express it as a reconciliation of model-dependent views -- and other science authors expressing that as reading the value of any system of models in terms of their individual predictive power only -- is not remotely akin to the navel-gazing you're attempting.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2018, 12:30 PM   #157
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
...

Your reviewer Zimmerman is explicit on the role of philosophy in:
Quote:
Model-dependent realism is a term for a philosophical approach to scientific inquiry which approaches scientific laws based on how well the model does at describing the physical reality of the situation.
Quote:
"According to the idea of model-dependent realism ..., our brains interpret the input from our sensory organs by making a model of the outside world. We form mental concepts of our home, trees, other people, the electricity that flows from wall sockets, atoms, molecules, and other universes. These mental concepts are the only reality we can know. There is no model-independent test of reality. It follows that a well-constructed model creates a reality of its own."
Step by step: ...by making a model of the outside world ... including ... trees, other people, the electricity that flows from wall sockets, atoms, molecules, and other universes.
Even the "we" they use is model, because other people are a part of the model.
And it doesn't stop there: our brains interpret the input from our sensory organs
That is also a part of the model.
Reductio ad absurdum it is a form of solipsism.
I, we, other people, trees, our homes and so on are not just physics and other sciences. What they claim, is a form of philosophy, because it doesn't saying anything of reality independently of the mind. It says something about experiences in the mind and how they are a model.
Now if we then debate what is outside the mind, we agree. We are both naturalists.

But this is a philosophical model of how science works. Not how objective reality works independently of the mind. That is another philosophical problem.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2018, 12:32 PM   #158
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
You said so, so it must be true.

One can hardly speak of approaches to science without speaking of the philosophy of science. That is not the same as speaking philosophy. Your authors explicitly eschew the kind of philosophy you're trying to drag into this. Hawking is not talking about a mind-independent world. Telling us that a unified field theory is not likely so long as we try to express it as a reconciliation of model-dependent views -- and other science authors expressing that as reading the value of any system of models in terms of their individual predictive power only -- is not remotely akin to the navel-gazing you're attempting.
We agree!
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2018, 12:34 PM   #159
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Next step, how to describe mind-dependent reality including cognitive relativism and how to combine that with science.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2018, 01:04 PM   #160
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A pocket paradise between the sewage treatment plant and the railroad
Posts: 14,595
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Next step, how to describe mind-dependent reality including cognitive relativism and how to combine that with science.

Occultism and magic are pretty much those two things, respectively. (Strictly speaking, one should substitute the word "practice" for "science.") I could suggest some books, if you're interested.
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:59 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.