This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Determinism
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Skreeran
I can demonstrate that the physical world exists (at least for all practical purposes; no need to discuss solipsism at this point).
Yes, and so can I. But that's not the issue. You claim that the material world is
all that exists
. That's a different claim. Demonstrate that.
If you can't (and I know you can't), then employing consistent explanations that involve the non-material is completely valid.That's not how it works.
You're asking me to disprove all possibilities besides the material world. Science doesn't work by disproving imaginary things, it works by proving real things.
I can prove the material world exists. Until you can prove that some "spiritual world" exists, it will remain on the same level of acceptance as the "world where unicorn magic causes things to happen." I can't disprove that either, but it would be ridiculous to assume that exists because it can't be disproven.
Post by
184848
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Determinism also falls prey too often to the fallacy of the single cause.
No, it doesn't. You can have multiple free causes as the starting point for a deterministic model.
Because you're personally experienced the atomic and molecular worlds and have been the size of stars and known what its like to be large enough to have a gravitational pull and massive enough to maintain rotations and produce magnetic fields? You can't experience those things; only see them through a looking glass. Maybe the logical and consistent world applies to what is known as "medium-sized objects" (which is what we directly experience), if even, but you can't assume it does to the entirety of the physical realm.
What you made was a HUGE claim. That's my point. Based on your limited experience and the limited scope of your knowledge, you claimed that the entire physical world is orderly, organized, and deterministic. That is a MASSIVE claim.
It's an internally-consistent explanatory model that fits and explains my experience. You seem to want me to make an internally-consistent explanatory model that doesn't fit or explain my experience.
Post by
Heckler
Explain it to me in lay terms.
My previous post was pretty "lay" but here's an easier example. Say I magically create two unstable particles (like Uranium 235). These particles are identical in every way (that is, I cannot discern one from the other), but I
cannot
determine when they will decay, it is a completely random event. The best we can say is that there is X% probability that it will have decayed after Y seconds. But the two particles will not decay at the same time, and I have no way of guessing which will decay first.
The
probabilities
are extremely well defined however, so when I take 10^23 atoms of U-235, I can accurately determine the point when half of the particles will have decayed (half-life), because I know the average probability of decay, and the sample size is enormous.
Like a coin flip, you cannot determine whether a coin flip will be heads or tails, all you can say is there is a 50% chance. If you flip the coin 10 times, you probably won't observe a perfect 50/50 split in the results (maybe you'll get 3/7 or maybe 4/6). But if you flip the coin 10^23 times, you will see a perfect 50/50 split in the results, at least within the accuracy of any common measuring device. So when we're looking at 10^23 events, it's pretty easy to predict the behavior. When we're looking at 2 or 3 events, it's impossible.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
That's not how it works.
You're asking me to disprove all possibilities besides the material world. Science doesn't work by disproving imaginary things, it works by proving real things.
I can prove the material world exists. Until you can prove that some "spiritual world" exists, it will remain on the same level of acceptance as the "world where unicorn magic causes things to happen." I can't disprove that either, but it would be ridiculous to assume that exists because it can't be disproven.
You don't seem to understand the difference between a proof and an explanation, and you seem to not understand even science. Easy example: phlogiston. There's an imaginary substance that was used as a scientific explanation and which worked relatively will to explain why things were the way they were. It was perfectly fine as an explanation until someone was able to come up with an explanation that better fit with the experiences people had.
Post by
184848
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I said "often", not always. The "nature versus nurture" debate is deterministic in nature, for example.
The nature vs. nurture "debate" has been dead for decades. Anyone who has any basic knowledge of behavioral genetics know that nothing is just based in one or the other. Even a purely genetic defect can have its manifestations changed by its environment.
No, I'm saying that you applied an internally-consistent explanatory model as a blanket statement for the entirety of the physical world.
Why wouldn't an explanation cover all reality to which it relates? Becher didn't formulate the theory of phlogiston for just stuff in his laboratory, he formulated it as a universal theory.
Post by
451639
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Uh.... I don't see a single post from you to me since I replied to you last.
Post by
184848
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
You claim that the material world is
all that exists
. That's a different claim.
Demonstrate that
.
If you can't (and I know you can't), then employing consistent explanations that involve the non-material is completely valid.That's not how it works.
You're asking me to disprove all possibilities besides the material world. Science doesn't work by disproving imaginary things, it works by proving real things.
You don't seem to understand the difference between a proof and an explanation, and you seem to not understand even science.
Actually, you asked him for proof. Skreeran is right on this one.
If you're going to take the affirmative position on this one-- that there is anything other than the material world--
you
need to prove it, HsR. Just like if I were to make the claim that the Loch Ness monster exists, I would need to prove it rather than you disprove me.
That depends on what kind of proof you are willing to accept.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Actually, you asked him for proof. Skreeran is right on this one.
(I know you can't)
How was that not 100% obviously a rhetorical demand?
He keeps going back to proving this and proving that, that I demanded a proof out of him for something that can't be proved. We're not in the realm of proof with this issue here. We're in the realm of explanation.
If you're going to take the affirmative position on this one-- that there is anything other than the material world--
you
need to prove it, HsR. Just like if I were to make the claim that the Loch Ness monster exists, I would need to prove it rather than you disprove me.
I'm not making a proof. I'm providing an explanation.
Post by
184848
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
But it doesn't relate! The atomic world doesn't function the same as the world of medium-sized objects. You said order and organization were completely applicable to the entire physical realm... they're not. We know that by now.
Just because you don't see a cause, doesn't mean there isn't one.
Post by
451639
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
184848
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Why are we built that way?
If intellect isn't just a reaction to senses, but a "program" that processes it, how does that program work?
Why does this universe have gravity? That's they way it was built. I don't really see the aim of the question.
And he intellect that by which we know the essences of things. While that might be a specific apple tree you see with your senses, the intellect knows "apple-tree-ness."
Post by
184848
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Ok, a simple question that's even applicable to medium-sized objects: there are currently more than 30 different lemur species in Madagascar. They're all developed in the same environment from a shared origin. How does that occur in a deterministic system, where the process of evolution would have determined a single outcome, rather than providing a assortment of lemur variants?
Because there are hundreds of thousands of millions of factors affecting the development of any species?
Just because you don't see a cause, doesn't mean there isn't one.
That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that a single cause can provide a variety of different outcomes... that in itself is not a deterministic system, because the results were not determined by its previous state.
Only a free (unbounded) cause could (e.g. free will as I'm arguing for).
Post by
451639
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.