 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (1)big ...and 528 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614088 Today 1 Topics 127542 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
With its wild hypotheses about evolution and quantum mechanics and other shit like dark matter that are beyond the power of human observation. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
failed troll attempt #3987 |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
No, really. Whatever man, I dont care what you have to say |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
*approves* *farts* |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Theories and truths are very different. This thread is a massive intellectual failure. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
limp bizkit has faith too |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
broken hearts on...ice? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Indeed. You know how they have Disney on Ice? Same thing, only this time, it's for real. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"wild" ? try telling that to a phD... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Theories and truths are very different. ^Your reply is a massive intellectual failure. Hahaha. Or maybe you could be a bit more precise! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I wish Monoid from one source all things depend (Germany) was MY dupe |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yawn. This is really stupid. If you read Bertrand Russels 'The Problems of Philosophy' he describes very well why the inductive and deductive method, logic etc. are based on FAITH (not belief)! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
How could I be more precise than that? You referred to theories as if they were truths. That's wrong! Nobody in science believes blindly that evolution is unquestionably 100% correct, and quantum theory is extremely contested among physicists. Truths are founded on mathematics. I can think of no more precise or correct way to prove something true or false than math, and if you think otherwise, you're an idiot. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hi Monoid! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Math is the system which will always be right, if the observation data is right.. The more correct the data, the more correct the math, am i right? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I do feel as though there is a tendancy for a lot of new age ideas to get interwoven with theories about quantum sciences and the like, and they end up being given more credit as part of the science, than something like intelligent design, which is dismissed as religious creationism. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yea really, and that's the right term, thanks for enlightening me: it's new age |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Hi big :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hullo :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the difference is that faith requires a firm belief, while any scientific hypothesis will undergo rigorous testing in order to be proven "fact." and even then any fact we come up with is just a progress report. as scientific research and technology progresses we could easily learn the secrets of dark matter and quantum physics (which to my understand has already been extensively tested), just as we have learned those of gravity, electromagnetism, and nuclear reaction. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you're probably just trolling, but science is about verification, through the 'scientific method'. specifically, science is concerned with events which are verifiable. A question like 'does god exist' is not verifiable because god's influence on events we can measure can be reduced and still he may exist. but things like gravity, which you read about in a book, you can verify. the whole point is the weird shit like quantum theory you don't have to believe or disbelieve, you can ignore it entirely. but things like gravity, electricity, etc which affect your daily life.. you can believe these by your own verification. some people care about relativity because relativistic affects are substantial enough to make things like targeting an asteroid with a probe sensitive to it. quantum theory matters for instance to cryptographers because all common crpyptographic routines are not resilient to the existence of a large scale quantum computer. at some point of course there is a measure of faith, but this is the basic faith in your own senses and ability to deduce from them. could be the case that water doesn't exist and someone has been stimulating your brain in various ways to make this fantasy seem real. but that gets into epistemology and is another topic entirely. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
science of course has more abstract questions, which are useful when trying to penetrate some complicated mystery (why did lightning strike?), but the goal is to come up with some concrete question (is zeus up in the heavens, feeling pissed off?) and a quantitative test for it (i can fly through the clouds with a huge net, trying to catch anything the size of a man). When hypotheses are false (i found no large solid objects up in the sky), you formulate new ones based on new observations (but i noticed electric potential differences which build up..). this may seem no different from normal internal thought/philosophical thought, however the point is we get something out of it. people believe their theories of electricity, combustion, etc and look, we have cars. they believe in radio waves and we have WIFI. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
also, keep math out of it. math is how we formalize reasoning. typically in science one uses math to build a formal model of some process and reason within it. But there are no guarantees placed on how tightly the model relates to reality. This gap is of course the kind of thing that Monoid is decrying--we never have any way to elucidate 'fact' in reality. but we can keep getting close and closer, explaining more and more, and all the way building cooler and cooler toys. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I just don't know anymore... please hold me |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
such a fucking square |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
<3 <3 <3 <3 <3 |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
If evolution doesn't work, how did karl sims create these things: Plus, the main 'battle' in recent meme-itude is against irrational conventional doctrines like 'you can make a woman out of a rib' which pollute human's accumulated knowledge with ancient replicated misinformation. There's still a line of reasoning against the existence of 'god' in a less conventional 'god created the big bang and is outside of time' or something definition, in that 'god' does not answer where god came from, so wrapping a mystery inside another explains nothing, and replication/mutation/natural selection already explains the origin of complex things on earth. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
nice posts sneakattax |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I agree with the original topic and wonder how much fluff is in the currently hard to falsify concepts in physics, for example, about multiple universes and such. Still the process of science has a lot better results (we sequenced the human genome and got to the moon) than faith/dogma/superstition. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
by multiple universes to you mean the superposition of states of quantum theory? this has been verified on a small scale by small scale quantum computers.. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
also, the wave/particle duality, which is pretty weird, can be verified with some slitted cardboard and appropriate lighting mechanisms.. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm a layman and don't know much about it or quantum mechanics. The double slit experiment where a human observer supposedly affects the result seems like a wrong conclusion/supernatural/illogical based on my limited learning about it, but I don't know enough. I'm just wary of mind viruses: Like maybe our limited ability to observe, based on our tiny brains on a tiny speck has forced us to deal with concepts that might end up not reflecting the true nature of things, due to only a trickle of evidence and maybe low ability to understand in certain areas perhaps. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Many people don't realise that scientists are often religious people too. Talk about the blind leading the blind. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Despite all the stuff people have said, I am with you on this one, Monoid. And not just cos of your Franz Kline avy. :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
No religious person would believe blindly that religion or in this case the bible is unquestionably 100% correct. Except of course the fundamentalists, but those are in a minority. Truths are founded on mathematics. And mathematics is founded on logic. And logic is founded, on what exactly? All pure mathematics is a priori, like logic. And therefore relies on faith. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Actually, im just intrested in the metaphysics of science, and how it borders on religious faith |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
any failure of science is not in the ideal of systematic investigation through the development and testing of models, but in the unacknowledged input of assumptions, biases, egotism, greed, etc. sometimes scientific materialists seem so in love with their ideal they forget that the ideal does not really exist. they perceive a general consensus and they call it "fact." they want to believe that they are flexible and objective, when closer examination will reveal their desire to take sides. when i was younger my father suggested that i was living in a dream world. i was pretty angry about it for a long time, until i realized that what he had said was true. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I suspect 'metaphysics' doesn't exist, though I only have a vague notion of what it is and just briefly looked it up on wikipedia, since I only find certain things worth paying attention to. Having a word for it doesn't make it real. 'colorless green ideas sleep furiously'. Words can contain nonsense. 'principles of reality transcending those of any particular science'? There is a human element to all this because we're trapped in human brains. But objectively the entire universe exists in a concrete way even if we don't know what it is exactly. All the mystery-ish stuff is because a limited ape brain is trying to understand it. The underlying axioms seem to make everything work though. Maybe we're in the matrix and everything is false, but 'grass is green' is AS real as 'sky is blue'. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
what is your color blue is my color red? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Some color blind people don't see red. Bat's main sense is sound. Still its unlikely that 2+2 = 5 for either of us. Red is a certain wavelength in the electromagnetic spectrum; i. Any 2 humans have similar brain architecture given that they're in the same species and whatever's going on in human A's brain in regards to red is likely similar to what's going on in human B's; its not like the wavelength of that area of the electromagnetic spectrum changes per person. But that's a subjective/perception thing. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"A set is a collection of things. An empty set is a collection of nothing at all. An empty set can be thought of as nothing with the potential to become something (that is to be become a set with at least one member)." |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I believe that memes, as currently understood, are wrong. As long as we're assuming that memes are the things-that-are-perceived/conceived, and not the perceiving/conceiving-of-the-thing, the idea of a meme is quite meaningless. Memes are meme-ings. All activities apart from the purely biological ones, are memetic. Apart from the context in which they are perceived, they are nothing at all. That is, it is not, say, religions, AS SUCH, that are the memes. The meme is the-acting-of-it, the-following-of-it, the movement, which apart from the religious context in which it is perceived, have no meaning. A religion without the "conceptual overlaying", is just an empty concept. Any functioning, any movement, any "living", apart from the purely biological, i.e. eating, sleeping, reproducing, etc, are all memetic. No conceptual knowledge of breathing is required - to breath. But to ride a bike, alot of practice and understanding is required. This knowledge, apart from being related to bikes, have no "meaning" at all. This knowledge is the meme-ing, an idea. It's like saying: "Did you know that X has Y, when Z is A?" Without the knowledge of "X, Y, Z and A", we can't tell! And that in itself, is a wisp of air, without the question concerning "X, Y, Z and A". Memes always point somewhere else, because, in themselves, they have no meaning. It's purely relational. In short it is the functioning of it, not the specific behaviours. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Might add that the above is not directed specifically at you, w M w. It's just a summation of my understanding of the idea of memes. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I didn' t really follow much of that. Things like skills/bike riding (coordinated muscle movements) involve the brain doing logic/learning in a method we don't fully understand (nobody has figured out how to make human-equivalent artificial intelligence yet), and might have less or no relevance to memetic theory. But still things like wearing a baseball cap backwards or using yo-yo's/hoola hoops spread from person to person in a replicating epidemic, as mentioned in the link in the topic I'm following up to. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Hmm, it's too hard to explain. I just keep erasing what I'm writing. I'll leave it at that. Anyway, thanks for the brief discussion. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
How many bridges has religion built? How many diseases has religion cured? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
don't play that silly game. you really don't think that confucionism, buddhism, judeochristianity, islam (to name a few) contributed anything to humanity? what does science have to say about the worth of a human being? what is the value of art, and literature, and music? you cannot separate faith from humanity and expect to have any understanding of history, or human identity. before you single out the extremists, let's remember that fundamentalist scientific materialists committed genocide in the soviet union, in cambodia, in china. and they imposed forced sterilization on individuals in the west. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Why don't you get off your high horse you self righteous cunt. religions are intolerant mysogynistic racist homophobic narrow minded petty institutions responsible for The majority of conflicts in the world, especially the abrahamic religions. Good for nothing. Believe what you want, I won't judge. Yes there are evil atheists. That doesn't make all religious people benevolent by default. Sake. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
self-righteous? high-horse? for calling you on your bullshit? believe what you want to believe, but you really don't have much more than a bunch of opinions you wear on your sleeve, and your obnoxious anger. your argument makes about as much sense as vilifying all men because they have been "the source of all conflicts in the world." fuck's sake indeed. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
