5 ms·

I have to say I'm just an amateur programmer but if there are absolute undecidable statements then what is the point of thinking? and if we are inconsistent wha

by raoof 5y ago

I have to say I'm just an amateur programmer but if there are absolute undecidable statements then what is the point of thinking? and if we are inconsistent what is the point of science? why not call it religion?

simonh 5y ago
Science isn't about formal and absolutely certain proofs. That's why we have things like the 5 Sigma standard for evidence in physics. We come up with a plausible theory, then look for evidence that it makes useful predictions. No experimental verification can be truly absolute though. Also consider the fact that Newtonian mechanics was superseded by Relativity, and that even though relativity and Quantum Mechanics are thoroughly verified across many domains they are also inconsistent with each other in some ways. We don't have absolute knowledge in Physics, or science generally in the strict sense that this video and philosophers of logic discuss. We only have useful theories that describe the world very closely to reality across most situations. We also very importantly get to conclusively rule out an awful lot of ideas and theories. That's very important work. It is all about levels of confidence though. If you think about it, you probably already knew all this, you just hadn't considered the consequences yet. We're all in that boat about a lot of things. I'm afraid in the grand scheme of things, despite all out truly incredible accomplishments, it's also true that we're stuck with fairly limited mental faculties. As to why? Well, we need to feed and clothe our children somehow. That means figuring out how to get stuff done. Working out explanations of the world that verifiably work, more or less, has turned out pretty well for us.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- raoof 5y ago
  if I am inconsistent how can I trust the conclusion that I am a machine considering that my desire is to not to be?
  - simonh 5y ago
    I don't think you can. We don't have enough information to be certain yet, we can just try to estimate the least inconsistent hypothesis.
    - raoof 5y ago
      I don't understand your philosophical position. mind body problem is not about the data it's about explanation, how much data do you need? we are bombarded with data every second of our lives.
      - simonh 5y ago
        We don't have a sufficiently robust explanation, backed up by evidence for it's accuracy.

by raoof 5y ago

simonh 5y ago

Science isn't about formal and absolutely certain proofs. That's why we have things like the 5 Sigma standard for evidence in physics. We come up with a plausible theory, then look for evidence that it makes useful predictions. No experimental verification can be truly absolute though. Also consider the fact that Newtonian mechanics was superseded by Relativity, and that even though relativity and Quantum Mechanics are thoroughly verified across many domains they are also inconsistent with each other in some ways. We don't have absolute knowledge in Physics, or science generally in the strict sense that this video and philosophers of logic discuss. We only have useful theories that describe the world very closely to reality across most situations. We also very importantly get to conclusively rule out an awful lot of ideas and theories. That's very important work. It is all about levels of confidence though. If you think about it, you probably already knew all this, you just hadn't considered the consequences yet. We're all in that boat about a lot of things. I'm afraid in the grand scheme of things, despite all out truly incredible accomplishments, it's also true that we're stuck with fairly limited mental faculties. As to why? Well, we need to feed and clothe our children somehow. That means figuring out how to get stuff done. Working out explanations of the world that verifiably work, more or less, has turned out pretty well for us.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
raoof 5y ago
if I am inconsistent how can I trust the conclusion that I am a machine considering that my desire is to not to be?
- simonh 5y ago
  I don't think you can. We don't have enough information to be certain yet, we can just try to estimate the least inconsistent hypothesis.
  - raoof 5y ago
    I don't understand your philosophical position. mind body problem is not about the data it's about explanation, how much data do you need? we are bombarded with data every second of our lives.
    - simonh 5y ago
      We don't have a sufficiently robust explanation, backed up by evidence for it's accuracy.