6 ms·

The problem is that causation is an oxymoron. The measurement problem is the same as the problem of induction. Max Planck understood this, read his quotes on

by pleb 12y ago

The problem is that causation is an oxymoron. The measurement problem is the same as the problem of induction. Max Planck understood this, read his quotes on matter. No amount of correlation increases the probability of one event followed by another. Therefore, all scientific analysis is unverifiable. Knowledge of the world is completely unjustified. Not to mention our immense presumption of consistency in world phenomena when we really have no basis for asserting uniformity of nature. Read Hume on causality. "Belief in the Causal Nexus is superstition" - Wittgenstein If knowledge requires certainty, and our method of determining certainty is an infinite regress of reduction, it is like a recursive function which never returns a value. Logic is inherently a comparison operator, and if logic is the only mechanism available to us, we are trapped in a purely relational analysis and it is impossible for the mind to conceive of certainty beyond a non-reasonable emotional preordained state of knowing. A feeling so powerful it is personally indubitable. The premise of a singularity is invalid since it is inconceivable and the idea that causation is at any time inferred via comparison is fundamentally incomprehensible. If the premise is unclear then the argument is invalid. If I say that an airplane functions on fairy dust and you make an argument about propulsion and lift, and you claim that my assertion is wrong because I have not properly performed a rational reduction and that a detail I do not understand could invalidate my entire theory, well guess what neither of us is technically correct to any degree since the test for invalidity applies equally to both of our assumptions. The concept of proof is also an oxymoron. Hence, the very concept of phenomenal causation is an oxymoron. The notion of knowledge about the world is a disguise for a coping mechanism based on hope and desire.

pleb 12y ago
I couldn't edit, so I'll reply, but this mind bending quote really sums up the limitations of logic and observation. "Language disguises the thought; so that from the external form of the clothes one cannot infer the form of the thought they clothe, because the external form of the clothes is constructed with quite another object than to let the form of the body be recognized." - Wittgenstein
mattfenwick 12y ago
I do agree with you that science doesn't show causation, but I think your interpretation of science is incorrect: > Therefore, all scientific analysis is unverifiable. I disagree. It's verified by experiment. (Here I'm using "verify" to mean that contradictions have not (yet) been found by experimental observation). > Knowledge of the world is completely unjustified. I disagree. Again, it's justified by experiment. If that's not enough for you, too bad, because that's all we have. > Our immense presumption of consistency in world phenomena when we really have no basis for asserting uniformity of nature. I disagree. This is only asserted insofar as it's 1) useful, and 2) justified by observation. I don't think you understand the significance of scientific results. They don't say "at a fundamental, irreducible level, this is how <some system> operates." Rather, they're saying something more along the lines of "as far as we can tell, this is a description of how <some system> operates, but it's entirely possible that we're wrong. However, we don't have any data that shows that we're wrong (yet), and because this description is useful for understanding <some system>, we're going to use it." We don't need to know how a system works at a fundamental level, if understanding it at a less-detailed level is useful. I do agree with you that we can't determine "actual causality", but we don't need to, if we can instead find a bunch of really good correlations. The problem is that people find lots of crappy correlations, and/or can't tell the difference between good and crappy correlations.
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  Go further: reproducible experiment can tease out details to many decimal places of likelihood. Something can be known so thoroughly that we can make statements like "this is certain to behave as predicted millions or billions of times more often that not", which is pretty close to certain knowledge.
  - mattfenwick 12y ago
    I'm not sure that I agree. I think that once you get into the realm of "absolute truth" (which is what I'm interpreting your post as saying -- apologies if I'm mistaken), you've left science behind. IMHO, science cannot (and does not aim to) deliver certain knowledge. Instead, it produces useful approximations.
mattfenwick 12y ago
> If I say that an airplane functions on fairy dust and you make an argument about propulsion and lift, and you claim that my assertion is wrong because ... The only reason "science" would claim that your assertion is wrong is if your explanation doesn't agree with reality. However, if you collect a bunch of data that you say supports your theory, but your experimental technique or data analysis is not good, then it's perfectly reasonable to point out the problems and say that your result is not supported by your procedure. This is not the same as saying that your assertion is wrong. Another important concept that you're missing is usefulness: your assertion is unlikely to be useful (this is totally different from whether it's correct). Let's say you want to ensure that planes don't fall out of the air: how would you take advantage of your assertion to do this? (My proxy for usefulness is falsifiability -- un-falsifiable theories often are useless)
- pleb 12y ago
  "The only reason "science" would claim that your assertion is wrong is if your explanation doesn't agree with reality." Your statement is a circular reference to the problem of induction. You arbitrarily claim to be able to make accurate assertions of reality while at the same time agreeing that the essence of reality is unknowable. This reply of yours is full of circular reasoning. Stop using the word good without making your case for righteousness. You can't substitute it with practical or useful either, both infer benefit at the personal degree. Just because an expectation proved to be useful once, remember that the past does not predict the future. "Belief in the Causal Nexus is superstition"
  - mattfenwick 12y ago
    Oops, instead of "reality" I meant "experimental observations". Good catch. > You arbitrarily claim to be able to make accurate assertions of reality Nope. > while at the same time agreeing that the essence of reality is unknowable. Yep. I guess? All I think is that it's okay if we don't know the true essence; science is still useful[0]. > Stop using the word good without making your case for righteousness. Stop hijacking common words. > You can't substitute it with practical or useful either, both infer benefit at the personal degree. I don't know what that means. > Just because an expectation proved to be useful once, remember that the past does not predict the future. Depends what you mean by predict the future. Absolute truth? No. Useful[0] forecasts? Yes. ---- [0] dictionary.reference.com: > useful: being of use or service; serving some purpose; advantageous, helpful, or of good effect

by pleb 12y ago

pleb 12y ago

I couldn't edit, so I'll reply, but this mind bending quote really sums up the limitations of logic and observation. "Language disguises the thought; so that from the external form of the clothes one cannot infer the form of the thought they clothe, because the external form of the clothes is constructed with quite another object than to let the form of the body be recognized." - Wittgenstein

mattfenwick 12y ago

I do agree with you that science doesn't show causation, but I think your interpretation of science is incorrect: > Therefore, all scientific analysis is unverifiable. I disagree. It's verified by experiment. (Here I'm using "verify" to mean that contradictions have not (yet) been found by experimental observation). > Knowledge of the world is completely unjustified. I disagree. Again, it's justified by experiment. If that's not enough for you, too bad, because that's all we have. > Our immense presumption of consistency in world phenomena when we really have no basis for asserting uniformity of nature. I disagree. This is only asserted insofar as it's 1) useful, and 2) justified by observation. I don't think you understand the significance of scientific results. They don't say "at a fundamental, irreducible level, this is how <some system> operates." Rather, they're saying something more along the lines of "as far as we can tell, this is a description of how <some system> operates, but it's entirely possible that we're wrong. However, we don't have any data that shows that we're wrong (yet), and because this description is useful for understanding <some system>, we're going to use it." We don't need to know how a system works at a fundamental level, if understanding it at a less-detailed level is useful. I do agree with you that we can't determine "actual causality", but we don't need to, if we can instead find a bunch of really good correlations. The problem is that people find lots of crappy correlations, and/or can't tell the difference between good and crappy correlations.

JoeAltmaier 12y ago
Go further: reproducible experiment can tease out details to many decimal places of likelihood. Something can be known so thoroughly that we can make statements like "this is certain to behave as predicted millions or billions of times more often that not", which is pretty close to certain knowledge.
- mattfenwick 12y ago
  I'm not sure that I agree. I think that once you get into the realm of "absolute truth" (which is what I'm interpreting your post as saying -- apologies if I'm mistaken), you've left science behind. IMHO, science cannot (and does not aim to) deliver certain knowledge. Instead, it produces useful approximations.

mattfenwick 12y ago

> If I say that an airplane functions on fairy dust and you make an argument about propulsion and lift, and you claim that my assertion is wrong because ... The only reason "science" would claim that your assertion is wrong is if your explanation doesn't agree with reality. However, if you collect a bunch of data that you say supports your theory, but your experimental technique or data analysis is not good, then it's perfectly reasonable to point out the problems and say that your result is not supported by your procedure. This is not the same as saying that your assertion is wrong. Another important concept that you're missing is usefulness: your assertion is unlikely to be useful (this is totally different from whether it's correct). Let's say you want to ensure that planes don't fall out of the air: how would you take advantage of your assertion to do this? (My proxy for usefulness is falsifiability -- un-falsifiable theories often are useless)

pleb 12y ago
"The only reason "science" would claim that your assertion is wrong is if your explanation doesn't agree with reality." Your statement is a circular reference to the problem of induction. You arbitrarily claim to be able to make accurate assertions of reality while at the same time agreeing that the essence of reality is unknowable. This reply of yours is full of circular reasoning. Stop using the word good without making your case for righteousness. You can't substitute it with practical or useful either, both infer benefit at the personal degree. Just because an expectation proved to be useful once, remember that the past does not predict the future. "Belief in the Causal Nexus is superstition"
- mattfenwick 12y ago
  Oops, instead of "reality" I meant "experimental observations". Good catch. > You arbitrarily claim to be able to make accurate assertions of reality Nope. > while at the same time agreeing that the essence of reality is unknowable. Yep. I guess? All I think is that it's okay if we don't know the true essence; science is still useful[0]. > Stop using the word good without making your case for righteousness. Stop hijacking common words. > You can't substitute it with practical or useful either, both infer benefit at the personal degree. I don't know what that means. > Just because an expectation proved to be useful once, remember that the past does not predict the future. Depends what you mean by predict the future. Absolute truth? No. Useful[0] forecasts? Yes. ---- [0] dictionary.reference.com: > useful: being of use or service; serving some purpose; advantageous, helpful, or of good effect