sonusario

15 ms·

31.
by sonusario 7y ago
> [part 1, of course!] It is what it is I guess. > I suspect the problem is more the nailing down of definitions than the logical structure of the argument Possibly, but where we are missing each other on definitions would likely be m
32.
by sonusario 7y ago
> yeah, seems I don't manage to stay under the limit ... We seem to be getting side-tracked with tons of irrelevant details. To skim things down, let's get more formal. === Could you please state your argument, regarding things
33.
by sonusario 7y ago
> All of those say pretty much the same, in so far as they are applicable to the situation? Do you think they mean the same thing as your definition? If so why, otherwise where did you get your definition of 'incompatible with scien
34.
by sonusario 7y ago
> To be incompatible with science means to be making factual (as in real/non-formal) claims based on methodology that is not demonstrated to be reasonably reliable for determining the truth of such a claim. Why define 'incompat
35.
by sonusario 7y ago
Given how long it can take to make responses, for us to start dipping into doing two part posts when we aren't making much progress is likely a waist time for the both of us (I wouldn't say no progress because we have still been d
36.
by sonusario 7y ago
> Nothing does, because that is exactly what it is? So, we can only agree or disagree, and there is no reason to believe your definition of 'definition'? > Just because definitions are arbitrary, doesn't mean that you c
37.
by sonusario 7y ago
> ... "definition" is defined to mean an arbitrary assignment of semantics to symbols, with no requirement that those semantics in any way connect to reality ... What indicates to you that your definition of 'definition&#x
38.
by sonusario 7y ago
> Sure, I wasn't objecting, it just made it a bit unclear what you meant by that first question ... Sorry about that, I wasn't explicit with that as part of my intention. ========================================================
39.
by sonusario 8y ago
> I am not quite sure I understand what you are getting at. I was asking my first question in a potential series. How do you determine whether a claim is about reality? ====================================================================
40.
by sonusario 8y ago
>> The thought experiment was scientific evidence? > Well, I guess you could even look at it that way (it is a question about thought that we are trying to answer, after all), but I'd tend to think that that is a category erro
41.
by sonusario 8y ago
>>> Propositions are in the same category as sentences, as far as their dependency on representation is concerned. >> What evidence do you have of this being the case? > Well, the thought experiment that followed? The thou
42.
by sonusario 8y ago
> Propositions are in the same category as sentences, as far as their dependency on representation is concerned. What evidence do you have of this being the case? Think about what it would mean for the truth of "Snow is white"
43.
by sonusario 8y ago
Note I'm skimming over things because I think we are talking past each other about things that don't strike to the heart of our conversation. If there is anything in particular that I have skipped that you'd like me to commen
44.
by sonusario 8y ago
> ... If you make the completely arbitrary assumption ... What do you mean by an "arbitrary assumption". The first definition that comes up for "arbitrary" is "Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than
45.
by sonusario 8y ago
>> Not just axioms, but all mathematical proofs are not testable by science. > By virtue of being derived from axioms? No, but by virtue of not being able to perform scientific observation on a mathematical proof. Math has no color
46.
by sonusario 8y ago
To both questions: Assuming all the evidence has the same veracity, yes.
47.
by sonusario 8y ago
> I am not dismissing them ... I acknowledged as much. I mistakenly didn't see you as asking "how it is rational" but as asking "how could it be considered rational?". This is why I hadn't answered your ques
48.
by sonusario 8y ago
> If you mean that axioms are not testable Not just axioms, but all mathematical proofs are not testable by science. > ... that's simply a category error because axioms are not claims about reality. Are you saying that math on it
49.
by sonusario 8y ago
> It's supposed to make you feel closer to something which exists beyond reality. I'd say "beyond the natural" rather than "beyond reality". That isn't really an issue if it pertains to truth. > For
50.
by sonusario 8y ago
> How is that relevant to the question of whether it is rational to believe it actually happened in that particular instance? If there is evidence for it occurring, then yes that would be rational, regardless of how unlikely it seems for
51.
by sonusario 8y ago
> Very very few astronomers, cosmologists and physicists are dedicating their working life to something that is broadly considered unfalsifiable. Correct me if I am wrong, but from what I understand, the multiverse is not observable dire
52.
by sonusario 8y ago
> Multiverse has a mathematical structure behind it. If there is a multiverse. > It's a result of trying to explain certain physical phenomena we're seeing. Yet it is not a scientific explanation until it has be confirmed by
53.
by sonusario 8y ago
>> but that soul is metaphysical and immune to experiment -- and therefore doesn't conflict with science. > Yes, it does. Being untestable is about as incompatible with science as you can get. Math is not testable with the sci
54.
by sonusario 8y ago
> ... to believe that virgins can give birth ... Even if unlikely, given that we might postulate this as asexual reproduction caused by some super rare genetic mutation, wouldn't it be disingenuous to say that it can't happen?
55.
by sonusario 8y ago
There is a more volumetric 3d printing method which prints all at once, no rotation required: https://www.llnl.gov/news/volumetric-3d-printing-builds-need...
56.
by sonusario 8y ago
> Ethereum—the platform I helped found—would allow people to interact in mutually beneficial ways without anyone needing to trust each other. Asking from ignorance here. Is everyone who uses ethereum subject to the ethereum developers wh
57.
by sonusario 8y ago
> Yes, explanatory theories rely on observations. But they are not just straightforward extrapolations of the form, "Because we have observed something N times (e.g. we have seen N green emeralds) we can reliably conclude that we w
58.
by sonusario 8y ago
Does explanatory theory make use of observation? Because based on the the wiki page for inductive reasoning, if you use observations for evidence, then you are using inductive reasoning to some capacity.
59.
by sonusario 8y ago
> No. We have never observed a star become a red giant. I never actually claimed that we have seen a star become a red giant, but that we have made observations that allow us to conclude that some stars become red giants. Perhaps you can
60.
by sonusario 8y ago
Then what form of reasoning was used? You stated that we cannot validly claim that the sun will rise forever just because we've observed it rise in the east every day for the last few billion years. Then you cite stellar observations t

More ›