SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the Fee-Fie-Fou-Fhum-Fideism-Falafel dept.
Commentary at Salon!
Should you believe in a God? Not according to most academic philosophers. A comprehensive survey revealed that only about 14 percent of English speaking professional philosophers are theists. As for what little religious belief remains among their colleagues, most professional philosophers regard it as a strange aberration among otherwise intelligent people. Among scientists the situation is much the same. Surveys of the members of the National Academy of Sciences, composed of the most prestigious scientists in the world, show that religious belief among them is practically nonexistent, about 7 percent.
[...] Now nothing definitely follows about the truth of a belief from what the majority of philosophers or scientists think. But such facts might cause believers discomfort. There has been a dramatic change in the last few centuries in the proportion of believers among the highly educated in the Western world. In the European Middle Ages belief in a God was ubiquitous, while today it is rare among the intelligentsia. This change occurred primarily because of the rise of modern science and a consensus among philosophers that arguments for the existence of gods, souls, afterlife and the like were unconvincing. Still, despite the view of professional philosophers and world-class scientists, religious beliefs have a universal appeal. What explains this?
[...] First, if you defend such beliefs by claiming that you have a right to your opinion, however unsupported by evidence it might be, you are referring to a political or legal right, not an epistemic one. You may have a legal right to say whatever you want, but you have epistemic justification only if there are good reasons and evidence to support your claim. If someone makes a claim without concern for reasons and evidence, we should conclude that they simply don't care about what's true. We shouldn't conclude that their beliefs are true because they are fervently held.
Another problem is that fideism—basing one's beliefs exclusively on faith—makes belief arbitrary, leaving no way to distinguish one religious belief from another. Fideism allows no reason to favor your preferred beliefs or superstitions over others. If I must accept your beliefs without evidence, then you must accept mine, no matter what absurdity I believe in. But is belief without reason and evidence worthy of rational beings? Doesn't it perpetuate the cycle of superstition and ignorance that has historically enslaved us? I agree with W.K. Clifford. "It is wrong always, everywhere and for everyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." Why? Because your beliefs affect other people, and your false beliefs may harm them.
I am checking to see what the Church of the Flying Spagetti Monster has to say about all this.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Thexalon on Sunday January 20 2019, @11:13PM (85 children)
Once you have decided that there exists a Highest Truth that you can't demonstrate with evidence and such, you have given up your ability to observe, evaluate, and reason. No matter what you observe or are presented with you will evaluate it as subservient to that Highest Truth, even if it's evidence that your Highest Truth is completely and utterly wrong.
The Highest Truth in question does not have to be religious in nature to have that effect. And no, smart people aren't immune to it.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by HiThere on Sunday January 20 2019, @11:49PM (43 children)
Your argument is flawed. Just because you assert there exists a "highest truth", for some definition of highest, doesn't imply either that your argument is fallacious or that you're claiming to know what that "highest truth" is. For some definitions of "highest truth" assuming its existence is both reasonable and necessary. When I'm crossing the street one contextually dominant "highest truth" is that fast cars headed in my direction are dangerous.
Similarly, I believe in gods. They don't exactly fit into the normal picture of what a god is, and they aren't singular, but I have direct experience that they exist. I used to equate them to C.G.Jung's archetypes, but I've been rereading Jung, and they don't really match. His metaphors are based more around personal relations, power, and plumbing, where mine are based more around biology and computer programming. The biology is how the "collective unconsciousness" happens to get built about the same way in everyone, and the computer programming is about how our perception of reality is shaped via the underlying structure of the brain (as bio-computer). The gods are those routines that mediate between the structure of the system and consciousness. Think of them as "system library routines" that can assume the mask of a human personality, and can manifest in any sensory system they find appropriate. But that's "a truth for the armchair". When you're dealing with them you need to deal with them as if they were powerful intelligent entities (usually powerful intelligent people). And it's best to avoid dealing with them straight on, as they are known to frequently engage in "demonic possession"...this is an unusual description of several common forms of psychosis.
When I read the classical descriptions of someone encountering a god (such as Moses at the burning bush), they are fairly clearly talking about the same phenomena, so I feel that "gods" is the correct word to use. But it's a long way from the commonplace imagery.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Arik on Monday January 21 2019, @12:05AM (3 children)
Instead we get the simplistic fallacies exhibited in TFA. An assumption that the most ludicrous version of theism possible is the only version, beating up the straw man, declaring victory.
Yes, Moses encountered something incredible, something even he didn't really have the vocabulary to describe. So much of 'holy' writing is like that - it doesn't make perfect sense because it's an attempt to record something that was not understood, something for which vocabulary did not exist and had to be improvised.
Generations later, fools read it literally, and not long after that, smart people demonstrate that their literal reading is nonsense.
Well, yes, but it still amounts to beating up a straw man.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Whoever on Monday January 21 2019, @06:32AM (2 children)
Whoops, responded to wrong post.
Moses (if he existed) had an experience that might be explained by taking an hallucinogen. No further explanation is required.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 21 2019, @10:26AM
"Every complex phenomenon has an explanation that is short, simple and completely wrong!"
Moses is the first literate person in Jewish history. It is not entirely possible that he experimented with the
literary construct of "fiction", or even practised the traditional Jewish didactic concept of parables.
An explanation needs to be more than "possible" it needs to go further than "plausible" - to be true it
needs "proof" - according to Moses beyond the person who proposes the argument, two further
witnesses. In other words, for something to stand, it needs at least three legs - even if it is a hypothesis.
--
Here: have an experi-mint! (They are coated in dark chocolate).
Proof: of course its proof - its "Wray and Nephew 100 proof white rum!"
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday January 22 2019, @12:54AM
This doesn't bother you? Just because it might be explained by consumption of an hallucinogen doesn't even come close to an examination of the story. As far as I'm concerned, the whole story can be explained by Moses walking up the mountain alone, collecting his thoughts, then walking back down with a good story (lie) that had a positive impact on his people for generations into the future - no further explanation required, but the real value isn't in what happened or didn't happen, the real value is in the outcome.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 21 2019, @12:07AM
and:
And there was much rejoicing.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday January 21 2019, @12:15AM (32 children)
You missed the part about the Highest Truth being defined as stuff that is above question by any mere observations, evidence, or reasoning.
In the case of your gods, if that's a metaphor that helps you understand the universe, fine. But if someone presents evidence that would lead to the inescapable conclusion that those gods don't exist, what would you do with that information? If the answer is "reject it out of hand without even considering whether it might be right", and cognitive dissonance theory suggests you are very likely to do that, then you are falling into the trap I described. Atheists aren't immune from these effects either: If you believe there's no possible way a god could exist, and you have an obvious miracle occurring right in front of you that defies every known law of science, you're likely to make the same mistake.
None of this is a big problem unless your Highest Truth convinces you to do something that's going to cause a lot of problems for other people. However, when your Highest Truth is telling you to create problems for other people, e.g. by killing them, then yes, you've gone off the deep end and need to be treated as such.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by HiThere on Monday January 21 2019, @02:23AM (8 children)
I think you aren't understanding. The "naively perceived" external world is a creation of underlying mental processes. What you see is not what's out there, but something that was evolutionarily useful to use to represent what's out there, and the intermediate layer are the gods. You could think of them as autonomous systems level processes, but they stand between you and whatever is really out there. which you can never perceive. They can also use your own brain software to interact with you as if they were personalities (please note the "as if"). And when they activate in certain ways they can adjust what you perceive to be things that no one else sees. When activated in a controlled way, they can produce "visions" which are clearly internally generated fabrications (as if conscious while dreaming). When they grab control, you can lose contact with the difference between what they are generating and what consensus reality would be. If sufficiently enthused (consider the derivation of that term) you can "inspire" others to see things the same way.
So this is what the gods have always done, and therefore I feel it's the right word to use to describe them.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Monday January 21 2019, @05:01AM (7 children)
There's this thing we label "objective reality". It's a simple enough idea: that what we observe is real. We're not being fooled by some hologram or projection or simulation. We don't have to take a blue pill, we're already outside of the Matrix, we always were, and there is no Matrix. As for deeper realities of the supernatural variety, sure, such things could exist, and we'd never be able to detect them. That's an unfalsifiable explanation.
Even if we can't rely on our senses, we have designed an awful lot of instruments that are excellent at measuring and observing all kinds of things. What our instruments perceive agrees with each other. Several different ways of measuring the same thing all produce the same value. We are not stumbling about in foggy confusion.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by HiThere on Monday January 21 2019, @04:43PM (5 children)
Sorry. Objective reality is an illusion. I'm not arguing for solipsism, but you cannot know the external reality. There are *LOTS* of experimental proofs of this. Even logical arguments (usually, but not always, relating to sets that contain themselves as members).
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Monday January 21 2019, @06:48PM (2 children)
You know the expression: If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, then it is a duck. So it is with reality. Doesn't matter if objective reality is an illusion or is reality, it's all we have to work with.
No one can prove that objective reality is reality, or supernatural illusion over some deeper reality. The idea that we and our instruments are all being fooled by a supernatural illusion is not falsifiable, not testable. Therefore, we provisionally accept that what we observe is reality. If an omnipotent supernatural deity wishes to deceive us, lie to us, keep us ignorant, there's nothing we can ever do to break out, and if we are ever to see reality, we must wait on His pleasure to end the illusion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 21 2019, @07:03PM (1 child)
What you say may be true for most of your day to day reality, but once you get into quantum mechanics, trust me: its far easier to be religious.
Somewhat anecdotally: it seems most of my biologist colleagues are atheist, the physicists not so much. Should really find some numbers on that...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Monday January 21 2019, @08:51PM
Too often, religion has been too easy, been a cop-out.
Much religion was obviously invented by ourselves, to serve our own several, divergent purposes. Those people who suffer from existential angst, who are unable to see sufficient wonder and beauty in mere existence and complicated phenomena, can't accept that freedom is good, actually fear and hate having so much freedom that they don't know what to do with themselves, and think all that freedom makes the universe a lawless, anarchic, chaotic, immoral, dangerous place, have very particular demands. They want a regimented sort of universe so badly they'll accept a good, made up story about there being just such a supernatural order. The features of their religions are quite telling. Why are these supernatural homelands and organizations monarchies, rather than democracies, or something even more advanced, whatever that may be?
What was good enough for the Iron Age sure isn't good enough today, now that we know so much more. We know the creation account in Genesis cannot be literally true, know that the Earth is not The Center of All Creation, know that we evolved from ape-like ancestors, know that much disease is caused by microorganisms and not divine displeasure or witchcraft. The Bible literalists who still contest that stuff and the opportunists who push worse things, such as the Prosperity Gospel, are a huge embarrassment to Christianity.
(Score: 1) by ChrisMaple on Tuesday January 22 2019, @01:52AM (1 child)
You have just contradicted yourself.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday January 22 2019, @03:17AM
Sorry, but that's not a contradiction. One of the examples is the "rubber hand" illusion, where people are convinced that a rubber hand is their own.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday January 22 2019, @05:58AM
We have built a lot of instruments, but we're not done. For example, we don't seem to have a reliable dark matter detector (if there is such a thing). It took us quite some time to come up with a neutrino detector.
Our neurons might or might not have a structure prone to quantum coherence and it might or might not affect their behavior (the jury isn't really even empaneled yet).
Our instruments do agree, but we're not always sure what they actually indicate. Sometimes we think we do and then we come to a new and better understanding. It's not as if those readouts are connected to a certain and objective truth.
Even with our instruments, our beliefs color what we read. Consider the Em drive. At first there was controversy over the question of "did the instruments actually measure anything". Finally, we agreed that they did, but what was it? We now have pretty good evidence for a rather mundane explanation, but it's not like we could just look at an objective readout and all agree "yep! that's it!".
(Score: 5, Insightful) by stormreaver on Monday January 21 2019, @03:07AM (19 children)
Atheist scientists absolutely WON'T make the same mistake. Instead of entertaining the ludicrous notion that, "an obvious miracle [is] occurring right in front of [me] that defies every known law of science," the atheist scientist will start collecting evidence that begins describing a new law of science Or perhaps multiple new laws of science. Because an atheist has already examined the notion of divinity, and rightfully concluded that it is a fabrication born of ignorance, there is that much less resistance to the expansion of human knowledge.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by c0lo on Monday January 21 2019, @05:52AM (15 children)
Assuming the hypothesis a proper miracle happens, the best scientists in this world will do shit.
A miracle, by its very meaning of the word, is not repeatable and defies any natural causation relationship - as such the scientists can't do anything - no chance of repeatability, nor any chance of observation with instruments able to detect the cause, no chance for experimentation. It's worst than magic, at least with magic one can analyze potions or examine amulets or hear incantations or whatevs.
In the end, upon witnessing a miracle and discounting insanity reasons, any scientist worth her/his salt will say: "I can't explain, a freak combination of conditions I don't get, or a statistical fluctuation made it happen once - very much like seeing a broken cup pieces suddenly jumping off the floor, recomposing themselves in a full cup and landing on the table: the laws of physics allow it. And it's a good thing this happens so rarely that we can ignore such events in the everyday life".
And they'd be right.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday January 21 2019, @10:41AM
Any sufficiently analysed magic is indistinguishable from science. [girlgeniusonline.com]
TVtropes link here: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SufficientlyAnalyzedMagic [tvtropes.org]
(Score: 2) by stormreaver on Monday January 21 2019, @01:07PM (8 children)
You have just argued that there are no supernatural miracles, which was my whole point: There is either science we understand, or science needing to be understood.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday January 21 2019, @02:19PM (7 children)
Come on, don't be obtuse. That's a possible explanation, however with a single miraculous occurrence, no scientist will ever be sure it's the only explanation or the correct one.
Science does not deal with one-off happenings, it can't - there must be a pattern of occurrences for science to be able to act.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by stormreaver on Monday January 21 2019, @09:54PM (6 children)
For one-off events that are significant, scientists will make note of what they can for future reference. Given the eternally diminishing domain of unexplained phenomena, connections will eventually be made until enough dots are connected to form a hypothesis, which will then lead to a theory.
The one thing I can say with absolute certainty is that those dots will have absolutely no supernatural, godly component to them. It's not being obtuse. It's paying attention to history, and extrapolating logically.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday January 21 2019, @10:31PM (5 children)
Rrrright. Have to admire your optimism in regards to 'the memory of science'.
The recall phase, then giving credence to what was recorded are two things I don't trust will happen at centuries scale.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Tuesday January 22 2019, @12:44AM (4 children)
I think they're talking about about one-off events witnessed by multiple scientists. If it's really something that strange and only one scientist witnesses it, the most likely explanation is almost certainly that they were hallucinating or that their memory of the event deteriorated afterwards. If they took photos or recorded other data, in the case of the biggest miracles, it's likely more probable that they falsified the evidence themselves and then lost their memories of doing so (or did it during sleep, for example) than anything more exotic being the cause. The world population's big enough that one in a billion coincidences will happen quite a lot over the decades and centuries.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday January 22 2019, @12:59AM (1 child)
This is terribly un-charitable to the scientists who actually do witness bizarre one-off (aka very low odds) events.
In my life, I have experienced several things - coincidences and strange events - that would seem to require better-than-lottery-winning odds to occur. Unfortunately, none of them involved lottery winning levels of wealth acquisition - though more than one seems to have preserved my health and well-being.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Tuesday January 22 2019, @01:36AM
I was trying to give just one example of the sort of mundane, yet fairly improbable explanation that can explain something that otherwise seems to be a supernatural miracle. There could be many other explanations, so no offense to the scientists. ;) It's the whole "After eliminating the impossible, whatever is left, however improbable...". I've noticed it also seems to be human nature to dismiss explanations that are seen as dull, negative or distasteful as being less probable than they really are. Most people suck at estimating, let alone understanding, probabilities.
Genuinely glad to hear chance has been working out in your favor.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Tuesday January 22 2019, @01:49AM (1 child)
One in a billion probability is very high in terms of statistical mechanics/thermodynamics.
The probability of a shattered cup to recompose itself from pieces and jump back from the floor to the table, while is theoretically permitted by the laws of physics, has a probability many 10hundreds lower than the 1/1024.
- 1024 - estimation of the number of atoms in the cup.
- "10hundreds lower" - assume each isolated atom can take 100 values for position and 100 values for impulse , the "configuration space" of each of the atoms in isolation would be 104. However, the atoms aren't isolated, only considering interactions with 2-8 atoms in the neighborhood raises the dimension of the configuration space for all the atoms in the broken cup to a value no human mind is able to grasp.
To put the things in perspective - the age of universe is 4.317 seconds. The atoms in a solid vibrate at 1013 Hz range, so the age of Universe expressed is a paltry 4.330 periods of atom vibration in a solid.
I'm afraid that even if one available microstate would be "explored" at every vibration (see the ergodic hypothesis [wikipedia.org]) you'll need to wait zillions of Universe ages to have a non-negligible probability of seeing "the miracle of the shattered cup recomposing itself from pieces and jumping back on the table".
Even if the entire population of Earth would swear they saw that miracle, the probability of the entire population of Earth being delusional is still higher than the miracle above.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Tuesday January 22 2019, @02:10AM
Yes that was more or less my point. When you need an explanation for an apparently supernatural miracle (something that at face value is for, all practical purposes, pretty much impossible), you can start to consider some seriously wacky coincidences to explain it that are still mundane and still manage to be more probable than the suggested supernatural event itself.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 21 2019, @01:41PM (4 children)
To me it is the very existence of science that demonstrates the existence of God. If the universe is simply a result of unguided chance I would not expect a universe that has repeatable structure. Out of all possible outcomes what are the chances of arriving at a universe that results in consistent laws of physics?
To explain this away atheists put their faith in the multiverse. They put their faith in the belief that this is one universe in many others. It's blind faith to be sure but it's the only thing that can possibly save their beliefs. But even so that doesn't explain away the problem. Because if the universe is really a product of randomness and we happen to wind up with a consistent universe for a period of time in a random universe future moments have no bearing on past ones. The chances that future iterations will continue to produce the same consistent laws as previous moments by chance approaches zero as the future progresses. Yet with each passing moment the laws of physics are the same. The consistency of the universe, the existence of science, evidences God. A coherent creator.
The multiverse nonsense is similar to the idea of having one grand computer possessing multiple virtual machines. Each virtual machine is its own universe. To be able to have any of the universes possess consistent laws the 'grand' universe that possess them (the computer itself) must have consistency built in. The computer itself, with all of its universes/virtual machines built in, is still a product of design and not random unguided processes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 21 2019, @03:35PM (1 child)
Anthropic principle still bites you in the ass. It never ceases to amaze me how small and tiny of a god Yahweh is. At one point, there was only room for one planet in the universe created by Yahweh. One star system. Then one galaxy. Now only one universe!
Who is to say that there isn't an unimaginably large number of possible universes, something on the order of a googolplex. Who is to say that many of them are not compatible with technological civilizations or even unicellular life? This one is however.
I refuse to worship a tiny god.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 21 2019, @07:31PM
"Who is to say that there isn't an unimaginably large number of possible universes"
You can have faith in whatever you want but call it what it is ... faith.
(Score: 2) by Demena on Tuesday January 22 2019, @12:54AM
Because you to not expect something is no argument at all. Since all that follows is based on that, what follows is naught but blather. What you ‘expect’ is not necessarily correct. Given a little observation of how numbers work (just consider fractals alone) your expectation becomes absurd. Numbers form patters. Patterns determine formulae. Formulae become laws. Complex systems form from simple occurrences. A butterfly flaps its wings and.....
Your expectation is rather contrary to the world and the way it works. Arbitrary at best and it has nothing to support it.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 22 2019, @04:51PM
This is all well and good for Deism and similar, but it's no good for any of the specific Earth-born religions we have otherwise. Don't conflate Yahweh with the "Philosophers' God."
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 21 2019, @02:23PM
You've determined your conclusion (that there is no God) before you even investigated the matter. That's not a very useful definition of science.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 21 2019, @07:38PM (1 child)
"the atheist scientist will start collecting evidence that begins describing a new law of science Or perhaps multiple new laws of science"
Out of all possible universes why should I expect one that has any set of laws to begin with? Surely there are far more possible inconsistent universes where the laws of gravity are inconsistent, one moment gravity is strong, the next it's weak, the next it's non-existent, and it's not consistent from one location to another.
To me it's the very existence of a coherent universe with laws that evidences the existence of God.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Demena on Tuesday January 22 2019, @12:59AM
Ermmm... The reasons you give to believe in god are precisely the reasons that the idea of god is absurd.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday January 22 2019, @05:01AM
But there can be no such evidence. You're suggesting proof of a negative. There may be proof that some particular belief about those gods is incorrect, but the fundamental higher truth that they exist would be untouched.
The problems don't come in until that higher truth starts to cover things that are properly within the realm of science.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday January 23 2019, @10:49PM (1 child)
>But if someone presents evidence that would lead to the inescapable conclusion that those gods don't exist
as likely as finding the last digit of pi.
How can the product of a process perceive the process? how can a videogame character perceive the pc it is running on? how can a 100% emulated machine know it is emulated. Take a simulation, its creatures become self aware as us, study their world come to the conclusion that it is governed by the rules of the simulation plus some randomness. Where do they find us?
You could find an inescapable proof that nothing else exists besides what there is, and that what there is required no initial energy. Yet you have done it in the context of this world's logic which is modeled after this world. So it is a tautological short circuit instead of a demonstration. The world does not obey laws, laws describe the world.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday January 23 2019, @11:14PM
WAIT A MINUTE
Thesis: Pi is a finite number.
Hypothesis: Pi is 3 followed by an infinite series of decimals randomly distributed.
Now consider the '0' digit.
It has 1/10 or something probability of happening in the series.
Given that there are infinite trials this happens eventually with p=1
Now consider the '00' combination
It has 1/100 or something probability of happening in the series.
Given that there are infinite trials this happens eventually with p=1
Now consider the arbitrarily long '00...0' combination of length n
It has 1/10^n or something probability of happening in the series.
Given that there are infinite trials this happens eventually with p=1
But when a list of digits is followed by '00....0' for any n, it is finite.
(but being an infinitesimal combination, it only happens after infinite digits, it is a rehash of indeterminate forms)
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Monday January 21 2019, @06:30AM (2 children)
Perhaps Moses came across some magic mushrooms and struggled to explain his hallucinations?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 21 2019, @07:12AM
Was Moses in Oaxaca?
Do active shrooms grow in the Middle East? [shroomery.org]
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday January 21 2019, @04:48PM
This is certainly not impossible. He was wandering in the desert and would need to eat whatever he could find. But mushrooms are a bit unlikely.
But what you are arguing about is the physical cause of his experience, not the experience itself. It could also have been a psychotic break. I don't think he had been alone long enough to have that be the cause. And, if you want to get physical, that area of the world had numerous oil seeps, which could catch fire and use a bush as a wick. So physically, there are lots of possibilities. And that doesn't explain the mental/psychic/emotional experience.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1) by ChrisMaple on Tuesday January 22 2019, @01:55AM (1 child)
What part of the word "highest" do you not understand?
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday January 22 2019, @03:18AM
Perhaps I don't feel that the same thing counts as "highest" in all contexts. If that doesn't answer your question, then I don't understand it.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 5, Touché) by Gaaark on Monday January 21 2019, @12:02AM (4 children)
Replace Highest Truth with Dark Matter and you have the state of science today.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 21 2019, @01:48PM (3 children)
The difference is that scientists are trying to learn more about Dark Matter and make the black-box of it go away. Compare...
Science: Our theory says there should be a lot more matter in the universe, but we can't find it. So either our theory must be wrong, or there must be more matter out there. Let's call this discrepancy "dark matter," and run lots of test to figure out if our theory is correct, and/or if we can find where this matter is.
Religion: Our theory says that this happened because it is the Will of God. Therefore it is the Will of God and there is no need to investigate further. God works in mysterious ways. Who are you to question Him? Where were you when He built the firmament, and determined the waves, and scheduled the sun?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 21 2019, @04:51PM
Personally, I like Einstein's view.
I feel that science is the best way to read the universe that God wrote.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Demena on Tuesday January 22 2019, @01:07AM
He is right. Dark matter is a religion. It is rather unlikely to exist. All our examinations and studies show that its properties vary so much there would have to be many different types. Yet Quantifed inertia answers the issues that raised dark matter. Yet at the current time if you ask a scientist what causes inertia you will get an answer semantically equivalent to “god did it”.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday January 22 2019, @06:17AM
You have a limited imagination when it comes to religions.
The alternate questions are "Why did God will that? What was his/her objective? By what mechanism was it made to happen? Is there some way we might be able to do that one day? What must we do to learn how to do that?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by c0lo on Monday January 21 2019, @01:37AM (9 children)
How come?
In extreme, what you are saying amounts to asserting that (among many others):
have given up their ability to "observe, evaluate or reason".
I think you'd need to nuance your assertion to make it true.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday January 21 2019, @02:18AM (8 children)
Your quotes argue that a famous scientist was a theist and another famous scientist was a strong agnostic. That does not validate either the conclusion that (a) these 2 scientists were beyond questioning, or (b) God exists. When it comes to the science at least, both have been demonstrated to be partially wrong, which doesn't make them not smart, it just makes them stuck with the data they had doing the best they could to figure out what was going on.
In Newton's case, if anyone had presented him with incontrovertible proof that God didn't exist, he would have almost certainly denied it vigorously. He was a lifelong theist who was mostly interested in alchemy and his job at the Royal Mint and did his physics and math work on the side as part of settling a bet. In Einstein's case, my guess is that he would be more open to it, but very skeptical that the proof was really correct because extraordinary results require extraordinary evidence. Of course, we don't really know for sure because both of them are long-dead and so far no reliable methods of communication with the dead have been discovered.
Even the best scientists can reach the limits of their reasoning and observational powers. The really really great scientists recognize that.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by HiThere on Monday January 21 2019, @02:27AM (5 children)
You left out that both were constrained by the society of their day as to what they could get away with saying. I've recently been rereading some of C.G.Jung's work, and it's really interesting watching him justify the Roman Catholic faith while in the midst of presenting arguments that it's really just a useful psychological tool.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday January 21 2019, @08:38AM (4 children)
And, you seem to have neglected to point out that WE are constrained by the society of our day.
Today, talking about religion anywhere outside of your own church and community will get you ostracized pretty quickly.
Einstein's approach to God and religion is the most rational of all. If I may paraphrase him, "I have no evidence regarding the existence of God, so I offer no explanations." There is every reason to believe that if Einstein knew of a way to get evidence regarding the existence of God, he would have gone for it.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday January 21 2019, @04:52PM (1 child)
I thought our own constraints were implicitly obvious. If I thought my ideas would attach to me, personally, I'd have been a lot more reluctant to share them. In person I've never shared them with anyone outside of my family and a couple of extremely close friends, that I knew well enough to know that this was safe.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Monday January 21 2019, @05:12PM
Good enough. But, for all of those out there who don't recognize today's constraints, it needs to be pointed out. Today, an innocuous remark within hearing of an SJW activist may get you pilloried, or even lynched. Observe that some young woman is beautiful, and she and/or some third party will take that as a mysogenistic assault on the young woman. (note that it is almost always safe to remark on her clothing, but not on her person - weird, huh?)
Those who are part of this new CTRL-Left society have no idea how constrained they are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 21 2019, @06:06PM (1 child)
People have mystical experiences. People change their lives after religious conversions in ways they tried and failed to do on their own.
Of _course_ there are alternate explanations but remember that "subjective" is not the same as "wrong". If you have the misfortune to touch a hot object, you will be right to react to the subjective experience of pain and not continue getting burned while you wait for objective evidence from a thermometer.
There's a brain structure for having religious experiences. Why?
Why is belief so common that Sartre observed humans have a "God-shaped hole" in them?
Not proof, but things that require thought.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday January 21 2019, @08:43PM
I wonder if more intelligent/educated people don't train the mystical out of themselves. As children, we all have awe-inspiring experiences. Some of us are inspired by people, others by mother nature, others by fast cars, others by their religion. I think most of us continue to experience those things through life, but maybe these educated people have stomped that out of themselves, because they can't explain it. Ehhhh - I dunno.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 21 2019, @02:41AM
I thought we were in the "existence of a Higher Truth as a cause of limits on the observation, evaluation and reasoning abilities" context.
Since when "Higher Truth" necessarily equates to God?
Ummm... so, "being stuck with the data available" is another possible cause for limits in "observation, evaluation and reasoning abilities".
Even if you'd be right and the 'belief in a Higher Truth' is a cause of limitation, I wonder which of the two is the most restrictive?
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday January 22 2019, @06:29AM
You're sidestepping your own claim. You acknowledge that both "decided that there exists a Highest Truth that you can't demonstrate with evidence and such,". Yet here, you seem to acknowledge that they retained their "ability to observe, evaluate, and reason" in spite of your earlier claim that they could not do so.
Have you changed your mind? If not, please clarify and constrain your original claim appropriately.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday January 21 2019, @01:46AM (20 children)
You mean like the Peano axioms [wikipedia.org]?
Actually, I'm pretty sure you don't mean things like the Peano axioms. They are, nonetheless, statements accepted without "evidence and such" at least in terms of rigorous proof. That's the whole point -- the axiomatization of mathematics we accept today depends on our belief in certain statements accepted without proof. And some of those things (e.g., the Axiom of Choice) result in some weird stuff.
Nonetheless, professional mathematicians don't seem to have given up their "ability to observe, evaluate, and reason."
We can argue about whether axioms or accepted postulates in a formal logical system constitute a "Highest" truth, but they must be accepted as a foundational truth in many parts of human knowledge.
My point is this: it's not sufficient to just complain about the lack of "truths" without "evidence and such." The bigger problem with religion is the "highest" element -- that your assumptions and beliefs are taken completely outside the realm of empirical evidence (or even purely logical rationalistic evidence) to the contrary.
Also, many people who believe in the so-called "Highest Truth" have plenty of "evidence and such." It's often just "evidence" in a form that you wouldn't accept. Many people believe miracles happen every day and ascribe supernatural significance to the mundane. That is "evidence" -- it's just not GOOD evidence according to your empiricist (and probably statistical) mindset.
The fundamental issue is the inability to question your beliefs and assumptions (not the lack of evidence) -- and that's a problem shared by religious zealots and many scientists alike. Lots of history and loads of studies show that scientists often have trouble giving up fundamental beliefs about their field or their research, until there's quite a bit of evidence to overcome their assumptions. That's not a criticism -- it's just a fundamental human bias, a bias that we likely couldn't survive without, since learning isn't really possible unless at some point it cements into accepted "truth" (even if that acceptance is technically provisional).
On the other side of things, as pointed out in TFA, the religious folks who are educated often don't share a lot of the same beliefs as the "masses" -- they create systematic theological systems where their beliefs are rigorously worked out within the constraints of some logical system based on some assumptions. If you've ever had a serious discussion with a systematic theologian, you'd note that they often have a great ability to reason -- they just devote such logical energies to systems with different assumptions compared to the average mathematician.
I'm not at all arguing in favor of religion here. Just noting that it's possible to reason within the constraints of all sorts of wacko systems of belief. And that's why smart people aren't immune to this sort of thing either. But it's also incredibly hard to know when it's important to question one's beliefs. If somebody walked up to me tomorrow and told me that the Law of Reflection in optics doesn't actually work and all my mirrors are based on a lie and I shouldn't trust my car mirrors when I'm driving, I'd be pretty skeptical of the person delivering this message -- even if they were very smart and seemingly had logical arguments. To those who believe in religion, some of their assumptions have the same sort of status as a basic scientific "law."
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday January 21 2019, @02:23AM (6 children)
The Peano axioms have been subject to repeated rigorous testing against real-world phenomena: If the axioms were leading to conclusions that didn't match reality, they would have been abandoned a long time ago. You're conflating logical proof (where the conclusions can be demonstrated to be correctly derivable from premises) with empirical proof (that the premises are any good).
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Monday January 21 2019, @04:07AM (3 children)
Ho-hum! Abandoned long time ago, eh?
How about the 5th euclidian axiom, so much trampled into the ground by Minkovski geometries - which, surprise, are necessary for relativity?
Abandoned or correct as matching the reality?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 21 2019, @12:48PM (1 child)
uhm. the problem there was that Euclid never had reason to treat geometry on the sphere other than intersections of 3D objects with 3D sphere. since you can always embed a curved manifold in a higher dimensional Euclidian space, I consider the axiom true, because I like to think of straight lines as being straight lines.
if you like to think in shortest path terms, then please do so and ignore the axiom.
but the fact that there exist Euclidian spaces in which the relativistic space-time can be embedded is objectively true, as is the fact that within that space there is a unique line parallel to a straight line for any point outside the straight line.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 21 2019, @03:32PM
Depends on the differential structure, but true for models we use all the time. Minkowski-metric manifolds (is what we use in general relativity) should be so embeddable into finite dimensional Minkowski spaces (topologically equivalent to Euclidean spaces), but if relativity should happen to allow for pathological differential structures (say non-metric spaces which happen to still have a speed of light or pathological boundary conditions), then you might still end up with infinite dimensional spaces to represent the model.
And of course, there's quantum mechanics. Then you might not have a relativistic space-time at the quantum level to embed in anything.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Bot on Wednesday January 23 2019, @11:01PM
Basically if you try to formulate the axioms in other banal conceptual universes they fail so their value is exactly what you say, in some models for this universe they are shown to predict stuff, which is useful.
Religions can have an axiom too, simply formulated as "if our world can generate abstractions, our world can be itself the abstraction (or a similar relation) for something meta we call the supernatural/God and consider aware". They can predict stuff, but you get to verify/disprove it only too late.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday January 21 2019, @04:25AM
I replied to another post below -- but logical proof has to meet empirical proof somewhere if one believes that "applied math" is real and that math has some relevance to how we use it to derive conclusions about the real world.
I'm not conflating them, but rather noting that the kind of abstract system of logical proof is closer to how I think many religious believers treat their assumptions. My very point is that these are quite different from empirically derived data.
As for "testing" of the Peano axioms... I'm really not sure how you can "test" them in a rigorous way. That's why they need to be accepted without proof. And there frankly is a lot of handwaving in real analysis when it comes to establishing "real numbers" (that's ironic, isn't it, given this discussion?) in a formal definition, how such numbers interact, etc. In fact, there is debate about issues coming out of those axioms when it comes to stuff that is impossible to test, like the existence and properties of non-computable numbers for example.
Anyhow, this is getting off-topic. My overall point was simply that there are a lot of assumptions made and used well in mathematical and scientific endeavors. I wasn't actually disagreeing that much with you as much as emphasizing that the problem is the "Highest Truth" categorization, where some assumptions supersede any others and become immune to questioning.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 21 2019, @07:07PM
BULLSHIT.
These axioms cannot be tested without making a circular argument.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by HiThere on Monday January 21 2019, @02:34AM (6 children)
The Peano axioms are not accepted as truths by mathematicians, but rather as a framework for constructing proofs that will hold wherever these axioms hold. (Actually, you also need to assume consistency and a rule or two of inference...but formal presentations include that.)
Truths require being embedded in an external world. Math doesn't. Math has proofs, but the proofs (if solid) specify under what conditions they can be asserted, and are always subject to being shown invalid. The closest math gets to "truth" is "Q.E.D.".
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday January 21 2019, @04:15AM (1 child)
So I assume you don't believe that there is anything called "applied mathematics" then?
Most people -- including basically all scientists, engineers, etc. -- believe that math actually applies to the real world... somehow. The Peano axioms are one method for building up the basis for a system of math, but they also need to be paired with other assumptions (usually discussed in philosophy of math) about how math then actually might mean something in the real empirical world.
Unless you want to deny that "objective reality" doesn't exist, that science can't measure it with math or understand it with math, etc. Is that what you're saying?
(Score: 3, Informative) by HiThere on Monday January 21 2019, @04:40PM
To the extent that it's applied, it's not mathematics (to paraphrase Einstein).
When you apply mathematics you're turning it into physics or chemistry or ... well, whatever. Even statistics is not math, though it's even more heavily dependent upon math than is physics.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday January 21 2019, @03:44PM (1 child)
They say, in a nutshell: Zero exists, it is possible to count things, and you can use proof by induction. That's led to a lot of useful conclusions and operations. Ergo, unless you're saying that it isn't possible to count things, then those axioms are accepted as true by mathematicians.
And, as a sibling poster points out, applied math exists.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday January 21 2019, @04:58PM
No. They are excepted as consistent, and useful in appropriate contexts. They are not accepted as true by mathematicians. (Although I'll admit that lots of mathematics teachers seem to think they are true.)
If you embed them in an inconsistent framework you can use them to derive conflicting results. So they aren't true. They're self-consistent. (I.e., if you don't embed them in a larger framework, it is accepted that there can be no inconsistent derivations which do not contain a flaw in the proof.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 21 2019, @06:11PM (1 child)
Well said. Pure math is The Tautology Club. It is beautiful and sophisticated elaborations of "If these premises are true then the conclusions from them are true".
I feel a sense of wonder that it ever applies to the real world.
(Score: 2) by Demena on Tuesday January 22 2019, @01:48AM
It does not apply in the real world, it is useful in the real world. No two apples are the same but we still count apples.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday January 21 2019, @07:34AM (1 child)
I shouldn't trust my car mirrors when I'm driving
Well, the warning says right there: "Objects in mirror are closer than they appear". Not only that, the brain has to flip the image produced by its optical inputs.
"Religion"? Just shows how creative we can be.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Tuesday January 22 2019, @01:58AM
When I first read that, I thought you meant it has to flip the image that it sees in the mirror (it clearly doesn't), but no--you obviously were talking about the image being upside-down on the retina.
The mirror thing reminds me of the crappy riddle asking why mirrors reverse left-to-right and not top-to-bottom. They do reverse top-to-bottom if you imagine the object being viewed was tilted forwards 180 degrees into that position rather than being rotated 180 degrees on the yaw axis. But I digress...
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday January 21 2019, @08:44AM (3 children)
I've known a lot of people like that. And, God knows, they get under my skin. It's almost like they believe they are surrounded by miraculous events, 24/7 - that they are so very important that God personally chaperones them every moment of their lives.
I see that as childish. We adults must get on with our lives without that omnipotent chaperone watching over us.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 22 2019, @04:26AM (2 children)
Stupid Democrats
Is there another kind?
And, God knows...
Who is God, compared to Kronsteen?
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 22 2019, @04:02PM (1 child)
I dunno - there are some less-stupid Democrats. There may even be some not-stupid Democrats. It's even remotely possible that there are some intelligent Democrats. Those would be very rare, indeed. And, as time passes, there will be fewer and fewer of those - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJL0JyVMcD8 [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 23 2019, @06:28AM
there are some less-stupid Democrats. There may even be some not-stupid Democrats. It's even remotely possible that there are some intelligent Democrats.
Not amongst the voters. They're either idiots, or they are corrupt. The same can be said for the republicans, but the democrats have to be more deceitful to keep the "liberal" idiots and their money from drifting off.
Clearly the person that moderated me above is a democrat. They cannot look at themselves in the mirror. The iron mask is impenetrable.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Monday January 21 2019, @02:50AM (3 children)
Faith is just too easy for academics. There's nothing to it: I have faith - end of story.
Many great scientists, as they get older, get faith - probably in large part because they come to realize that they will never have all the answers, life is too short.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Demena on Tuesday January 22 2019, @01:50AM (2 children)
Please justify “Many great.... ....get faith” or accept it as the canard that it is.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday January 22 2019, @02:23AM (1 child)
Start with Einstein, and do your own research from there.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Demena on Sunday February 17 2019, @12:34PM
I have, and you remain correct. Even in your example.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 21 2019, @02:43PM
But only with respect to that Highest Truth, which let us note need not affect anything else by definition (for a common example, assuming the universe has a purpose or "telos" - it's not likely that you'll be able to ever observe lack of telos or that such telos or its absence will affect any science we ever do). It's really a non issue when the Highest Truth doesn't require making assumptions about the universe - that's most scientists' religious beliefs right there.
What isn't is when people decide that "Highest Truth" has immediate application without said "observe, evaluate, and reason" taking place. For example, our resident flat Earther presented [soylentnews.org] the dubious concept of "energeian planes" or "workings of deception" as crudely translated. It's the idea that God builds the world to be deceptive to the unbelievers and the wicked (who somehow would continue to be unswayed to righteousness, if God weren't deceiving them in addition) while the faithful see the world accurately. So apparently, his belief is that even the simplest of scientific beliefs is inherently and deliberately deceptive because a) only the wicked would wish to know more of Earth and the universe, and b) God deliberately deceives even in rather simple cases like the shape of the Earth and whether the Moon is real.
This leads to rather elaborate conspiracy theories like NASA faking the Apollo program while the Freemasons and the US military impose secrecy so strong that even a few hundred thousand people wouldn't dare reveal the truth of the thing. And of course, the flat Earth thing.
So we have here two viewpoints that both believe in a Highest Truth. But one has no material relevance to their ability to do scientific work (and to observe, evaluate, and reason) while the latter belief is that every scrap of science is delusional and huge hoaxes are being perpetrated by an assortment of parties from God on down to gull the scientists and the rest of wicked us into damnation. Sorry, they're not on the same page.
And really what's the point of your pronouncement? If I happen to believe that the universe is a computer simulation or an exact mathematical object (rather than scrupulously hold the goodthink position on everything pertaining to anything that could be part of a Highest Truth), does that mean someone should cut my funding for tree ring research? Even when such beliefs impair one's ability to do science in some areas, they can still do science in other areas where the conflict doesn't exist. We have real world examples. Does Linus Pauling's opinions on eugenics and vitamin C invalidate the DNA model he helped construct? Does Noam Chomsky's out-there political ideas invalidate his study of language systems?
And this all ignores that humanity, even of its scientists, operates on levels that are irrational. Even if we wanted to, we could not achieve perfect reasoning and such. The whole point of the scientific method(s) is to provide a good enough approach, not a perfect approach. Bottom line is we have better things to do with our time than futilely attempt to cleanse our scientists of all woo. They can do the job anyway.