02 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayThis is simply an assumption on your part isn't it, and a major one?
"[b]However in the absence of evidence suggesting there was a drastic change in a trend, the only reasonable thing is to assume the trend did not change drastically."
This is simply an assumption on your part isn't it, and a majo ...[text shortened]... er religious item
people think is holy and above question.
Kelly[/b]
This is an assumption. Whether it's 'major' or not depends on your opinion I guess. In human experience assuming trends will continue as they have before has proven very useful. For example, Newton's Laws are simply claims that trends will continue to act as they have in the past.
Once we assume we leave the realm of facts and enter faith.
Then everything is faith and constantly talking about faith is pointless. Why do you bring up that word so often?
It is much easier to see errors when we work in the here and now
'Here' is an infintismally space, and 'now' is an infinitismally small time. My computer monitor is not 'here', and what I did two seconds ago is not happening 'now'. Anything that is not occuring at this exact instant of time - not two milliseconds in the past, this instant - requires assumptions or 'faith' as you put it for us to believe it actually occurred.
You have a rate; it is constant as long as we have had the ability to measure it
...assuming we believe our memories about the tests we did three minutes ago, for example. They might be false memories. You never know for sure!
A reasonable assumption is still an assumption and more than likely where more major mistakes are made, because that type always just seemed so reasonable.
It's far better to take a chance that you might make a mistake then to just accept that you know nothing and can never know anything and so never try to understand anything at all, which is the natural consequence of your perspective; well it would be if you consistently applied your 'faith' idea to everything in your life.
I've no trouble for anyone claiming that anything is true according to this test or that, the truthfulness than rests on the test and the
conditions of the test, which would be the fact. Even reading a voltage
drop depending on how important the facts need to be, calibration
dates on the meters need to be kept and so on, just to be precise
and as accurate as possible.
Do you, every time you make a measurement, add the phrase "according to XXX test"? That sounds really awkward. If someone asks you what you're eating, do you say "an orange, according to my taste, vision, and sense of smell" (for example)? Do you ever arbitrarily decide you're really eating a hippopotomus instead of an orange? I mean, it's all faith right? You can have faith in anything you want. You can believe anything you want. This is how your attitude about evolution seems to me.
How is that, I admit what I believe is faith. Where do you see me
doing something different else where?
Here's an example. In order for your posts to appear on our monitors, you have to do some really specific things. Since there are an infinite number of things you could try, the chance of you randomly choosing the correct one is infinitesimally small. Your argument that facts are facts and everything else is faith means that no matter what facts you observe, you can come to any conclusion you want. Nothing can help you come to the conclusion that you must type a certain way in order to make your posts come out in normal English. Yet, somehow, against the odds, you manage to do it. Why? Because you assume that your memories of how to write something on a computer should be followed. You trust your memories to help guide you in how you should act. It's purely assumption that this is a good idea, yet you do it. How did you manage to stumble on exactly the right assumptions needed to help you make internet posts if you question all assumptions and treat all assumptions as equally valid? How come you can dismiss all of the arguments of scientists who say the Earth is more than 6000 years old, yet you accept without question all these assumptions that allow you to make internet posts? How come you don't question those assumptions? If you're going to be as hardcore about questioning assumptions as you seem to be, you should be unable to do anything and would (if you were consistent) die of starvation because you'd make up some other assumption than the one that says if you eat you won't be hungry any more.
I would have assumed you would at least grasp what I have been saying, but I believe your bias has blinded you somewhat.
I think I do grasp what you are saying. I don't think you grasp what I am saying.
I am challenging the validity of everything everywhere that cannot
be shown true in the here and now.
The thing is, KJ, that nothing can be shown to be true in the here and now. Therefore you should be challenging everything everywhere - period.
The father anything is from the here and now, the greater the amount of what cannot be trusted in my opinion.
Where did you get that assumption? Why should any of us also accept that assumption? Since it's all faith and assumption, there's no reason for anyone else to believe that. Right?
but I can say that every time we test it under any conditions we get the same result in real time.
No you can't, unless you assume your memory is reliable and that people told you the truth and that their memories are reliable and that they didn't hallucinate and...
The same thing can be said of Pluto; we may not be watching it
24/7 but every time we do look at it, it is where we except to
see it.
That statement is chock full of assumptions. Why are you acting as if there were no assumptions involved in that statement?
I went back to the beginning and realized I missed this one too.
I did not say that the star light left the star one billion years
ago, you assumed that.
You're assuming you didn't say that. Maybe you did and God changed the post. Or maybe your memory of what the post said changed.
Do you see my point? Everything anyone says ever has assumptions. How come you don't challenge them all? How come you don't challenge the assumption that the pattern of pixels on your monitor represents someone's thoughts?
02 Jun 05
Originally posted by steerpikeyeah whats so hard to believe... I've seen all that... ahh.. that was some great acid...
Is a moon made out of cheese any more bizarre than the universe made in 6 days, talking snakes, woman created out of a rib, all animals fitting on a boat, waters being parted and the sun stopping for a few hours?
02 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThis is an assumption. Whether it's 'major' or not depends on your opinion I guess. In human experience assuming trends will continue as they have before has proven very useful. For example, Newton's Laws are simply claims that trends will continue to act as they have in the past.
[b]This is simply an assumption on your part isn't it, and a major one?
This is an assumption. Whether it's 'major' or not depends on your opinion I guess. In human experience assuming trends will continue as they have b ...[text shortened]... pattern of pixels on your monitor represents someone's thoughts?[/b]
Yes, and nothing I have said goes against this. It isn’t that I’m
saying we do not look for answers, for patterns, for results. I’m not at
all saying that; however, I am saying as I throughout this discussion
and others that there is a fine line between calling something a fact
that isn’t. You admitting it is an assumption should be enough to for
you to know that is the case.
Then everything is faith and constantly talking about faith is pointless. Why do you bring up that word so often?
I do believe we are a people of faith, all of us without exception. The
reason I bring it up is because a lot of what some people accept as
facts are simply not, but they believe in them with such faith they call
them facts. They then go about defending them with a religious fervor
that can get mean.
'Here' is an infintismally space, and 'now' is an infinitismally small time. My computer monitor is not 'here', and what I did two seconds ago is not happening 'now'. Anything that is not occuring at this exact instant of time - not two milliseconds in the past, this instant - requires assumptions or 'faith' as you put it for us to believe it actually occurred.
I am content to not worry about changes two milliseconds ago,
depending on what I am looking at, and I could be worried about
events picoseconds long too. As far as now being an infinitesimally
small amount of time, Depending on what we are testing and what we
are looking for if the results are in the here and now, the claims are
all in the here and now, we should be able to verify them each and
every time we test them with real time data. So for example we can
look at a voltage drop, make claims about it, check over and over,
and depending on the claims see each test spill out real time data.
It is a simple cause and effect with the effect being instantaneous
which normally are all we care about.
There are simulation age experiments where the DUT (device under
test) are placed under certain stresses under strict conditions, then
test functionality of the CPU afterwards. Along with the DUT that are
being stressed there are always what is called a controlled lot, units
pulled from the lot before the stressed begins that goes along with
the DUT. The controls are never stressed, but the functionality are
always tested along with the DUT to monitor shifts in the functionality
of the DUT. With billions of years you have no way of knowing what
has touched your samples, there is nothing that can show you that
under these conditions this sample was stressed this way so it shows
up as 2.88 billion years old, yet this other sample shows up as 3.7
billion even though they are in truth the same age. It is just that
your test is giving you different readings nothing more, and your faith
in your test giving you billions of years is an excepted fact in your
eyes, because you cannot be shown your wrong.
It's far better to take a chance that you might make a mistake then to just accept that you know nothing and can never know anything and so never try to understand anything at all, which is the natural consequence of your perspective; well it would be if you consistently applied your 'faith' idea to everything in your life.
I am arguing that what you are taking as truth, what you taking as
fact is nothing of the sort, it isn’t an exact science as some want to
believe when claims are being made about something that cannot be
proven wrong.
Do you, every time you make a measurement, add the phrase "according to XXX test"? That sounds really awkward. If someone asks you what you're eating, do you say "an orange, according to my taste, vision, and sense of smell" (for example)? Do you ever arbitrarily decide you're really eating a hippopotomus instead of an orange? I mean, it's all faith right? You can have faith in anything you want. You can believe anything you want. This is how your attitude about evolution seems to me.
You really want to split hairs here to attempt to prove me wrong don’t
you? I’m talking about what we can glean from our experiments and
you want to talk about me now eating a hippopotamus? Faith and
beliefs, as I use those words are for things that either cannot be
proven right or wrong, or can be, just not by us at the moment. We
can acquire a strong faith or belief through several means, none of
which are as important to me as any other at this moment. Our
sources can either be right or wrong, we can act in good faith with the
information we have that confirms are beliefs, or in spite of the
information we have which places our beliefs in question. What I have
been telling you that when you apply logic to the evidence we see
today, billions of years cannot be called a fact not because it isn’t
true, but because it cannot be proven wrong.
I'm going to split your post and come back to the 2nd half later.
Kelly
02 Jun 05
2 edits
I am saying as I throughout this discussion
and others that there is a fine line between calling something a fact
that isn’t.
It seems like to you a fact is something that cannot be doubted and involves no assumptions. If that is indeed the case, then there are precious few facts and even many of the things you label as facts are not. Is it a fact that you existed two seconds ago? No. Is it a fact that computers exist? Well, you're looking at one now; but it might be an empty box and you might be hallucinating what you see on the screen. So no, the existence of computers is not a fact according to how you seem to see things. Etc.
I am content to not worry about changes two milliseconds ago
But if I asked you what happened two seconds ago, would you have any way of choosing how to answer? Of course you would, and it would be silly if I were to start a huge debate about how you are making assumptions and you don't really know...
This is what makes you inconsistent. You don't seem to acknowledge that it's as ridiculous for you to challenge the TOE as it is for me to challenge the idea that you existed two seconds ago.
As far as now being an infinitesimally small amount of time, Depending on what we are testing and what we are looking for if the results are in the here and now, the claims are all in the here and now, we should be able to verify them each and every time we test them with real time data.
No; any claim you test will have occurred in the past, and you are already making assumptions. Any test you perform, you are making assumptions about what happened when you began the test by the time you got to the end of it. Real time data is what you perceive in a point in time and as soon as a second has passed your perception has turned into memory which you assume is reliable.
It is a simple cause and effect with the effect being instantaneous
which normally are all we care about.
"Simple cause and effect" relies on many assumptions. The effect is not instantaneous, it takes place over time, and it's not all we care about. For example, you and I often find ourselves on opposite sides of the debate about the causes of life. The effect of life is not what we're interested in; we're interested in the causes as well.
There are simulation age experiments...
I do acknowledge that proper experiments run by humans with controls that began a billion years ago would be far more useful than what we have. However, that does not invalidate what we do have, and we can infer things about the past from what we see during our lifetimes and what others have recorded about what they saw.
You really want to split hairs here to attempt to prove me wrong don’t you?
I made a serious criticism of your perspective and you are dismissing it. What basis do you have to say you did not eat a hippopotomous for lunch? Is it as reasonable to say you ate a hippo as it would be to say you ate whatever you remember eating?
Faith and beliefs, as I use those words are for things that either cannot be proven right or wrong, or can be, just not by us at the moment.
Well, since nothing can be absolutely proven without any possibility of doubt, there is nothing that is not faith and belief. So using the words is not helpful to communication.
The way you seem to define the word 'fact' makes the word utterly useless. There are no facts by the way you seem to define the word.
03 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungHow about this: there are no facts without faith.
...The way you seem to define the word 'fact' makes the word utterly useless. There are no facts by the way you seem to define the word.
Facts must be logically predicated on something, and that something must be logically predicated on something else, until you either come full circle, or you find out what is axiomatic (can not be proved and must be assumed). Upon these axioms of faith, all facts logically follow.
I believe your axiom may be faith in perception. What do you guys think?
03 Jun 05
Originally posted by ColettiThis entails that if there were no minds, there would be no facts, since minds must be present for faith to be present in the world. But if there were no minds, then it would be a fact that there were no minds. So, your criterion leads to a contradiction.
How about this: there are no facts without faith.
Facts must be logically predicated on something, and that something must be logically predicated on something else, until you either come full circle, or you find out what is axiomatic (can not be proved and must be assumed). Upon these axioms of faith, all facts logically follow.
I believe your axiom may be faith in perception. What do you guys think?
03 Jun 05
Originally posted by bbarrAnd to whom would it be a fact that there were no minds?
This entails that if there were no minds, there would be no facts, since minds must be present for faith to be present in the world. But if there were no minds, then it would be a fact that there were no minds. So, your criterion leads to a contradiction.
03 Jun 05
Originally posted by bbarrWhat are facts without minds? If there were not minds, then the only fact that follows is........
This entails that if there were no minds, there would be no facts, since minds must be present for faith to be present in the world. But if there were no minds, then it would be a fact that there were no minds. So, your criterion leads to a contradiction.
If there were no minds, would there in fact be no minds? Since this can not be known without a mind, there are no minds is a contradiction by my definition of fact. So I would say no minds is logically impossible. It's like arguing against logic.
03 Jun 05
Originally posted by ColettiPersonally, I believe facts to be something that doesn't require a
What are facts without minds? If there were not minds, then the only fact that follows is........
If there were no minds, would there in fact be no minds? Since this can not be known without a mind, there are no minds is a contradiction by my definition of fact. So I would say no minds is logically impossible. It's like arguing against logic.
human mind to grasp it or bend itself so the mind can grasp it. I
guess I'm of the opinion that the tree does in deed make a sound
when it falls even if there is no one there to hear it. 😲
Kelly
03 Jun 05
Originally posted by KellyJayDOES NOT!
Personally, I believe facts to be something that doesn't require a
human mind to grasp it or bend itself so the mind can grasp it. I
guess I'm of the opinion that the tree does in deed make a sound
when it falls even if there is no one there to hear it. 😲
Kelly
03 Jun 05
Originally posted by DelmerTo no one, of course. What a silly question. Facts are ways the world is, they are states of affairs that obtain. It is a fact that 2+2=4, regardless of whether anybody believes it; indeed, regardless of whether there is anybody at all.
And to whom would it be a fact that there were no minds?
03 Jun 05
Originally posted by ColettiYour post makes no sense. Without minds, there can be no beliefs, that is an analytic truth. But facts are not mind-dependent. If every mind in existence believed that the Earth was flat, it would still be a fact that the Earth was roughly spherical.
What are facts without minds? If there were not minds, then the only fact that follows is........
If there were no minds, would there in fact be no minds? Since this can not be known without a mind, there are no minds is a contradiction by my definition of fact. So I would say no minds is logically impossible. It's like arguing against logic.