I was wondering whether the trade-off is worth it or even if it's "possible" to simply cease and desist investigating the world of possibilities. — TheMadFool

Most animals probably don't have a problem with possibilities. Generally, they just accept the world as it is. But hungry predators have to look ahead of here & now, in order to explore the possibilities around the next bend. And humans are basically weak predators, who have to rely on mental powers more than physical tools. So, they extend their grasp & vision with artificial senses, as far as they go. But, they don't stop there, because they have one sense that is ultimately more powerful than fangs & claws : Reasoning Ability. That's the power to go-beyond the Physical-what-is into the Meta-physical-what-might-be.

Therefore, human Reason is a tool or weapon that allows us to project our minds into the imaginary world of Possibility, Potential, and Probability. And exploration of that invisible statistical realm is what we call Philosophy, Science, and Religion. Unfortunately, there are risks in that immaterial sphere too. Primarily, the chance of treating fake falsehoods as actual factual. What appears to our mind's eye as solid ground might be a pit-fall. Which is why rational predatory humans have developed the shield of Skepticism, to protect them from becoming some other probing predator's prey.

However, if we cease & desist from exploring Possibilities, we run the risk of knowledge starvation. Apparently, those who post on this forum know what it's like for their mental ribs to stick-out. So, we stick our predatory necks out into meta-physical (not yet real) possibilities, even as our skeptical senses are alert for an ambush. But some of us have been so traumatized from being entrapped by attractive "truths" that turned out to be faith-bait, that we fear to venture into the unknown territory of beyond-physical-reality. Such careful Cynicism is understandable, but could be detrimental to our philosophical nourishment. :gasp:

PS__ Sorry, I got carried away with a Meta-physical Metaphor. :joke:

ALLURING LIES :

Contemplating gendankenexperiments (in science, history & fiction) are my metaphysical jam! :smirk:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/614986

Interesting, no?, how the need to think about possibilities arose from predation. Both hunters and the hunted need to be on their toes 24×7 to survive and what something could be as opposed to what that something looks like (appearance-reality distinction) becomes vital for life.

No wonder skeptical arguments, skepticism leading the way in our expeditions into possibility space, take on a dark tone/theme - Descartes's evil demon, Harmann's (brain in a vat) evil genius, etc.

An alien who studies our philosophy will immediately realize that we're afraid of something and that's a dead giveaway - we had humble origins as prey in the African savannah. The tables have turned though - we've, as you mentioned, climbed our way to the top of the food chain because of our superior brains. This very achievement then becomes the reason that we don't let our guard down - the situation may reverse and we could end up at the bottom once again.

I've attempted to establish a tentative link between predator-prey dynamics and intelligence with skepticism as a yardstick for the latter (critical thinking is largely an exercise in skepticism).

Contemplating gendankenexperiments (in science, history & fiction) are my metaphysical jam! :smirk: — 180 Proof

:up: What use are gedanken experiments when they obscure rather than clarify?

What use are gedanken experiments when they obscure rather than clarify? — TheMadFool

Do they? Not in my experience. Not according to theoretical scientists, historians, historical novelists, political / military strategies, long-term forecasters (re: e.g. climate change).

Do they? Not in my experience. Not according to theoretical scientists, historians, historical novelists, political / military strategies, long-term forecasters (re: e.g. climate change). — 180 Proof

I'm going to focus on scientists here. There is no need at all to theorize/hypothesize. All scientists should be doing is extract the mathematical law in the workings of nature and once that's done, they should call it quits. For instance this is exactly what Newton did. He discovered the formula for gravitation $F = G\frac{m_1m_2}{r^2}$ and when asked for an explanation he replied hypothesis no fingo.

What about e.g. Mach, Darwin, Poincare, Planck, Einstein, Bohr, Schrödinger, Pauli, Turing, von Neumann, Feynman, Bohm, Everett, Deutsch, et al? :roll:

What about e.g. Mach, Poincare, Planck, Einstein, Bohr, Schrödinger, Pauli, Turing, von Neumann, Feynman, Bohm, Everett, Deutsch, et al? :roll: — 180 Proof

All made the same (silly) mistake - hypothesizing/theorizing!

Shut up and calculate! — Nathaniel David Mermin

From Newton (hypothesis non fingo), through Einstein (hypothesizing/theorizing), to Nathaniel David Mermin (Shut up and calculate!), it's been a long journey!

You're quarreling with some of the most profound scientific successes of at least the last century, Fool. Good luck with that! :rofl:

You're quarreling with some of the most profound scientific successes of at least the last century, Fool. Good luck with that! :rofl: — 180 Proof

:grin: The deck is stacked against me, I know.

Doesn't what I say make sense though? Scientists would no longer need to disprove hypotheses/theories since there are none to begin with. That would save a lot of money, time, and free up minds to discovering other laws of science.

Perhaps we could divvy up the work - one group of scientists dedicated to finding the laws of nature and another group who can sit at home and draw up theories & hypotheses.

First of all, I think you meant to talk about probabilities not possibilities. Establishing possibility is a straight forward process. We investigate whether we already have an example of this case that can prove it possibility. Then we evaluate the rate of occurrence of those conditions and we can calculate probabilities.
i.e. Life in this Universe is possible since we already have a single example that verifies this statements as possible. Then we calculate the probabilities by identifying how often the necessary conditions emerge in the system.

-"Science is the only thing holding us back in my humble opinion and I have a proposal: Scientists should make their observations as usual - quantitatively - and then derive the mathematical formulae that describe the observations and then STOP! No hypothesizing, no theorizing, no nothing! As it is we only use/need the formulae."
-That would be a good way to go back to the dark ages of human thought. Only science can provide credible evidence on how possible something is and then provide systematic data on how often necessary conditions emerges thus allowing us to calculate probabilities. Science job IS to produce testable hypotheses and theories based on objective evidence and without any additional assumptions.

The only way to explore whether a claim is possible or not is by providing evidence or comparing the claims to our current epistemology.
Objective empirical evidence is how we verify possibility.
i.e. Alchemists thought it is possible to produce gold from lead through chemical transmutation. Science taught us that it is impossible. Chemical reactions will never allow such a transmutation.
Science MUST provide the theory on why this phenomenon is not possible.

That would be a good way to go back to the dark ages of human thought. — Nickolasgaspar

Was the Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica written in the Dark Ages? I think not! Newton was very clear on what he wanted to do - describe nature's behavior and no more (hypothesis no fingo). Einstein was in agreement (spooky action at a distance). Why is action at a distance "spooky" anyway? It doesn't make sense at all - I find nothing odd about magnetism or gravitational attraction. Perhaps I'm from another planet or from another universe.

Doesn't what I say make sense though? — TheMadFool

No. Reread my previous posts.

No. Reread my previous posts. — 180 Proof

Then, I'm afraid, you didn't understand Newton! :lol:

Science's theoretical frameworks based on Methodological Naturalism have enabled a run away success in epistemology for almost 500 years now. How by "forbidding" science to offer hypotheses and theoretical formulations will help us in any way?
How Newton and Einstein work can ever validate your statement again Science's theoretical formulations!

Update

As indicated in my reply to @Gnomon, possibility is, let's own up, is the Devil's work. There's something evil loose in the world ( Satan: The Great Deceiver) and that's the main reason why we need to treat possibility seriously - deception leads to :point: false happiness, injury and death, to name but 3 of its ills. In Indian philosophy Maya.

Why was God enraged by Adam & Eve's apple experiment? Theories abound but a simple explanation is the couple were exploring possibilities: "we could eat the apple, you know" thought Adam & Eve after the serpent (Satan)...er..."talked" to them. Once the doors of possibilities were deviously, even though gently, opened by the serpent's forked tongue, Adam & Eve became true blue skeptics, their minds spinning under the immense weight of all possibilities imaginable, the devil's domain, infernal hell if you wll.

No prizes for guessing why God acted so quickly and so decisively.

A digression, hopefully an interesting one.

Let's just give it a try before we start criticizing. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

but you don't address my critique.
First of all you can not remove Theory from Science. Science is Natural philosophy....so like in all Philosophical categories,theories is how we explain the facts.
Second more important point, I asked you whether you are confusing "possibilities" with "probabilities".
i.e. you mention the example brain in a vat. By claiming that the "brain in a vat" is possible, or we should investigate how possible it is, we ignore the facts on how a brain receives all its stimuli and how it constructs meaning.
SO I don't know how philosophers or mathematician can ever offer a meaningful judgment on the "brain in a vat" possibility without reviewing the available facts.
The theory that is based on those facts can only be the most relevant...so I don't know how you can ever claim that we should keep science from evaluating our hypotheses.

Second more important point, I asked you whether you are confusing "possibilities" with "probabilities". — Nickolasgaspar

First comes possibility, only then probability.

First of all you can not remove Theory from Science — Nickolasgaspar

Hypothesis non fingo. — Isaac Newton

-"First comes possibility, only then probability. "
-Correct. But in you seem like to promote philosophical speculations on how probable a possibility is. I am right?

I'm afraid Newton didn't understand Galileo or Einstein. Clearly, you don't either.

I'm afraid Newton didn't understand Galileo or Einstein. Clearly, you don't either. — 180 Proof

Isaac Newton stopped short of formulating a hypothesis. Galileo and Kepler, the same thing. Einstein, on the other hand, put a theory (SR + GR) on the table. Ol' Albert took one step too many, he went too far.

Yes, you'll hear scientists and ordinary folk showering praise on Albert Einstein's genius, completely forgetting the theory of relativity is just one of probably infinite theoretical frameworks that could explain the relevant observations.

probable — Nickolasgaspar

The concept seems relevant but when you get down to actually computing/calculating the odds, you realize you can't! I'm happy to be proven wrong of course!

-"Isaac Newton stopped short of formulating a hypothesis."
-Because he didn't have the data to do so. He only described mathematically a phenomenon. We even have an anecdote of him rejecting any accusation for assuming an invisible "agent" by telling them that he only provides the descriptive formulations for this phenomenon.

-" Galileo and Kepler, the same thing."
-Again...they didn't have enough observations or evidence for a testable metaphysical hypothesis.

-"Einstein, on the other hand, put a theory (SR + GR) on the table. Ol' Albert took one step too many, he went too far."
-He put many theories on the table. Theories are the narrative we use to connect facts in a meaningful story. Theories make testable predictions and they are falsifiable. They work as black boxes. We can always challenge a theory with new evidence. Einstein attempted to explain the connection between Time space and gravity and that effort gave you ....your gps device. Do you still use it or you deny its existence?
So what is your problem exactly with scientific theories?

-"Yes, you'll hear scientists and ordinary folk showering praise on Albert Einstein's genius, completely forgetting the theory of relativity is just one of probably infinite theoretical frameworks that could explain the relevant observations."
- This is what theories are sir! Einstein's and any scientific theory are the best explanation we currently have based on the available facts and observations. Are you trying to attack a strawman?
Who told you that Scientific theories are something more than our tentative positions on specific observations?
Do you imagine biology without the Evolutionary Narrative, or Germ Theory, or Continental Drift or any field of science. You need to understand that Science is the most credible way to do Philosophy.

-"The concept seems relevant but when you get down to actually computing/calculating the odds, you realize you can't! I'm happy to be proven wrong of course! "
-You need to be more specific ...what concept and what odds?

You need to be more specific ...what concept and what odds? — Nickolasgaspar

You brought up probability. Are you saying you have no idea what you're talking about?

This thread :point: Higher dimensions beyond 4th will elucidate my point better than I can.

You really don't make any sense.
You said:"The concept seems relevant but when you get down to actually computing/calculating the odds, you realize you can't! I'm happy to be proven wrong of course! "
Probability seems relevant? To what ? To Possibility?
Do you calculate possibility? How ?
I am not sure you fully understand those concepts.

No wonder skeptical arguments, skepticism leading the way in our expeditions into possibility space, — TheMadFool

In the current issue of Philosophy Now magazine, Raymond Tallis explores the notion he calls "post-tensed time". He's referring to our ability to address Possible time, which goes beyond the here & now. He says, "Beasts, unlike humans, live ahistorically, without a sense of extended time". But then he notes, "there is a consensus among physicists, and philosophers who take their metaphysical instructions from scientists, that while tenseless time is real, tensed time is not". By that he means that only "now" is real, so past & future are merely Potential & Historical.

He later says, "if however, we accept that there are things in the world that lie outside of what can be accommodated in physical science --- most obviously those things that are imported into the world by conscious beings". And I place those things-that-are-not-real (i.e. Ideal) under the philosophical category of Meta-Physics. Ironically, for a philosophy forum, I often get expressions of incomprehension when I apply the label "metaphysics" to Potentials and Possibilities. Apparently, that's what Tallis was referring to as "philosophers who take their metaphysical instructions from scientists" I call it simply philosophical "Physics Envy" : if it ain't physical (here & now) it ain't worth talking about.

Tallis goes on to say, "Calendars and the like are a formalization . . . of tensed time, so they depend on modes of temporality not found objectively in nature". He also says of Einstein, probably referring to the notion of Block Time, saying "While he accepted that past, present and future must be counted by physicists as illusions, . . . . he expressed regret that 'now', and consequently the difference between past and future, could not be grasped by physics". Moreover, such conceptual non-things cannot be grasped by philosophers whose skepticism is biased by Physics Envy. To them, such meta-physical modes of being are im-possible. :joke:

This is exactly the kind of confusion that can be avoided if we stop theorizing. Since we're talking about physics, how different things would've been if the laws of physics were not contextualized in some kind of theoretical framework? In the absence of theories in physics, there would be no metaphysical accompaniments to argue about or, more to the point, be puzzled by.

You really don't make any sense.
You said:"The concept seems relevant but when you get down to actually computing/calculating the odds, you realize you can't! I'm happy to be proven wrong of course! "
Probability seems relevant? To what ? To Possibility?
Do you calculate possibility? How ?
I am not sure you fully understand those concepts — Nickolasgaspar

Sorry, but if you think probability matters to my thesis, you'll have to show me how?

Update

We know the formulae for good & evil.

1. Thou shalt not this
2. Thou shalt not that
.
.
.
There are 10 commandments, some are local and others are global. The point is we know how to be good.

It's just that we have no theory that backs up these moral injunctions. Jeremy Bentham tried and failed. Kant tried and...failed.

We should, I reckon, stop theorizing and simply use these ethical formulae.

I am only pointing out that "exploration of possibilities" is a clear cut endeavor. Either you already have an example of what is possible so you can proceed calculating probabilities or you don't have any examples .
i.e. There is Nothing to explore to a blind statement "Vat in a brain". We don't have example of brain in vats that can processes stimuli without a body and a sensory system.
So exploring possibilities can turn to a pseudo philosophical endeavor if we lack all instances or cases of a suggested claim.

You brought numbers into the discussion. You have to explain why?

Sure. If we are not able to calculate probabilities for a suggested possibility...then that suggestion is not verified as possible. Its just a made up suggestion.
i.e. Brain in a Vat.