Comments

  • Climate change denial
    ↪Benkei
    Now we're talking! So expect, on average, global temperatures to soar, in keeping with climate change'a alias global warming, That's a prediction that can be tested, has been tested? Unprecedented heat waves across Europe, China, South Asia as per the media. Temperature measurements - they're the experiment.

    Extreme weather, on the other hand, includes temperatures in free fall.
  • Climate change denial
    Google is your friend. I'm here for discussion not to educate you on things that can easily be found online. — Benkei

    Merci for reminding me I can google this stuff. I did and all I found were rather simplistic experiments involving lab jars, some CO2, sunlight and a thermometer. To be fair, such experiments do demonstrate the heating effect of CO2.

    However, I'm more interested in real world experiments - done out in the field as it were and not in cozy labs. Climate change is a claim about the earth itself, I expect the predictions to be at the same scale and they must be observable to ensure the hypothesis is falsifiable. The only prediction climate scientists have made is extreme weather, but what exactly does this mean? It's so vague, like Barnum statements found in horoscopes, that they're utterly useless - Too hot? Climate change! Too cold? Climate change? Drought? Climate change! Downpours? Climate change! :brow:
  • Climate change denial
    @Benkei

    Describe only an experiment to test the climate change hypothesis!
  • Climate change denial
    That's not a requirement. We know stars go supernova and haven't tested that under laboratory conditions. Maybe Chalmers' "What is this thing called science?" is a good read for you. — Benkei

    True, for some branches of science, astronomy being one, experiments are technologically impossible. However this doesn't imply that the scientists in such sciences don't want to do experiments. The same goes for evolutionary biologists, oui monsieur? At the very least, I expect the proponents of evolution to describe only, an experiment in as much detail as possible to test Darwin's theory.

    lazy — Benkei

    Yes, some scientists are lazy and hence my query.

    Oops! Got my wires crossed! :snicker:
  • Climate change denial
    This is the same question you asked with respect to the theory of evolution yesterday. Are you not aware of falsefiable predictions or do you think there aren't any? — Benkei

    The only prediction I'm aware of that climate change makes is extreme weather and, as far as I can tell, that's too vague; almost as if they had an astronomer astrologer on the team. Edify me/us please!

    Oh! And where are the experiments?
  • The Ultimate Question of Metaphysics
    My 2 denarii...

    Ex nihilo nihil fit (nothing comes from nothing) and ergo, Creatio ex nihilo (something from nothing) is a bona fide miracle and a sine qua non for any miracle whatsoever is God!
  • A universe without anything conscious or aware
    The OP is considering, inter alia, the possibility of a cosmic p-zombie!
  • The Largest Number We Will Ever Need
  • The Largest Number We Will Ever Need
    10^183 — hypericin

    Good one! You seem to be on the right track - take the smallest physically meaningful quantity and check how many of 'em fit in the (observable) universe! You get points for being systematic.
  • The Largest Number We Will Ever Need
    ↪noAxioms
    I dunno how to say this but erects an opaque wall between the equations and the stuff they (are supposed) to describe. My suggestion to physicists/mathematicians who deal with this kinda problems as a matter of routine is to find a workaround, one which to my reckoning involves substituting whenever and wherever it occurs with an appropriate finite number; this could really be a big help in my humble opinion.

    It's as if some phenomena that are said to be real are off-limits, no-go red zones; our most powerful tool - math - is rendered useless. Intriguing possibilities emerge, one of which is is Max Tegmark who believes the universe is mathematical right?
  • What are the issues with physicalism
    @Benj96

    Physical = matter & energy are physical.

    Matter = Mass + volume

    Energy = Can do work

    Nonphysical = Neither matter nor energy (apophatic definition). Try defining "nonphysical" cataphatically!
  • What are the issues with physicalism
    What do you mean by “physical” - do you mean having substance or material? Because a photon is massless and yet it exists- if it didn’t you wouldn’t be able to read this. — Benj96

    Physical means detectable by the senses/instruments (mass + volume + energy)

    Existence means the same thing.

    That's precisely the problem.
  • What are the issues with physicalism
    What do you mean by “physical” - do you mean having substance or material? Because a photon is massless and yet it exists- if it didn’t you wouldn’t be able to read this. — Benj96

    I only meant to point out the fact that the words "exist" and "physical" are synonyms and ergo, any attempt to discuss the nonphysical is going to be a conversation on nonexistence.
  • Understanding the Law of Identity
    ↪TonesInDeepFreeze
    I do recall reading the identity laws in an introductory text on logic. As you said, identity is about individuals rather than propositions.

    If it's not too much trouble, can you please refresh my memory on the 3 identity laws in logic? Danke!

    There's one that I haven't forgotten:

    1. x = y
    2. Px
    Ergo,
    3. Py

    I can't remember the name of the rule though. :sad:

    There are 2 more, one's called symmetry. That's all I have on the identity laws. :smile:
  • Climate change denial
    ↪Xtrix
    The devil's in the details! Kindly expand & elaborarte.
  • Agnosticism, sensu amplo
    ↪Gnomon


    My own take is rather simple but in line with the intuitions of Aristotle et al in that the PSR (the principle of sufficient reason) warrants a primum movens. I have my reservations though for the PSR may apply to the contents of our cosmos and not the cosmos itself (vide fallacy of composition, a well-known criticism of the prime mover argument).

    With regard to information, are you proposing a reductionist thesis - that everything boils down to information? As I suggested to you earlier, in addition to positing a who (created the universe)? - your Enformer - you might also wanna explore how (the universe was created) - with information.
  • Why We Need God. Corollary.
    Misery loves company.
  • Darwin & Science
    May 29, 1919 The Eddington experiment.
  • What is mental health according to Lacan?
    Like idealism, psychoanalysis in any form is bullshit. :zip: — 180 Proof

    Mental health = IQ + EQ = Xin (heart-mind)???
  • What are the issues with physicalism
    The problem is deceptively simple. Physical = Existence. These two terms have the exact same definition and that implies nonphysical = nonexistence! :snicker:
  • What is essential to being a human being?
    ↪Athena


    :ok:
  • Kuhnian Loss
    @Moliere

    I can only applaud a man - Kuhn - who can see his own blind spots! This superpower has been on my wish list since god knows when! It hasn't been ticked off yet! :groan:

    Anyway, in a thread that's at least a year or so old, I had brought up an issue that I still can't wrap my head around. To gain extra accuracy (mathematically more decimal places), contrary to my intuitions that all that was needed was to input more accurate measurments of physical quantities, what's actually required is to invent an entirely new theory whose equations seem to be sufficiently different from the equations of the older theory (vide Newton & Einstein in re gravity & motion) to make me go huh?! WTF?!
  • Agnosticism, sensu amplo
    ↪180 Proof
    :ok: Arigato.

    Gnomon might wanna respond. I'll wait.
  • Agnosticism, sensu amplo
    ↪Gnomon
    Look, I wouldn't dare to say I understood your EnFormation thesis or its auxiliary idea BothAnd. I've always had (major) issues with logic - I think I'm a right-brained person and hence reasoning is not my strong suit.

    Anyway, a question. If mind has anything to do with the quantum world, why on Earth is quantum physics so hard to understand? That's like being afflicted by Alzheimer's - failing to recognize one's own self while scoring 10/10 recognizing others. Odd, wouldn't you say?
  • Darwin & Science
    What are the predictive claims of evolutionary theory? — Benkei

    I dunno. Good question though!

    Let me help you with one: it does not predict consistent behaviour of natural life — Benkei

    Explain please. I was hoping you'd talk about falsifiabe predictions! :chin:
  • Darwin & Science
    Yes. And the rest of your post is irrelevant to this question. — Benkei

    :snicker: How would you falsify Darwin's theory?
  • James Webb Telescope
    spaceship Earth — Wayfarer

    :up:

    We must figure out the secrets of gravity propulsion - that's the only force that's found in abundance in outer space. Can we focus it (gravity "waves", LIGO) or can we select which gravity well we want our spaceships to respond to? Gravity, unfortunately, is weak at large distances? Maybe we can amplify the signal like how radio telescopes do that to weak radio signals (we may need a gravity "antenna"). :snicker:
  • James Webb Telescope
    Most passerines hop, but others, such as larks, pipits, starlings, and meadowlarks, typically stride. Within the family Corvidae, jays hop whereas crows stride. Diverse species, including robins, ravens, and blackbirds, both hop and stride. — Stanford

    :snicker:
  • What if a loved one was a P-Zombie?
    What is love?

    What is a p-zombie?

    Double trouble! Both are huge topics, with lotsa unexplored territory, and information on them is exasperatingly sketchy. What could go wrong, will in such circumstances! Bonam fortunam brave explorers, you'll need it!
  • Boris Johnson (All General Boris Conversations Here)
    new leader — unenlightened

    Meet the new boss, same as the old boss! — Daniel Bonevac

    :snicker:
  • James Webb Telescope
    It's a shame you can't find (or you remain unwilling to find) enough hope in yourself to condemn the antinatalists based on the 'hope springs eternal,' example the James Webb project exemplifies. — universeness

    So it is.
  • James Webb Telescope
    ↪universeness


    Spectacular events like these pics of billions of years old galaxies are few and far in between (the JWST took a decade + years). I don't begrudge people who go into a tizzy looking/describing these amazing images. Raining on other people's parade, not my style.

    I'd even go out on a limb and say we can/may keep the problem of suffering on the backburner for the moment and get some of these awesome projects off the ground. Events/people/activities like these are, in my humble opinion, oases where humanity may rest, recuperate, refresh themselves in their voyage through the unforgiving desert life is. We must press on...let those of us who can, do so! Bonam Fortunam!
  • Doing Away with the Laws of Physics
    How does it know how fast to fall? — Art48

    Suppose, arguendo, that a group of people formulate a law and you fully understand that law + you're a stickler for rules/laws. How would you behave? Assuming you don't have the option of delinking knowledge from action, you would be doing exactly what a stone does when it follows the law of gravity, oui monsieur?

    In other words, someone like you (conscious + understands the law + hasta follow 3the law) would be indiscernible from a stone (nonconscious).

     I knew what I was supposed to do, but I didn't. — Agent Smith :cool:
  • Whence the idea that morality can be conceived of without reference to religion?
    Is religious morality nothing more than the Hawthorne effect?

    Google definition of Hawthorne effect (noun): The alteration of behaviour by the subjects of a study due to their awareness of being observed.

    Bentham's panopticon!

    Vide observer effect.
  • Is there an external material world ?
    Liebniz's law of identity
    1. Identity of Indiscernibles

    Law of equivalence
    2. Equivalence of indiscernibles

    It's obvious that the OP's question can't be answered either way (mind-created "external" worlds & true external worlds are indiscernible). However, they ain't identical! How do we tell the difference between A and B when there is no difference between the two, knowing full well that A B. Capgras delusion and related illnesses might provide vital clues, I dunno.

    but .

    Paradox!? Contradiction?!
  • Fitch's "paradox" of knowability
    What about Gödel's incompleteness theorems? Within a given system that we can do math with, there are some propositions that are true but not provable from the axioms of that system. Can we claim to know such propositions which can be handled in only one way - add them to the axioms. Are axioms known? Furthermore, the problem reappears in the new system so constructed?

    What about Gettier problems? Justifed, true, beliefs that we have doubts in re claims of knowing 'em!

    What about (hyper)skepticism, the position that nothing is knowable in any sense of the word "knowable", argued to based on Agrippa's trilemma, etc.?

    Then there's solipsism we have to deal with. The only person I'm certain exists is me! I clearly am not omniscient!
  • A Case for Evangelism and a Place for Religious Plurality Via Bryan Stone
    I believe this because I do so, without any witnesses. — javi2541997

    Basically Fideism: Belief sans Evidence (witnesses).

    We can argue the point i.e. we can craft an argument to prove fideism as a live option in re belief. That blows my mind! There is evidence to believe that (sometimes) we must believe without evidence!

    Take that Pembroke scholars! — Evelyn Carnahan

    Oddly, Moses, Jesus, Mohammad, all did offer proof despite the fact that their religions revolve around the antithesis faith. This was achieved by performing miracles despite the criminal connotation it has of breaking laws. I guess these dudes were tryin' to get the best of both worlds (a syncretism, something I suggested in another thread, of faith and reason).
  • Climate change denial
    Climate change (due to CO2 emissions), is it falsifiable?

    What predictions have been made by climate scientists in re climate change? "Extreme weather" is just too vague for me and others too I presume.
  • Kuhnian Loss
    ↪Joshs
    Theories (Newton's & Einstein's) contradict Putnam, oui monsieur?

    Newtonian relative velocity is a limiting case of Einstein's:

    Einsteinian relative velocity for two objects travelling towards each other with velocities v and u = u + v + f

    Newtonian relative velocity for the same two objects above is u + v only, because f 0.

    There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement. — Lord Kelvin
  • James Webb Telescope
    The David-Goliath Paradox

    As we go bigger and bigger (cosmic scale), to extract any information that maybe useful (e.g. alien life), our instruments must make smaller and smaller measurements.
Home » Agent Smith