Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang, Essays on Mind and Matter

[ipecac]

if something is proven to exist outside of the regular then the regular has changed and a new scientific law will have to be crafted to explain it. If gravity doesn't work in a particular spot of the universe, then we need a new law of gravity. It doesn't matter at all how little times it happens. If there is even a 0.001 percent chance that a scientific law doesn't apply consistently (and this is proven to be so), it is now a defunct law, since by it's very nature a scientific law is: "by what we know to be true now, this happens 100% of the time".

We're not agreeing on definitions. You say '100% of the time', I say regularly. I would be very surprised if '100% of the time' can be justified.

It is also possible for events to happen without them being provable by scientific standards, e.g. a one-off event without attendant physicists and instruments to measure what's happening.

[Japper007]

I caught on to the fact we disagreed on definitions a while ago...

Of course 100% of the time is hard to justify, which is why I added "by what we know to be true now". It might very well be that sometimes the laws of physics do not apply, it's just that we have no evidence to suggest otherwise therefore we have to assume they are 100% predictive, until evidence to the contrary exists. BUT then we must change the laws of physics to accomodate this new phenomenon

Second point is irrelevant, something doesn't exist until it is proven to be otherwise, to claim otherwise is a bullshit argument (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tool...-Existence). If something happens so little that it's existence doesn't impact the universe in any measurable way, then it might just as well not exist at all.

[ipecac]

I caught on to the fact we disagreed on definitions a while ago...

Of course 100% of the time is hard to justify, which is why I added "by what we know to be true now". It might very well be that sometimes the laws of physics do not apply, it's just that we have no evidence to suggest otherwise therefore we have to assume they are 100% predictive, until evidence to the contrary exists.

Why do we "have to assume" the 'laws of physics' are predictive, let alone 100% so?

Second point is irrelevant, something doesn't exist until it is proven to be otherwise, to claim otherwise is a bullshit argument (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tool...-Existence). If something happens so little that it's existence doesn't impact the universe in any measurable way, then it might just as well not exist at all.

Are you saying that things can only exist after it has been proven that they exist?

[Japper007]

I caught on to the fact we disagreed on definitions a while ago...

Of course 100% of the time is hard to justify, which is why I added "by what we know to be true now". It might very well be that sometimes the laws of physics do not apply, it's just that we have no evidence to suggest otherwise therefore we have to assume they are 100% predictive, until evidence to the contrary exists.

Why do we "have to assume" the 'laws of physics' are predictive, let alone 100% so?

Second point is irrelevant, something doesn't exist until it is proven to be otherwise, to claim otherwise is a bullshit argument (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tool...-Existence). If something happens so little that it's existence doesn't impact the universe in any measurable way, then it might just as well not exist at all.

Are you saying that things can only exist after it has been proven that they exist?

-Because otherwise we can't understand the universe, gravity has to work 100% of the time or we can't predict basically anything wrt the movement of planets, or even time itself. If chemistry only works 99% of the time, medicine or biology would be impossible disciplines. We need laws to conceptualise everything, whether they are placeholders that will be proven wrong later (like the first law of gravity which had no concept of relativity, dark matter or dark energy) or not. Any science is impossible without some way to predict how an action influences the universe.

-YES. Any number of things can be declared to exist without prove (fairies, wizards, etc.), but we can only assume things exist when they have been proven to do so. This is like Science 101, were the fuck did you go to school?  Giordano Bruno predicted the existence of other planets around different stars in the 16th century but it was a useless claim until we could prove they existed centuries later. Until prove=existing... assume not true.

[Bacchus]

THH, you've said several times that I'm an atheist, but I am not. I am an Orthodox Christian.

I just want to highlight this because it circles back around to the case I was trying to make at first (which I think we were actually all, tacitly or explicitly, agreed on), that humans will ultimately believe whatever satisfies them the most, usually as in, whatever lets them perform the behaviours (or hold the attitudes) that they enjoy most (or enjoy the behaviours or attitudes they already exhibit).

Our influence over our particles actually goes far enough, that we can affect what 'we enjoy most'. Which is a great evolutionary trick, if you think about. Or that we can define whats to be enjoyed or reviled at a societal level, so that there is an accumulation of experience across time and individuals, and also a far quicker rate of possible change than through genetic mutation.

[Bacchus]

Because otherwise we can't understand the universe, gravity has to work 100% of the time or we can't predict basically anything wrt the movement of planets, or even time itself. If chemistry only works 99% of the time, medicine or biology would be impossible disciplines.

I think you need to clarify what is meant by 'working'. Scientific models give infinitely precise predictions (except at quantum level), and these predictions are almost never borne out exactly. Which is fine, because no model is complete, nor is any experiment quite 'pure'. The cut off which puts the model from 'imprecise' to 'not working' is normally a matter of discussion and of availability of a better model. There is also always a question of which bit of model to discard -- models are almost never discarded wholesale, nor would it make sense to do so. See Lakatos on research problems, also Latour's work on Laboratory Life.

Actually, given how many chemists there are here, Laboratory Life deserves a special shoutout -- a great piece of anthropology of.science, if somewhat dated by now.

[ipecac]

Why do we "have to assume" the 'laws of physics' are predictive, let alone 100% so?


Are you saying that things can only exist after it has been proven that they exist?

-Because otherwise we can't understand the universe, gravity has to work 100% of the time or we can't predict basically anything wrt the movement of planets, or even time itself. If chemistry only works 99% of the time, medicine or biology would be impossible disciplines. We need laws to conceptualise everything, whether they are placeholders that will be proven wrong later (like the first law of gravity which had no concept of relativity, dark matter or dark energy) or not. Any science is impossible without some way to predict how an action influences the universe.

This is quite the caricature of science. It is possible to make pretty good predictions even though the model isn't very accurate, i.e. not 100% correct. In fact, our models aren't 100% accurate.

It would seem that one main reason you're saying that we "have to assume" the laws are 100% predictive is to support this caricatured view. But our sciences aren't precise, and the higher order the less they are. You might not want to find out, for instance, how much of medicine is the doctor not knowing why you have a disease, or how exactly the treatment is supposed to work, 'but hey statistically the treatment works!'

-YES. Any number of things can be declared to exist without prove (fairies, wizards, etc.), but we can only assume things exist when they have been proven to do so. This is like Science 101, were the fuck did you go to school?

Your wording is just not very good. If I took what you said earlier at face value, it is wrong, because something necessarily must exist before it can be proven to exist. It needs to exist before it can be interacted with, so that evidence can be gained about it allowing its existence to be proven.

But now it seems you mean something different.

[ipecac]

As an aside, I'm curious if you believe in free will

I'm still curious.

[ipecac]

* And ipecac's and Bacchus's case about physical laws is a very strong riposte -- looking forward to more on this from both sides.

It has been argued that given enough time, chemicals can do even the extremely extremely extremely unlikely (abiogenesis). Eventually, I gather, we might get a reply from the bags of chemicals.

[TheHumanHydra]

I didn't mean to come of as aggresive Human Hydra, if it came of that way I'm sorry. I've been following the discussion here with much interest though I didn't jump in before as it would pretty much be a useless to whatever Bachus was saying.

This statement just jumped out at me for being pretty far removed from the themes discussed and therefore coming off as a pretty weird offhand jab at atheism instead, one that wasn't really getting challenged.

Japper, thanks so much for your gracious response, I appreciate it.

THH, you've said several times that I'm an atheist, but I am not. I am an Orthodox Christian.

I just want to highlight this because it circles back around to the case I was trying to make at first (which I think we were actually all, tacitly or explicitly, agreed on), that humans will ultimately believe whatever satisfies them the most, usually as in, whatever lets them perform the behaviours (or hold the attitudes) that they enjoy most (or enjoy the behaviours or attitudes they already exhibit). 

Our influence over our particles actually goes far enough, that we can affect what 'we enjoy most'. Which is a great evolutionary trick, if you think about. Or that we can define whats to be enjoyed or reviled at a societal level, so that there is an accumulation of experience across time and individuals, and also a far quicker rate of possible change than through genetic mutation.

Hah, oops! Sorry -- I hope you're not offended. It's rare enough where I am to meet a Christian that I tend to assume. ... For the sake of the debate(s), though, your disagreement with T-hawk is one many atheists would have too, right? This thread isn't just atheism vs. Christianity?