Seriously, Dawkins?

[LMNO]

QUESTION EVERYTHING (but wear your seatbelt anyway).

[Elder Iptuous]

the wink was supposed to indicate silly banter....
was joke.  get it? 

[Thurnez Isa]

What I like about Solipsists is that they are easy to fuck with. It so easy to get them to believe complete and utter gibberish.

[Telarus]

Kai nailed it.  

Let me try once more. Blackfoot seems to be saying that there could be some as-yet undiscovered aspect of the Universe that, if accepted and understood, could fundamentally change our entire understanding of the Universe ("an unknown big-t Truth").

I hold that we currently do not NEED an undiscovered Truth in order to correctly model an accurate anticipation of reality. Therefore, we do not currently need to keep that spot open in our reasoning with a big question mark.

For example, I anticipate f=ma. I do not need to say "f=ma(+mysterious action)".  When I anticipate f=ma, it turns out that f=ma. I can eliminate "mysterious actions" from my equation.

If ever there comes a time that I anticipate f=ma, and it turns out that f=\=ma, I MUST add "(+mysterious action)". The fact that my anticipation of reality is wrong forces me to add a question mark.

So: if our anticipation of reality is accurate without a God factor, then we do not need to keep him in our model, or even the POSSIBILITY of a God in our model, just as we do not keep the possibility of invisible space weasels infesting Saturn.

Which allows us to say that God does not exist, in the same way we are allowed to say invisible space weasels from Saturn do not exist.

The moment our anticipation of reality proves inaccurate without the inclusion of an invisible space weasel, we will have to add that question mark, but never a moment sooner.

The only change I would make to this description, based on my personal zeteticism, would be to say that: Yes, we do not need an "extra variable", in your terms. But that is because we understand that the current state of knowledge (which I define as a collection of models, each having various probabilities of correlating anticipations to reality) is not static, but transitory.

Much like the Incompleteness Theorem of Mathematics, given our current models, there will always be new things to model. This is where I consider the "Tao", or "Eris" to dwell. Not as another Named Thing, but as the (nameless) ground-of-being.


As for the "Big-T Truth", lets look at that quote again, just so we're all on the same page here, because I was using the wrong terms. The accurate quote is:

"There are trivial truths and there are great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." -Neils Bohr

Most 'truth' expressed in every day language falls under trivial truth category. Simple ideas that are still whole thoughts are examples of greater truths. You can Love or Hate with your whole mind/being, in the same way that Motion implies Stillness.

[Kai]

I'll be honest, Tel, I didn't understand a word of that last paragraph.

[Telarus]

Lol, fair enough.


"Water boils @ 100 degrees at sea level on planet Earth" is a trivial truth in Bohr's model, because the opposite ("Water does NOT boil...") is plainly and demonstrability false.


"Love" falls under 'greater truth', because it's opposite is also 'true'.

Or, how about, "What is the opposite of Gravity?"

It's a function of how we are using language to craft our "thought", which we then test for truth value.

[Kai]

Lol, fair enough.


"Water boils @ 100 degrees at sea level on planet Earth" is a trivial truth in Bohr's model, because the opposite ("Water does NOT boil...") is plainly and demonstrability false.


"Love" falls under 'greater truth', because it's opposite is also 'true'.

Or, how about, "What is the opposite of Gravity?"

It's a function of how we are using language to craft our "thought", which we then test for truth value.

"Love" isn't a truth, it's a term. It's a word. It's not a statement about an anticipation of reality.

Edit: Don't get me wrong, Bohr's statement sounds really profound, but it's actually very confused and muddled. There's a whole bunch of mixed term usage, which happen to be in using "truth" and "greater" and "lesser" and so people over the last 50 years have just bobbed their heads in reverence at it. But it's really not any more significant than "everything is connected" or "everything is part of everything else". /What/ "greater truths"? What is his definition of truth, and is he consistent in his usage? Etcetera.

[Jasper]

When I first heart that Bohr quote, I was mindblown.  It has the virtue of expanding your thoughts, at least it did for me, but it doesn't really have a rational/definite meaning.

[Kai]

When I first heart that Bohr quote, I was mindblown.  It has the virtue of expanding your thoughts, at least it did for me, but it doesn't really have a rational/definite meaning.

I know, I was too. I nodded my head sagely like everyone else. But after further consideration I realized it's another one of those statements that just stir aquiecense in the listeners. Sorta like "everything is connected to everything else". Sorta a deep wisdom fallacy or something. http://lesswrong.com/lw/k8/how_to_seem_and_be_deep/

I know I reference Yudowsky a whole bunch, but why not? He's the only philosopher today that has their thoughts in line.

[Telarus]

All of our terms anticipate _something_ about reality. That we can order them into meaningless arraignment does have to be recognized.

See, I knew it was a bad example when I typed it, but when I use the term I don't mean the symbol Love being = True in the "how closely does this model align with reality" sense.

I see it (and Bohr's statement) as a comment on Truth in the "musical(exactly-in-tune)", or "genuine(rightly or strictly called so)" sense. Maybe even in the verb sense ("brought into the exact shape, position or alignment required for...").

[Jasper]

When I first heart that Bohr quote, I was mindblown.  It has the virtue of expanding your thoughts, at least it did for me, but it doesn't really have a rational/definite meaning.

I know, I was too. I nodded my head sagely like everyone else. But after further consideration I realized it's another one of those statements that just stir aquiecense in the listeners. Sorta like "everything is connected to everything else". Sorta a deep wisdom fallacy or something. http://lesswrong.com/lw/k8/how_to_seem_and_be_deep/

I know I reference Yudowsky a whole bunch, but why not? He's the only philosopher today that has their thoughts in line.

I'm on the other end of a >10 year philosophy kick, and it's a pretty dead subject to me by and large, except where it has meaningful applications.  I've lost almost all interest in ethics (not morals, there is a difference), and I've lost all interest in metaphysics, again, except where they lead to meaningful observational results. 

I guess what I'm saying is that having grown up loving philosophy and taking tons of philosophy courses, I've had everything but rational empiricism beaten out of me.

[Kai]

All of our terms anticipate _something_ about reality. That we can order them into meaningless arraignment does have to be recognized.

See, I knew it was a bad example when I typed it, but when I use the term I don't mean the symbol Love being = True in the "how closely does this model align with reality" sense.

I see it (and Bohr's statement) as a comment on Truth in the "musical(exactly-in-tune)", or "genuine(rightly or strictly called so)" sense. Maybe even in the verb sense ("brought into the exact shape, position or alignment required for...").

Tel, I'm trying, but I still don't understand what you're getting at. Maybe you could dumb it down for me.

[BabylonHoruv]

When I first heart that Bohr quote, I was mindblown.  It has the virtue of expanding your thoughts, at least it did for me, but it doesn't really have a rational/definite meaning.

Godel Escher Bach actually explores this idea of truths of which the contradiction is also true.  In a rational way.

It's been a long time since I read it, but I remember it being a lot more than just fluffy stuff.

[BabylonHoruv]

When I first heart that Bohr quote, I was mindblown.  It has the virtue of expanding your thoughts, at least it did for me, but it doesn't really have a rational/definite meaning.

I know, I was too. I nodded my head sagely like everyone else. But after further consideration I realized it's another one of those statements that just stir aquiecense in the listeners. Sorta like "everything is connected to everything else". Sorta a deep wisdom fallacy or something. http://lesswrong.com/lw/k8/how_to_seem_and_be_deep/

I know I reference Yudowsky a whole bunch, but why not? He's the only philosopher today that has their thoughts in line.

I'm on the other end of a >10 year philosophy kick, and it's a pretty dead subject to me by and large, except where it has meaningful applications.  I've lost almost all interest in ethics (not morals, there is a difference), and I've lost all interest in metaphysics, again, except where they lead to meaningful observational results. 

I guess what I'm saying is that having grown up loving philosophy and taking tons of philosophy courses, I've had everything but rational empiricism beaten out of me.

Aren't ethics more concerned with actual behavior?

[Pope Lecherous]

I already figured out your problem, there's nothing more to say. You're an apologist. You think it's perfectly find to privileged a hypothesis without any evidence. And you're upset with people you deem to be authority figures saying just the opposite.

Your psychological anguish and self-deception aren't my problem. This conversation is over. Good day.

Which hypothesis did i privilege when i said I do not know whether God exists or not?

Which hypothesis did i privilege when i said it is unprovable either way so you shouldnt claim to know?