What do you REALLY believe?

[the last yatto]

so we ourselves could best understand how and where these trends converge.
seems outlandish

[BabylonHoruv]

A universe which is unknowably complex strikes me as in direct contradiction to the scientific worldview.

then you gotta go back to school
or take a science course

It may not be in contradiction to science classes, but it is in pretty direct contradiction to the sort of stuff spouted by scientific fundamentalists.

[LMNO]

What the fuck is a scientific fundamentalist, other than someone who does not follow scientific principles?

[Thurnez Isa]

What the fuck is a scientific fundamentalist, other than someone who does not follow scientific principles?

people that ask him to prove what ever claim he makes?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Ok, maybe i overstated my case.

"Universe Prime" (U') in the above case may be just another model.  But if you are going to believe in model switching, then U' is the model which contains and allows for the other models.  And if you want to examine and try to objectively (as much as possible) describe and dissect the subjective experience of those sub-models, then U' needs to be constructed in a certain way.

When I attempt to define how U' is constructed to allow for model-switching and objective dissection, I seem to be leaning towards a scientific model.

I have found that many people seem to think this is how model agnosticism is supposed to work, but it doesn't jive with what I've read or thought about on the subject.

Scientific materialism is just as much a subjective model of reality as magic is... there are simply different criteria for what data you can model on that particular game. There is no useful way to describe some of my experiences within a scientific model, simply because there can be no outside observer and no repeatable experiments, well not with any real regularity. However, that doesn't make them false, just not workable on that particular model. Meteors were not able to be modeled in the 1700's because there was no outside observers, no repeatable experiments... just a bunch of unverifiable claims about rocks falling out of the sky. That doesn't mean rocks didn't fall out of the sky, just that such a thing couldn't be discussed on the subjective scientific model, until certain criteria were met.

For me, I don't have a base system that I live in other than model agnosticism, accepting that every description, explanation and observation about reality is a subjective collection of semantic symbols that desperately try to convey ideas. I don't think one needs to objectively explain the other models... rather, I try to experience multiple models, and compare contrast them all as subjective models... in the hope that through cross referencing models I might, at least, be able to grok what other people have experienced, observed and believe about the Universe.

@ Rat

One thing: Accurate predictions: thats how we know

*headdesk*

Accurate predictions speak far more to the human ability to observe patterns and make guesses about how they repeat. That doesn't tell us that their belief about why the patterns exist are true, only that we're really good at observing patterns and guessing what they're gonna do. Useful, yes. Know it's True? Hell, no.

We make predictions and take in new evidence, or preform experiments, if the models are correct the prediction will also be correct
that's how we know

and to a smaller degree peer review: Objective minds looking at the same experiment in an attempt to destroy it's validity. Smart people are very good at convincing themselves of very dumb things, and you need an objective mind to explore pretty much anything with accuracy

Also the models are complimentary to each other. Elastic Rebound Theory would not be correct if the Theory of Plate Tectonics was incorrect. It's like a puzzle. One piece fits because the other piece is in the correct location.

See above. Sceintists have made many useful predictions from time to time, with peer review... and new information will entirely invalidate the old. Science at its best is about documenting and studying observations... observations, by nature of being humans... is subjective. Further, successful predictions may still have a false assumption as to WHY the prediction was successful.

[BabylonHoruv]

What the fuck is a scientific fundamentalist, other than someone who does not follow scientific principles?

People who act as if Science has, in fact, explained everything, or is going to.  Who argue in a manner similar to that used by fundamentalists of any other sort. Filled with appeals to absolute truth and with a firm conviction that they, and not you, understand how the universe really works.  That they are RIGHT and you, who disagree with them are WRONG.

[fomenter]

And if the law of fives doesn't work for you, I'd suggest playing with it a little more.  Numerology can be useful, and the law of fives is kind of like a cheatcode for numerology.

have you read http://discordia.Uncle BadTouch.org/ek-sen-trik-kuh/mythstar.html ?
i still think you are getting your terms mixed, of course the law of fives works its a description of how human perception finds patterns. when you said magique works you are describing the pattern you saw, using an Aristotelian it IS way of describing it,

[LMNO]

I try to experience multiple models, and compare contrast them all as subjective models... in the hope that through cross referencing models I might, at least, be able to grok what other people have experienced, observed and believe about the Universe.

What model do you use when cross-referencing and comparing models?

What the fuck is a scientific fundamentalist, other than someone who does not follow scientific principles?

People who act as if Science has, in fact, explained everything, or is going to.  Who argue in a manner similar to that used by fundamentalists of any other sort. Filled with appeals to absolute truth and with a firm conviction that they, and not you, understand how the universe really works.  That they are RIGHT and you, who disagree with them are WRONG.

so, to put it simply, not a scientist.

[Thurnez Isa]

*headdesk*

Accurate predictions speak far more to the human ability to observe patterns and make guesses about how they repeat. That doesn't tell us that their belief about why the patterns exist are true, only that we're really good at observing patterns and guessing what they're gonna do. Useful, yes. Know it's True? Hell, no.

thats a seriously retarded statement
rat your smarter then that
if you believe its untrue
PROVE IT
without the use of hippie bullshit

[Thurnez Isa]

See above. Sceintists have made many useful predictions from time to time, with peer review... and new information will entirely invalidate the old. Science at its best is about documenting and studying observations... observations, by nature of being humans... is subjective. Further, successful predictions may still have a false assumption as to WHY the prediction was successful.

again you have claims
PROVE IT

[BabylonHoruv]

And if the law of fives doesn't work for you, I'd suggest playing with it a little more.  Numerology can be useful, and the law of fives is kind of like a cheatcode for numerology.

have you read  http://discordia.Uncle BadTouch.org/ek-sen-trik-kuh/mythstar.html ?
i still think you are getting your terms mixed, of course the law of fives works its a description of how human perception finds patterns. when you said magique works you are describing the pattern you saw, using an Aristotelian it IS way of describing it,

Yeah, I've read starbucks pebbles.  My point isn't that my experiences are more real than science, it is that they are just as real.  It's all starbucks pebbles, and if you find a way to use the pebbles to influence your day to day life that's about as real as it gets.

LMNO I use different models to cross reference my models depending on which one is the most useful for the models I am cross referencing,  and yeah, scientific fundamentalists make very poor scientists, although I expect with their singular devotion they could make good lab assistants.

Also, Thurnez Iza, if you haven't read the story that Fomentor references here I strongly suggest it.  It illustrates rat's point about pattern recognition pretty nicely.

[Cramulus]

I'm with rat -- repeatable experiments and peer review are not in itself evidence that the thing you are describing is Really Real.

Mankind once had air tight proof that the all matter was composed of four elements. There were repeatable experiments. There was a consensus of scientists. Then we invented better technology and discovered that we were wrong.


If you want a more contemporary example, take a look at parapsychology. There are some phenomena which have been very meticulously documented by parapsychologists. Things like like psychokinesis can be repeatedly reproduced in a lab. Does that mean PK is real? It still depends on who you ask.

[LMNO]

Rat:

A surveyor will typically express distances and times relative to arbitrary points of reference, like the prime meridian, or Greenwich mean time. These choices clearly depend upon who draws the maps. Einstein wanted the rules of motion to depend only upon relative distances, which we might call "separations," and relative times or durations. Similarly, motions are usually measured with respect to a platform the observer defines to be stationary, such as the (daily rotating!) surface of the planet earth. So Einstein wanted the rules to depend only on relative velocities, as well as relative distances and times. This is why the whole program is called the theory of relativity. It is a systematic effort to eliminate the point of view of the observer completely from the laws of motion.

(emphasis mine)

[Thurnez Isa]

If you want a more contemporary example, take a look at parapsychology. There are some phenomena which have been very meticulously documented by parapsychologists. Things like like psychokinesis can be repeatedly reproduced in a lab. Does that mean PK is real? It still depends on who you ask.

I have never heard of such a case that satisfies any type of standard
If there is a case then link me up
and I will link you up to the hundreds of peer reviewed physiological journals that did such experiments and found NO correlation on what the person was claiming and what was the results

[BabylonHoruv]

If you want a more contemporary example, take a look at parapsychology. There are some phenomena which have been very meticulously documented by parapsychologists. Things like like psychokinesis can be repeatedly reproduced in a lab. Does that mean PK is real? It still depends on who you ask.

I have never heard of such a case that satisfies any type of standard
If there is a case then link me up
and I will link you up to the hundreds of peer reviewed physiological journals that did such experiments and found NO correlation on what the person was claiming and what was the results

That's partly due to the insistence that belief must be irrelevent.  If the experiment is done with the intent of disproving the results, you disprove the results.  Someone who assumes magic doesn't work makes an incredibly poor magician (and a relatively poor scientist since someone who assumes anything makes a relatively poor scientist)