dfnj
Well-Known Member
It's funny how people who believe in a clockwork Universe with hard determinism simply cannot accept the results of quantum experiments:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Fact, Belief, and Faith
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
It's funny how people who believe in a clockwork Universe with hard determinism simply cannot accept the results of quantum experiments:
All these are regarding evidence based confidence levels regarding ascribing true/false property to various propositions. The confidence level is a continuum, the truth value is not.
dfnj
Well-Known Member
I've argued it this way. Using mass and energy to measure mass and energy says nothing about why the laws of physics are what they are or why the Universe behaves at all.
Correct!So "it's raining outside" is neither true or false?
It's either a verifiable fact, or it's false.
A verifiable fact is not true?
You need to read the many references in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy completely, and yes *truth value* is described as potentially a continuum, and not necessarily a 'binary true false' option, as with "Truth Claims."
I will have to go back and dig out the interesting description of the hybrid description of truth theory that I favor.
You may favor it. But it's not common either in science or in philosophy of science. Most scientists are scientific realists, which says that successful scientific theories have their success because they latch onto true features of the world at a certain level of precision.
In a lay sense, it's "true".
But strictly speaking, I'd reserve "true"only for a priori statements, eg, "1+1=2".
With a verifiable fact, there's always the possibility of observational error or
things being more complex than we thought, eg, we once thought that f=ma.
That turned out to be just a special case for very sub-light speeds. So it
wasn't "true" in the sense that "1+1=2" will be true for all time & location.
F= ma is still true within a given domain and up to a given precision. Conditional statements can be true also in logic, like if X then Y given Z.
But F=ma became dependent upon the frame of reference.
It's not as universally applicable as it once was. Because it
changed, it was never "true", even though it was factual.
And I'll bet your left one that if QM &GR are ever reconciled,
both of those theories will be merely special cases for something
more comprehensive. So were they true or not? I say not.
But they're useful.
Problem here; this bogus video leers it face several times in the past, and has been debunked as not representing the present scientific knowledge of Quantum Mechanics, and is riff with the fallacy of 'arguing from ignorance.
Funny?!?!?! Odd response to anything, and not meaningful. Actually the rigid use of "Truth Claims" as ultimately binary runs head long into the problem of advocating strict determinism as the nature of our physical existence,
the concept of determinism underlying the nature of our macro world is the assumption of the consistent predictability of science, but it is not simply mechanistic, and with the Quantum micro world it remains an open unresolved question,
Well that's accurate although i am not sure how many treat it magically. I think we are in the minority.
I do believe we share the view of most people in the math field like @Polymath257 Pretty much all of the time I am very much in agreement with his posts.
About "truth", I like what George Box has to say (model = theory).....
All models are wrong - Wikipedia
Also useful in any discussion of "truth" & "science"....
Falsifiability - Wikipedia
Ref....
All models are wrong - Wikipedia
Also useful in any discussion of "truth" & "science"....
Falsifiability - Wikipedia
You are unethically quote mining a third party source wikipedia again to justify a religious agenda.
Selective biased citation of the volumes of Popper DO NOT represent the foundation of Methodological Naturalism and falsification nor the over all view of Popper. Popper is the philosopher that established the scientific methods and processes of falsification the became the standard of Methodological Naturalism today. He of course had reservation about the application of falsification, but bogus selective citation of wikipedia does not represent the view of Popper, the father of the concept of contemporary falsification.
See a comprehensive description of Popper' philosophy of falsification here:
Karl Popper (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
"1. Popper professes to be anti-conventionalist, and his commitment to the correspondence theory of truth places him firmly within the realist’s camp. Yet, following Kant, he strongly repudiates the positivist/empiricist view that basic statements (i.e., present-tense observation statements about sense-data) are infallible, and argues convincingly that such basic statements are not mere ‘reports’ of passively registered sensations. Rather they are descriptions of what is observed as interpreted by the observer with reference to a determinate theoretical framework. This is why Popper repeatedly emphasises that basic statements are not infallible, and it indicates what he means when he says that they are ‘theory laden’—perception itself is an active process, in which the mind assimilates data by reference to an assumed theoretical backdrop. He accordingly asserts that basic statements themselves are open-ended hypotheses: they have a certain causal relationship with experience, but they are not determined by experience, and they cannot be verified or confirmed by experience. However, this poses a difficulty regarding the consistency of Popper’s theory: if a theory X" role="presentation" style="display: inline; line-height: normal; word-spacing: normal; word-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; border: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; position: relative;">XX is to be genuinely testable (and so scientific) it must be possible to determine whether or not the basic propositions which would, if true, falsify it, are actually true or false (i.e., whether its potential falsifiers are actual falsifiers). But how can this be known, if such basic statements cannot be verified by experience? Popper’s answer is that ‘basic statements are not justifiable by our immediate experiences, but are … accepted by an act, a free decision’. (Logic of Scientific Discovery, 109). However, and notwithstanding Popper’s claims to the contrary, this itself seems to be a refined form of conventionalism—it implies that it is almost entirely an arbitrary matter whether it is accepted that a potential falsifier is an actual one, and consequently that the falsification of a theory is itself the function of a ‘free’ and arbitrary act. It also seems very difficult to reconcile this with Popper’s view that science progressively moves closer to the truth, conceived of in terms of the correspondence theory, for this kind of conventionalism is inimical to this (classical) conception of truth."
You need to read the whole reference with academic bibliography to understand Popper's philosophy of falsification, and not an unethical bogus cherry picking a third source.
Last edited:
Are you for real?
Every other poster on RF can read "atheist" under my moniker.
I don't believe in gods.
I never have.
I say that ID is unsupportable bunk.
I support the scientific method (which gives us bacon).
So whatever you're smoking, please keep it away from me.
Mein Gott!
I don't know if this is annoying or entertaining.
Last edited:
Your attack of the science of evolution and the scientific method of falsification are very very suspicious of false representation of your beliefs. There others on this cite that have done the same thing. Denton did this as s a phony advocate of Intelligent Design.
Your phony use of bogus "evolution by chance," and your selective bogus attack on Popper's falsification smells rotten of Creationism.
Tell me if not the natural course of our physical existence and natural origin and evolution of life; 'What is your explanation of the evidence?'
OK.....I call Poe.
This is just too funny & outrageous to be serious.
I get the joke now.
No joke! Again . . .
Your attack of the science of evolution and the scientific method of falsification are very very suspicious of false representation of your beliefs. There are
others on this cite that have done the same thing. Denton did this as a phony scientific advocate of Intelligent Design.
Your phony use of bogus "evolution by chance," and your selective bogus attack on Popper's falsification smells rotten of Creationism.
Tell me if not the natural course of our physical existence and natural origin and evolution of life; 'What is your explanation of the evidence'?
Stop playing the three stooges Duck, Bob and Weave, and honestly, clearly and coherently state your real position.
This is not the reference that I was originally looking for that advocates a hybrid approach to Truth Theory, but it is interesting that vein of thought.
From: The Correspondence Theory of Truth (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
8.2 Pluralism
The correspondence theory is sometimes accused of overreaching itself: it does apply, so the objection goes, to truths from some domains of discourse, e.g., scientific discourse and/or discourse about everyday midsized physical things, but not to truths from various other domains of discourse, e.g., ethical and/or aesthetic discourse (see the first objection in Section 5 above). Alethic pluralismgrows out of this objection, maintaining that truth is constituted by different properties for true propositions from different domains of discourse: by correspondence to fact for true propositions from the domain of scientific or everyday discourse about physical things; by some epistemic property, such as coherence or superassertibility, for true propositions from the domain of ethical and aesthetic discourse, and maybe by still other properties for other domains of discourse. This suggests a position on which the term “true” is multiply ambiguous, expressing different properties when applied to propositions from different domains. However, contemporary pluralists reject this problematic idea, maintaining instead that truth is “multiply realizable”. That is, the term “true” is univocal, it expresses one concept or property, truth (being true), but one that can be realized by or manifested in different properties (correspondence to fact, coherence or superassertibility, and maybe others) for true propositions from different domains of discourse. Truth itself is not to be identified with any of its realizing properties. Instead, it is characterized, quasi axiomatically, by a set of alleged “platitudes”, including, according to Crispin Wright’s (1999) version, “transparency” (to assert is to present as true), “contrast” (a proposition may be true without being justified, and v.v.), “timelesness” (if a proposition is ever true, then it always is), “absoluteness” (there is no such thing as a proposition being more or less true), and others.