You can't have perfect knowledge through science

[atanu]

Rigirously distinguish the two, then. You can't just declare one real and the other false if they're not actually distinguishable.

Why do I need to prove anything? You have to prove that you are a virtual animated character and yet have extraordinary 'looking' and 'discerning' powers.

 

[atanu]

Quote one.

I can quote many.

We have to remember that what we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning.​

Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1962), 58.

 

[PolyHedral]

An animated character in a virtual reality looking deeply and knowing the equations. Joking?

Psst. Also, novels aren't a good comparison, since the author can't simulate characters in his head who are as detailed as himself. He instead directs them, puppet-master-like, based on what he needs the characters to do. There are very few fictional characters are convincingly self-aware.

Follows. A pre-programmed software cannot have free thinking.

But how does this correspond to truth? Also, you've conjured the "pre-programmed" from nowhere. It doesn't really make sense in the context of programs which rewrite themselves.

When intelligence is said to be deterministic, arisen out of laws, it cannot know the laws

Why not? Incidentally, knowing the laws is not synonymous with knowing the results of the laws.

Has any character of a novel known any author?

Alan Moore's characters do, occasionally.

Better than being a megalomaniac who says: There is no self, there is no intelligence but I know all the physics and the math and I assert they are indistiguishable from the truth, which is virtual.

Prove it.

The alternative leads to contradiction.

Why do I need to prove anything? You have to prove that you are a virtual animated character and yet have extraordinary 'looking' and 'discerning' powers.

But I'm not asserting that as being fact; I'm asserting it as a possibility. Unless you have a reason to suggest that the possibility isn't, then I don't have to prove anything.

I can quote many.

We have to remember that what we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning.​

Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1962), 58.

Single observation does not yield results accurate to nature; this is obvious from a cursory glance of quantum mechanics. "Nature" is the underlying system that produces these results, and that system is incredibly strange compared to what we actually see.

 

[atanu]

Psst. Also, novels aren't a good comparison, since the author can't simulate characters in his head who are as detailed as himself. He instead directs them, puppet-master-like, based on what he needs the characters to do. There are very few fictional characters are convincingly self-aware.

But how does this correspond to truth? Also, you've conjured the "pre-programmed" from nowhere. It doesn't really make sense in the context of programs which rewrite themselves.

What? You have failed to show any self created software that updated itself in all our discussions but you assert this afresh in every thread. And how do you presume that something corresponds or not to Truth. Are you privy to it?

Why not? Incidentally, knowing the laws is not synonymous with knowing the results of the laws.

Its common observation and common sense.

Alan Moore's characters do, occasionally.

That is Alan Moore himself playing roles. So, do you suggest that?

The alternative leads to contradiction.

You cannot prove it. OTOH, assertion: There is no self, there is no intelligence but I know all the physics and the math and I assert they are indistiguishable from the truth, which is virtual, is contradiction in itself.

But I'm not asserting that as being fact; I'm asserting it as a possibility. Unless you have a reason to suggest that the possibility isn't, then I don't have to prove anything.

OKAY. You said:

How does this apply to reality? Let's jump around a bit and look at the Matrix Hypotheses: the idea that reality is in fact a computer program, running on some vast, external hardware. I am sure this is a possibility, because I have seen no counterargument for it.-----

All points discussed so far indicate that animated cartoons cannot look deeply and come up with mathematical equations and physical laws. And here is what the mathematician says:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2624340-post67.html

And the above thread is proof how you run away from challenge thread after thread but continue to troll with same argument post after post.

Single observation does not yield results accurate to nature; this is obvious from a cursory glance of quantum mechanics. "Nature" is the underlying system that produces these results, and that system is incredibly strange compared to what we actually see.

Animated cartoons however do not see.

So, the reality of the Matrix is still the 'given' power of seeing.

 

[idav]

So, the reality of the Matrix is still the 'given' power of seeing.

Source?

 

[atanu]

Source?

Hey my god. Do you require another to tell you that you can see and discern?

 

[idav]

Hey my god. Do you require another to tell you that you can see and discern?

Source for our reality being a Matrix.

 

[PolyHedral]

What? You have failed to show any self created software that updated itself in all our discussions but you assert this afresh in every thread. And how do you presume that something corresponds or not to Truth. Are you privy to it?

It doesn't need to be self-created, but the point is that some computer programs rewrite their own instructions as part of their operations.

And yes, of course. Some statements are true by definition. Others are not quite perfectly true, but they are close enough to be lumped under the same umbrella.

Its common observation and common sense.

...And? It is common sense that time and space are invariant. It's also not true.

That is Alan Moore himself playing roles. So, do you suggest that?

I suppose at this point I could go off on a tangent about what defines a "person", but that wouldn't have much relavence to anything else.

You cannot prove it. OTOH, assertion: There is no self, there is no intelligence but I know all the physics and the math and I assert they are indistiguishable from the truth, which is virtual, is contradiction in itself.

Who said anything about there being no intelligence? And I've already said that current physics is not the truth, merely very close to it.

Also, define "virtual," and show how it is, in principle, possible to show that reality isn't virtual.

All points discussed so far indicate that animated cartoons cannot look deeply and come up with mathematical equations and physical laws.

"Also, [stories] aren't a good comparison, since the author can't simulate characters in his head who are as detailed as himself."

And here is what the mathematician says: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2624340-post67.html

And the above thread is proof how you run away from challenge thread after thread but continue to troll with same argument post after post.

Check your quote closely:

“either mind infinitely surpasses any finite machine or there are absolutely unsolvable number theoretic problems.”
​

The latter is true. There are problems that cannot be solved by any means in finite time.

Animated cartoons however do not see.

And they are the wrong comparison.

 

[cablescavenger]

Really? Sounds more like you prefer unsubstantiated generalzations.

Are you asking me to become religious?

 

[cablescavenger]

Really? Sounds more like you prefer unsubstantiated generalzations.

Thank you for pointing out my error. In fairness to your response, I probably did provide an unsubstatiated generalisation, and of course not every religious person uses just the one book.

I was responding to the first thread but being a newbie to the forum, had not attached a copy of the post I was responding to.

The post said :

I have been asked to produce evidence of the divinity of Jesus. This is not just good evidence, it is overwhelming evidence.

... and then proceeded to quote from the Bible as if that was all the evidence that was required for a balanced debate.

Forgive me for implying all religious people did not look beyond the book, of course that is not true. It was just true in that instance.

 

[atanu]

It doesn't need to be self-created, but the point is that some computer programs rewrite their own instructions as part of their operations.

Ya. And they do it on their own, without such instruction being written by a programmer. I have had enough, man.

:computer:

 

[atanu]

Source for our reality being a Matrix.

Obviously not. The idea of 'our' is representational.

 

[PolyHedral]

Ya. And they do it on their own, without such instruction being written by a programmer. I have had enough, man.

:computer:

Is there something impossible about the concept?

 

[atanu]

.

1. And I've already said that current physics is not the truth, merely very close to it.

2. Check your quote closely:

“either mind infinitely surpasses any finite machine or there are absolutely unsolvable number theoretic problems.”​

The latter is true. There are problems that cannot be solved by any means in finite time.

Any which way you decide to shift the goal posts, in the context of this thread, the 1 and 2 together has been my view (actually the Vedanta view).



The case is decided.

 

[PolyHedral]

Any which way you decide to shift the goal posts, in the context of this thread, the 1 and 2 together has been my view (actually the Vedanta view).



The case is decided.

You've highlighted three different statements. Which do you mean?

 

[PennyKay]

The scientific method is based on a flawed axiom that we can know the reality through our senses. Unfortunately all human beings are subject to four defects:
1) Our senses are limited and imperfect
2) We make mistakes
3) We are in illusion
4) We cheat.

Due these defects we can not know the Truth through this method. In order to have perfect knowledge you must hear from higher authority. Just like if you want to know your father you have to ask your mother. You can't go to every man and test them.

A point to counter this (I dont know if somebody else has already made this point?) but scientists know that our senses are imperfect and we make mistakes, that is why we have built machines that are highly more accurate with dedection and calculation (an obvious example is the LHC).

In terms of cheating, most decent scientists do not cheat results, it's counter productive. Why would scientists go through so many years of education, research and experimentation, to just end up cheating. Only the bad, useless one's do that.

Science is the best way we know how to expain how things work, and the a certain extent, why.

 

[religion99]

A point to counter this (I dont know if somebody else has already made this point?) but scientists know that our senses are imperfect and we make mistakes, that is why we have built machines that are highly more accurate with dedection and calculation (an obvious example is the LHC).

In terms of cheating, most decent scientists do not cheat results, it's counter productive. Why would scientists go through so many years of education, research and experimentation, to just end up cheating. Only the bad, useless one's do that.

Science is the best way we know how to expain how things work, and the a certain extent, why.

In other words, Knowledge is God and Scientists are the Messengers , right?

 

[jarofthoughts]

In other words, Knowledge is God and Scientists are the Messengers , right?

You've got the equation all wrong mate.

It's: Knowledge = Power = Energy = Mass, and Mass distorts Timespace.

Which means that any decent bookstore is a mild-tempered black hole... :sarcastic

(Creds to Terry Pratchett for that one).

 

[PolyHedral]

Ook.

 

[atanu]

And I've already said that current physics is not the truth, merely very close to it.

Check your quote closely:

“either mind infinitely surpasses any finite machine or there are absolutely unsolvable number theoretic problems.”​

The latter is true. There are problems that cannot be solved by any means in finite time.

Any which way you decide to shift the goal posts, in the context of this thread, the 1 and 2 together has been my view (actually the Vedanta view).

The case is decided.

You've highlighted three different statements. Which do you mean?

It was already said. I will repeat for your benefit. I take from what you have already said:

1. And I've already said that current physics is not the truth, merely very close to it.
2. Check your quote closely:

“either mind infinitely surpasses any finite machine or there are absolutely unsolvable number theoretic problems.”​

The latter is true. There are problems that cannot be solved by any means in finite time.
​

The first point combined with any one of the second (as per your wish), settles the case.