You can't have perfect knowledge through science

[PolyHedral]

So you agree with me? Also, I should probably amend that earlier point: science is not completely the truth, but it is the closest to the truth out of all known beliefs.

 

[atanu]

So you agree with me? Also, I should probably amend that earlier point: science is not completely the truth, but it is the closest to the truth out of all known beliefs.

Well, I thought you inadvertently agreed to me and therefore now wish to shift the goalposts?

Forget amending, however. You cannot even see that you are contradicting yourself.

 

[PolyHedral]

Which two sttements contradict?

(Also, I don't agree that the mind infinitely surpasses any machine. That doesn't make sense.)

 

[Photonic]

Well, I thought you inadvertently agreed to me and therefore now wish to shift the goalposts?

Forget amending, however. You cannot even see that you are contradicting yourself.

As a mathematician Poly lives his life in the belief that nothing should contradict.

I'm less inclined to think he is contradicting himself than you just trying to point score.

 

[atanu]

(Also, I don't agree that the mind infinitely surpasses any machine. That doesn't make sense.)

Godel gave two options. Why you think that the first option is senseless? Can you prove that mind does not surpass a finite machine?

 

[atanu]

As a mathematician Poly lives his life in the belief that nothing should contradict.

I'm less inclined to think he is contradicting himself than you just trying to point score.

You are welcome with your inclination or whatever.

There was however an agreement that

1. 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.”​

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

Later, Poly wanted to amend his statement. That is fact.

 

[Photonic]

You are welcome with your inclination or whatever.

There was however an agreement that



Later, Poly wanted to amend his statement. That is fact.

Amending what is said is not a contradiction. How do you know he simply wasn't as clear as he wanted to be and realized you would simply attempt to point score instead of being reasonable about it?

 

[atanu]

Amending what is said is not a contradiction.

I did not say that the act of amending was contradicting. Did I? I said he was shifting goalposts. The issue of cntradiction was different and it was that his amended statement seemed to be contradicting Godel's two statements.

How do you know he simply wasn't as clear as he wanted to be and realized you would simply attempt to point score instead of being reasonable about it?

Photonic, do you realise that it is you who is doing the accusing? Can you stick to facts instead of judging personalities please?

 

[PolyHedral]

Godel gave two options. Why you think that the first option is senseless? Can you prove that mind does not surpass a finite machine?

Infinity is not a physically meaningful quantity.

Later, Poly wanted to amend his statement. That is fact.

I wanted to amend a totally different statement.

I did not say that the act of amending was contradicting. Did I? I said he was shifting goalposts. The issue of cntradiction was different and it was that his amended statement seemed to be contradicting Godel's two statements.

"Science is the most accurate knowledge so far, but is not perfectly true," has nothing to do with Godel's view on number theory. He is correct; there are unsolvable number theory problems.

 

[atanu]

Underdetermination of Scientific Theory (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

I think that only very biased will denigrate the strength of scientific method. At the same time the limitations should be acknowedged, especially in the context of greater metaphysical enquiries.

 

[atanu]

Infinity is not a physically meaningful quantity.

Mind is not physical. and it is your assumption that mind's limits have to be meaningful.

Prove that mind does not infinitely surpasse any finite machine. In other words, prove that Godel was wrong.

I wanted to amend a totally different statement.

You added a modifier.

"Science is the most accurate knowledge so far, but is not perfectly true," has nothing to do with Godel's view on number theory. He is correct; there are unsolvable number theory problems.

Wow. Godel gave two options: “either mind infinitely surpasses any finite machine or there are absolutely unsolvable number theoretic problems.”

You decide what suits you, without disproving the first option.

Well, even that is sufficient for this thread.

 

[atanu]

Repeat:


Underdetermination of Scientific Theory (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

I think that only very biased will denigrate the strength of scientific method. At the same time the limitations should be acknowedged, especially in the context of greater metaphysical enquiries.

 

[Caladan]

So in other words it's preferable to rely upon some self-appointed representatives of god (who still possess the same flaws that you've listed) to make some random, arbitrary **** up to conveniently fill in the gaps?

That's what I was wondering.
we can read books about religion, New Age, spirituality, and other inspirational texts. but where do we draw the line when we start to make science into pseudo-science.
the natural sciences and hard sciences in general are the tested and empirical ways we have to study our environment, it's simply 'the best we've got' and perhaps the only thing we've got.
when I want to read about Mars, I turn to articles or books written by astrophysicists, when I want to read about evolution I turn to evolutionary biologists, and when I want to read about the pyramids I turn to archaeologists.

 

[atanu]

To Photonic:

It is not about scoring a point or not about imposing one's opinion on another. I think, it is about going above one's bias by opening oneself to alternative views and examining them openly and not defensively.

 

[PolyHedral]

I think that only very biased will denigrate the strength of scientific method. At the same time the limitations should be acknowedged, especially in the context of greater metaphysical enquiries.

Science's limits are shared by all other systems of knowledge. It is impossible to justify a decision if there is no data avaliable.

Mind is not physical. and it is your assumption that mind's limits have to be meaningful.

Prove that mind does not infinitely surpasse any finite machine.

It is incapable of hypercomputation. It is capable of only a finite amount of processing in a given amount of time.

In other words, prove that Godel was wrong.

You understand how logical or works, don't you?

Wow. Godel gave two options: “either mind infinitely surpasses any finite machine or there are absolutely unsolvable number theoretic problems.”

You decide what suits you, without disproving the first option.

Well, even that is sufficient for this thread.[/quote]

 

[Photonic]

Mind is not physical. and it is your assumption that mind's limits have to be meaningful.

Prove that mind does not infinitely surpasse any finite machine. In other words, prove that Godel was wrong.



You added a modifier.




Wow. Godel gave two options: “either mind infinitely surpasses any finite machine or there are absolutely unsolvable number theoretic problems.”

You decide what suits you, without disproving the first option.

Well, even that is sufficient for this thread.

And the evidence that the mind is not physical is ...where exactly?

 

[atanu]

And the evidence that the mind is not physical is ...where exactly?

Surely. If you do not assume Mind to be weighing about a kilogram, then you will acknowledge that thoughts are non-material.

 

[atanu]

Science's limits are shared by all other systems of knowledge. It is impossible to justify a decision if there is no data avaliable.

That is not reason why science should be considered answer to data less realm.

It is incapable of hypercomputation. It is capable of only a finite amount of processing in a given amount of time.

That is not refutation of Godel. You are assuming that hypercomputation is not work of mind.

The computer that hypercomputes is product of one or more minds.

You understand how logical or works, don't you?

No. I do not. Accepted.

Now prove why you should accept Godel's second proposition and reject the first one? Godel gave the proposition as either this or that. How you say that the first one is wrong.

 

[Photonic]

Surely. If you do not assume Mind to be weighing about a kilogram, then you will acknowledge that thoughts are non-material.

Neuroscience disagrees with you.

 

[atanu]

Neuroscience disagrees with you.

Do you want to discuss it separately? Here:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/philosophy/118799-origin-human-general-awareness.html