The Problem of evoL

[walterpthefirst]

Josh,

 

A friend of mine once said that Xeno should have had the courage to test his philosophical speculations by standing between the target and the archer.  Then he would have found out if his contention (the arrow does not move) was correct or not.

 

In a parallel to that, in the 'Belief, What Exactly Is It?' thread Duderonomy asked me if I had faith in the rigorous scientific testing done on GR and QM.  I was able to demonstrate that he was no different to me in his secular confidence in both GR and QM.  In virtually everything he did and in almost everything he used he put his confidence in science, scientific testing and GR and QM, just as I do.

 

I submit that you do the same when it comes to the brute facts of reality.

You think deeply about the nature of consciousness and the nature of reality, but when it comes to how you actually live and act, your thinking does not translate itself into actions.  Like everyone else here you do not put yourself in harm's way but instead you have a healthy respect for heights, for roaring fires and for high voltage power lines.  You do not cross bridges that look unsafe and you do not fly in aircraft that do not look airworthy.  You do not actually believe that your consciousness or your assumptions can actually change these life-threatening dangers from what they are and what they will do to you.

 

 

 

Ok Josh, let's not fall out over this. 

 

If I wrong, I'm wrong.  I'll apologize and take back all that I've written here.  If you don't accept the brute facts of reality in the same way as I do and that everyone else here does, then I'll concede and yield.

 

But you'll need to demonstrate that you don't because that's not something I can accept from you on faith.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[midniterider]

"You think deeply about the nature of consciousness and the nature of reality, but when it comes to how you actually live and act, your thinking does not translate itself into actions.  Like everyone else here you do not put yourself in harm's way but instead you have a healthy respect for heights, for roaring fires and for high voltage power lines.  You do not cross bridges that look unsafe and you do not fly in aircraft that do not look airworthy.  You do not actually believe that your consciousness or your assumptions can actually change these life-threatening dangers from what they are and what they will do to you."

 

Josh surfs. Just sayin'.

 

 

[Joshpantera]

23 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

I think that I'm not communicating the idea of a brute fact of reality very well here, Josh.

 

Such a brute fact, like gravity, is in no way affected or influenced by what we do or don't understand about it.  It affects us regardless of our ignorance or understanding of it.  A Homo Australopithecus and a Homo Sapien falling off a cliff come to the same end, regardless of the differences in their cognitive ability.   Even if someone discovered exactly what gravity is tomorrow, their understanding changes nothing.  They still end up dead if they fall from a great height.  That is an undeniable and unavoidable brute fact of reality.

 

Nor does it matter what the falling person understands or believes about the true nature of reality.  They are still going to die.  Understanding or ignorance, belief or non-belief.  None of it makes any difference.

 

The easiest way to think about these issues is to compare it a simulation like the Matrix like I've done. All of the above is true, is a brute fact, within the simulation. You fall. You die. All of that. You get everything that we or anything else gets, such as gravity. It's part of the simulation. Any species, like you suggest. Whatever exists within the simulation. Regardless of cognitive ability. All experience gravity. All will die if they fall. 

 

But all were merely inside of a simulation the whole time. A completely real, realism based, reality. 

 

On 8/16/2022 at 9:01 AM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Y'all really believe in Gravity?  That's just ridiculous.  I mean, gravity is only a theory to begin with.  And if you look at the facts, Intelligent Downward-Pushing makes far more sense.  Blind idiots.

 

Is this still to do with the Matrix analogy or introducing something new? In the Matrix, gravity is part of the simulation. Seems real in every way. But it's a simulation. And therefore, subject to manipulation in so far as that goes. You just have to know how. Then everything changes. Not knowing how, things remain more of the same. The law, would then be broken at that point. 

 

23 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Let's take a different example.

In the days following the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Japanese scientists were ordered to examine the ruins of both cities to discover what had destroyed them.  These scientists correctly concluded that thermonuclear fission was the destructive agent in both cases.  

 

But if these same scientists had been at ground zero in either city on when the bombs fell would their understanding of the physics of fission have prevented them from being vaporised?  The answer, is, of course, a resounding No.  

 

I suspect that you and I will not agree on this issue, Josh.

As far as I'm concerned, in almost every instance, no special mindset, no mode of understanding, cosmic mentation, assumption or manifestation of consciousness undoes, avoids or transforms what reality inflicts upon us.   

 

This example would remain the same if they were in a Matrix type simulation. Every aspect of the above example. The bomb would kill. The bomb would have a blast radius within the simulation. You could detect what happened, within the simulation. What makes you think that within a simulation like the Matrix they would have been prevented from being vaporized? 

 

The real question is would Neo, specifically, be vaporized? Someone who knew how to manipulate the simulation. Those who don't, would simply die. Neo, the conscious manipulator, stops bullets inside of the simulation. Flys at will, in the simulation. Probably be impervious to the blast radius when everyone else would not be, within the simulation as a manipulator of the simulation. 

 

This is just exploring what could be taking place within a simulation. It requires a shift in thinking. Everything that seems real now, any example you could imagine, would be the same in a realistic simulation.

 

And the issue is that we don't have a clue whether or not that is going on right now as I type this message. No physicalist assumptions are powerful enough to offer a firm alternative. 

 

I've found considerable weakness at the base of the physicalist worldview and can't unsee it.

[Joshpantera]

22 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

I submit that you do the same when it comes to the brute facts of reality.

You think deeply about the nature of consciousness and the nature of reality, but when it comes to how you actually live and act, your thinking does not translate itself into actions.  Like everyone else here you do not put yourself in harm's way but instead you have a healthy respect for heights, for roaring fires and for high voltage power lines.  You do not cross bridges that look unsafe and you do not fly in aircraft that do not look airworthy.  You do not actually believe that your consciousness or your assumptions can actually change these life-threatening dangers from what they are and what they will do to you.

 

Maybe my last post will clear this up a little further. 

 

No one would do any of the above dangerous activities within the simulation, unless they had someone figured out that it IS a simulation first. And then began toying with the simulation from that vantage point. Like Neo in the movie. 

 

We're not there yet, we haven't figured if we are or aren't in a simulation yet, we're at the point of questioning whether or not we can know if this is a simulation.

 

And if someone says no, we can't be in a simulation, how do they know that? What settles the issue and lays it to rest? 

 

Gravity? How so? 

 

Any other observed law of nature? How so? 

[Joshpantera]

22 hours ago, midniterider said:

"You think deeply about the nature of consciousness and the nature of reality, but when it comes to how you actually live and act, your thinking does not translate itself into actions.  Like everyone else here you do not put yourself in harm's way but instead you have a healthy respect for heights, for roaring fires and for high voltage power lines.  You do not cross bridges that look unsafe and you do not fly in aircraft that do not look airworthy.  You do not actually believe that your consciousness or your assumptions can actually change these life-threatening dangers from what they are and what they will do to you."

 

Josh surfs. Just sayin'.

 

 

 

I was sitting in crystal clear water at Ft. Pierce Inlet in June, after the COVID, surfing around. I had sharks swimming back and forth between the outer reefs and the inside sandbars looking for baitfish. Me looking right at them, them looking right at me. I do assert myself as a threatening presence when I'm around predators and in the food chain like that. So far, so good. Never been attacked. I've dropped the fear of it. When I was a teen I'd get scared when I saw sharks close. Now, short of being attacked and having to fight one off, I never get out of the water just because I see them close. I just keep surfing...

 

But I don't grab electrical lines, or step in front of cars, or stop bullets like Neo. At least not yet! But let's see what happens when I get further along into the Hermetic texts.....

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Is this still to do with the Matrix analogy or introducing something new?

Naw.  I was just being a smartass. 

[pantheory]

On 8/16/2022 at 6:01 AM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Y'all really believe in Gravity?  That's just ridiculous.  I mean, gravity is only a theory to begin with.  And if you look at the facts, Intelligent Downward-Pushing makes far more sense.  Blind idiots.

Yes, pushing gravity explains it all, no Joke IMO - Its far simpler and of equal accuracy.

 

https://zenodo.org/record/3612297#.Yv198d3MLIU

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

The easiest way to think about these issues is to compare it a simulation like the Matrix like I've done. All of the above is true, is a brute fact, within the simulation. You fall. You die. All of that. You get everything that we or anything else gets, such as gravity. It's part of the simulation. Any species, like you suggest. Whatever exists within the simulation. Regardless of cognitive ability. All experience gravity. All will die if they fall. 

 

But all were merely inside of a simulation the whole time. A completely real, realism based, reality. 

 

 

First off, I'm not actually saying that we aren't inside a simulation, Josh.

 

My focus has instead been on our understanding and our behaviours.

 

But you've actually made my case for me in the above extract of your post.  It doesn't matter if we are or aren't in simulation, because the outcomes are the same and our behaviours are the same.  And that is why I submit that you don't behave as if you were living in a simulation.  That's because you've realized that there's no difference between living in one or not living in one.  As you've pointed out, dangerous things in reality are equally dangerous in a simulation. Therefore, the fatal outcomes and our cautious behaviours are just the same.

 

The brute facts of reality or simulation are just the same.

 

That was my point with Duderonomy.  He called me out on something and I demonstrated that I had no case to answer because he and I were just the same on that issue.

 

So your unease with physicalism is unfounded.  Since you have no way of knowing if you are or aren't in a simulation, you might as well live as if you didn't.  And... lo and behold, that's exactly what you do.  As do I.  We live in just the same way as each other, regardless of any philosophical differences.  You can't unsee what you perceive to be weakness in the physicalist position and I have no problem with physicalism - but the way we both live is just the same.

 

The brute facts of reality/simulation give us little choice.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[Joshpantera]

11 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

The brute facts of reality or simulation are just the same.

 

That was my point with Duderonomy.  He called me out on something and I demonstrated that I had no case to answer because he and I were just the same on that issue.

 

I didn't get to see the whole Dude exchange. Yes, it is just the same in the sense that the same rules apply. It's a brain twister because you could be in a simulation and not know it.

 

If we start to try and consider what could be different, and not the same, then the potential of manipulating the simulation is something that stands out as a possibility. As portrayed in the Matrix. 

 

11 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

So your unease with physicalism is unfounded.  Since you have no way of knowing if you are or aren't in a simulation, you might as well live as if you didn't.  And... lo and behold, that's exactly what you do.  As do I.  We live in just the same way as each other, regardless of any philosophical differences.  You can't unsee what you perceive to be weakness in the physicalist position and I have no problem with physicalism - but the way we both live is just the same.

 

The brute facts of reality/simulation give us little choice.

 

Physicalism is shot of its own accord, regardless of the alternative choices. It's bankrupt as a metaphysical system, in similar ways that the biblical christianity is just shot. Just because you can't know if you're in a simulation (which is just one of many other examples) doesn't justify the physicalist worldview by default.

 

 

 

So, the gig is up. I've moved beyond Genesis. And then I've moved beyond materialist metaphysics as well. This is a type of philosophical progressive attitude. Truth is out ahead, not in the past. The past has failed us where truth seeking is concerned. I can never unsee what I've seen in both cases. 

 

One reason could be very simple. Dualistic thinking jumped from monotheism to modern science. As modern science was born out of a dualistic form of thinking transitioning from religious to scientific in western society. The dualism wasn't overcome when the separation of religion and science happened. It continued on. And then presented us with all of these paradoxes in science. Including the hard problem of consciousness. 

 

If reality is non-dual, then, obviously, all dualistic ways of thinking will fall short, red flag like this, and ultimately fail under their own faulty foundations.

 

So, I don't find it too surprising that materialism is now showing signs of failure behind religions big crash. I've stood back from both of them, recognizing that jumping ship altogether is the only way off this sinking vessel. Clinging to the bow region isn't going to do any good when the whole ship is sinking...

 

How close to Dude's thinking this is, I'm not sure. 

 

 

 

 

[duderonomy]

3 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

I didn't get to see the whole Dude exchange. Yes, it is just the same in the sense that the same rules apply. It's a brain twister because you could be in a simulation and not know it.

 

If we start to try and consider what could be different, and not the same, then the potential of manipulating the simulation is something that stands out as a possibility. As portrayed in the Matrix. 

 

 

Physicalism is shot of its own accord, regardless of the alternative choices. It's bankrupt as a metaphysical system, in similar ways that the biblical christianity is just shot. Just because you can't know if you're in a simulation (which is just one of many other examples) doesn't justify the physicalist worldview by default.

 

 

So, the gig is up. I've moved beyond Genesis. And then I've moved beyond materialist metaphysics as well. This is a type of philosophical progressive attitude. Truth is out ahead, not in the past. The past has failed us where truth seeking is concerned. One reason could be very simple. Dualistic thinking jumped from monotheism to modern science. As modern science was born out of transitioning dualistic thinking western society. The dualism wasn't overcome when the separation of religion and science happened. 

 

If reality is non-dual, then, obviously, all dualistic ways of thinking will fall short, red flag like this, and ultimately fail under their own faulty foundations. So, I don't find it too surprising that materialism is now showing signs of failure behind religions big crash. I've stood back from both of them, recognizing that jumping ship altogether is the only way off. Clinging to the bow isn't going to do any good when the whole ship is sinking...

 

How close to Dude's thinking this is, I'm not sure. 

 

 

 

 

 

Me neither.

[walterpthefirst]

I didn't get to see the whole Dude exchange. Yes, it is just the same in the sense that the same rules apply. It's a brain twister because you could be in a simulation and not know it.

 

 

But what about this, Josh?  A clever Christian apologist who reads our dialogue could challenge us in the following way.

 

If there's no way to know through our senses if we are living in a simulation or not, then why rely on the evidence from our senses when it comes to what you believe about the true nature of reality?  Surely it's better to rely on faith and not go with evidence that cannot be trusted?  As per Hebrews 11 and other passages in the bible?  

 

Hebrews 11 : 1 - 3

 

Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 

2 This is what the ancients were commended for.

3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

 

The ancients believed without any visible evidence - and were considered righteous in the sight of god for doing so.

 

Also...

 

Proverbs 3 : 5 & 6

 

Trust in the Lord with all your heart
    and lean not on your own understanding;
 in all your ways submit to him,
    and he will make your paths straight.

 

Any thoughts, Josh?

 

 

(Edit.  I can see Sye Ten Brugencatte going for this.) 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I'm not sure that would really constitute too major of a problem, @walterpthefirst.  To begin with, even from the apologist perspective, the unreliability of our sensual perception would only get us as close to the existence of god as agnosticism.  Since we do not "know" and therefore rely on what we do have at our disposal, agnosticism should be our default, not just about god and faith, but about most other things as well.  I can see how an apologist might argue, "We don't know, therefore faith."  But I can also see the easy rebuttal of, "We don't know, therefore, we don't know."  Acknowledging the unknown is simply not a good reason to accept further unknowns on faith.  And, if it is conceivable that god might have created the simulation, then it is equally conceivable that the simulation was created by aliens, FSM, Leprechauns, Nessie, @LogicalFallacy's Horny Goat, or the Six-Nippled One (Glorify Her Name).

 

In truth, we don't "know" much of anything beyond our own consciousness, as has been acknowledged since Descartes first coined the phrase, cogito ergo sum in the 1600s.  But that doesn't stop us from accepting that which we perceive beyond our own consciousness.  I don't "know" that you exist; or whether you exist in "reality" or in a simulation.  I don't even "know" that I exist to ponder your existence, or whether "I" am just a collection of random ganglions in a specimen jar somewhere being occasionally stimulated by electrodes.  But I perceive you to exist; because my consciousness is aware of your presence on this website.  Ultimately, the only thing I can "know" exists, which I think was Descartes' point, is my own consciousness.  A reality beyond that doesn't need to exist, nor does a simulation that works on the same principles as the reality I perceive would exist if one did.  I only need to be convinced that there is a reality (or simulation) beyond my own consciousness.  

 

Lastly, my consciousness is aware and acknowledges that the plural of ganglion is ganglia; but I'm stubborn about that particular word and refuse to use it in its correct form.  Take that electrode-stimulating-specimen-jar dudes!

[walterpthefirst]

I can't fault the logic of what you've said here, Prof.

 

But let's not forget the the Presupps do not begin from the position of the reliability/unreliability of the senses.  Their starting point is that anything we do perceive or think we perceive only makes sense in the context of the bible god.  Therefore, they feel entirely justified in starting from a position of faith and going right on from there, using faith from start to finish.

 

The potential problem I see in the arguments being tossed back and forth in this thread is that anything that looks like us questioning our senses and the evidence derived from them plays right into their hands.  We are coming to close to saying 'Nothing we perceive can be trusted.'   If that is so, then the Presupps will just seize on that and say, 'Therefore trust only in god and not in your senses.'

 

Going further, all of the cosmological arguments I use require me to place my trust in the veracity of empirical science.  

 

https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/82597-the-failed-cosmology-of-william-lane-craig/

https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/84967-the-failure-of-the-fine-tuned-universe-apologetic-argument/

https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/83076-william-lane-craig-and-the-bgv/

 

Add to these all the arguments I use to dismantle Christian apologists claims about thermodynamics.

 

I might as well ask for these threads to be unpinned and binned if I can't rely on the evidence of my senses.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

To elaborate further, "you" don't even need to exist in order for my consciousness to perceive your existence and accept it as relatively factual.  In truth, "you" could very well just be an extension of my own consciousness representing a perspective of existence I have not fully explored.  "Josh" could have created the simulation himself; or he could be the Morpheus in my current experience of The Matrix, here to liberate minds and find "The One" (it's @TABA, by the way).  Ultimately, all of these things could exist only in my own consciousness and nowhere else; and I would be oblivious, because I only have my consciousness to rely on.  Similarly, I could be a figment of your own consciousness and you would not know it.  I would perceive Ms. Professor to be upset that I don't actually exist; but that perception might equally be only the logical progression of your own consciousness interacting with itself.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

4 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

The potential problem I see in the arguments being tossed back and forth in this thread is that anything that looks like us questioning our senses and the evidence derived from them plays right into their hands.  We are coming to close to saying 'Nothing we perceive can be trusted.'   If that is so, then the Presupps will just seize on that and say, 'Therefore trust only in god and not in your senses.'

I feel quite certain that a counter-apologist as good as yourself could keep pushing them until they finally admitted that the only way they "know" god is through their own perception.  They can't even read the bible without first being able to see it (visual perception).  They can't explore the wonder of god's creation without being able to taste, feel, smell, hear, and see it.  How do they know the correct way to interpret the bible?  They heard somebody explain it.  Where did they get argument X in favor of doctrine Y?  They saw a YouTube video.  Their argument would easily fall on its ear once you point out that they are, themselves, relying on their own perception to prop up the faith upon which their worldview is built.  That's when they will explain how they "feel it in their heart" which is just another form of sensual perception based on deeper emotions and desires.

 

And, once you demonstrate that they are also relying on faulty sensual perceptions, then the argument that faulty sensual perceptions cannot be trusted becomes the blunt object with which you can bludgeon them over the head.  And isn't bludgeoning people over the head with blunt objects the reason any of us exist?  Or is that just my perception?  Imagination?  (Un)conscious desire?  Stupid ganglions being stimulated...

[TheRedneckProfessor]

16 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

Going further, all of the cosmological arguments I use require me to place my trust in the veracity of empirical science.  

 

https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/82597-the-failed-cosmology-of-william-lane-craig/

https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/84967-the-failure-of-the-fine-tuned-universe-apologetic-argument/

https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/83076-william-lane-craig-and-the-bgv/

 

Add to these all the arguments I use to dismantle Christian apologists claims about thermodynamics.

 

I might as well ask for these threads to be unpinned and binned if I can't rely on the evidence of my senses

Of course, as a scientist myself, a rely on empirical data on a daily basis.  There's nothing wrong with it; because that is what our present reality is; or, at least, what enough of us agree that we perceive it as.  And I am not arguing against relying on science, or even our perception of the data that we generate.  Because, again, enough of us have perceived the data in a similar enough way to demonstrate a pattern. 

 

There becomes a blurred line, at some point, between most all of the major sciences and philosophy.  It absolutely exists once you get to a certain level of quantum physics and mechanics; but it is also present with biology and cosmology, I'd imagine.  Pontificating on the more philosophical side isn't something we should be afraid of or run from.  The philosophy is what brings us the most important questions that the science can answer.  

[walterpthefirst]

28 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I feel quite certain that a counter-apologist as good as yourself could keep pushing them until they finally admitted that the only way they "know" god is through their own perception.  They can't even read the bible without first being able to see it (visual perception).  They can't explore the wonder of god's creation without being able to taste, feel, smell, hear, and see it.  How do they know the correct way to interpret the bible?  They heard somebody explain it.  Where did they get argument X in favor of doctrine Y?  They saw a YouTube video.  Their argument would easily fall on its ear once you point out that they are, themselves, relying on their own perception to prop up the faith upon which their worldview is built.  That's when they will explain how they "feel it in their heart" which is just another form of sensual perception based on deeper emotions and desires.

 

And, once you demonstrate that they are also relying on faulty sensual perceptions, then the argument that faulty sensual perceptions cannot be trusted becomes the blunt object with which you can bludgeon them over the head.  And isn't bludgeoning people over the head with blunt objects the reason any of us exist?  Or is that just my perception?  Imagination?  (Un)conscious desire?  Stupid ganglions being stimulated...

 

Well, thank you for the vote of confidence, Prof.

 

But what about my own consistency in any such exchange?  If I argue that that they can't rely on what the bible says because what they perceive isn't trustworthy, they can use same argument against me, to equal effect.  If their senses can't be trusted, then neither can mine and therefore ALL evidence, scientific or otherwise, is no longer trustworthy.  So, my asking them to present evidence to support their beliefs is a double standard.  I am being inconsistent.  I do not trust any evidence.

 

But if I say that our senses can be trusted, then every science-based argument I can use remains valid.  I am no longer being inconsistent.  I am being entirely consistent. 

 

You see why I am worried about where Josh's misgivings about the physical could be taking this forum?

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[Edgarcito]

44 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

I can't fault the logic of what you've said here, Prof.

 

But let's not forget the the Presupps do not begin from the position of the reliability/unreliability of the senses.  Their starting point is that anything we do perceive or think we perceive only makes sense in the context of the bible god.  Therefore, they feel entirely justified in starting from a position of faith and going right on from there, using faith from start to finish.

 

The potential problem I see in the arguments being tossed back and forth in this thread is that anything that looks like us questioning our senses and the evidence derived from them plays right into their hands.  We are coming to close to saying 'Nothing we perceive can be trusted.'   If that is so, then the Presupps will just seize on that and say, 'Therefore trust only in god and not in your senses.'

 

Going further, all of the cosmological arguments I use require me to place my trust in the veracity of empirical science.  

 

https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/82597-the-failed-cosmology-of-william-lane-craig/

https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/84967-the-failure-of-the-fine-tuned-universe-apologetic-argument/

https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/83076-william-lane-craig-and-the-bgv/

 

Add to these all the arguments I use to dismantle Christian apologists claims about thermodynamics.

 

I might as well ask for these threads to be unpinned and binned if I can't rely on the evidence of my senses.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

Lol, trust in discerning supernovas millions of light years away and then doubling down on measuring intensity via our observations.  Even the guy that was part of the Nobel Prize for this research says we will never know.  Give it a rest Walter...

[walterpthefirst]

5 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Lol, trust in discerning supernovas millions of light years away and then doubling down on measuring intensity via our observations.  Even the guy that was part of the Nobel Prize for this research says we will never know.  Give it a rest Walter...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Z_Supernova_Search_Team

 

So, which of the Nobel Prize winners (Brian Schmidt, Adam Reiss and Saul Perlmutter) said 'we will never know' Ed?

 

And please be so good as to provide a link to where they say this.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

5 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Well, thank you for the vote of confidence, Prof.

 

But what about my own consistency in any such exchange?  If I argue that that they can't rely on what the bible says because what they perceive isn't trustworthy, they can use same argument against me, to equal effect.  If their senses can't be trusted, then neither can mine and therefore ALL evidence, scientific or otherwise, is no longer trustworthy.  So, my asking them to present evidence to support their beliefs is a double standard.  I am being inconsistent.  I do not trust any evidence.

 

But if I say that our senses can be trusted, then every science-based argument I can use remains valid.  I am no longer being inconsistent.  I am being entirely consistent. 

 

You see why I am worried about where Josh's misgivings about the physical could be taking this forum?

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

I see where you're coming from.  But I don't really think either Josh or myself are strictly arguing that our senses can not be trusted.  I'm certainly not; though I'll let Josh speak for himself.  For the nuts and bolts of life, we have no choice but to trust our senses.  There simply aren't any other alternatives.  I am speaking only in terms of the philosophical, which, as I said, can be found at the extremes of most sciences.  In practical terms, I know Ms. Professor loves me, takes care of our family, has a beautiful personality, and is also really hot.  In philosophical terms, I have no idea if she even exists or not, outside of my own consciousness.  

 

So, here again, I would have absolute confidence that a counter-apologist of your calibre could draw the distinction between the practical and the philosophical for our hypothetical theist visitor.

[Edgarcito]

7 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Z_Supernova_Search_Team

 

So, which of the Nobel Prize winners (Brian Schmidt, Adam Reiss and Saul Perlmutter) said 'we will never know' Ed?

 

And please be so good as to provide a link to where they say this.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

My error...he was part of the team...  Dr. Alex Filippenko.  Watched it last night.  He was this year's speaker at the Roy E. Moon Lectureship at Angelo State University, San Angelo, TX.  (Go Rams!).

 

Dad got to meet Linus Pauling several years back....as he was also a distinguished speaker.

[walterpthefirst]

1 minute ago, Edgarcito said:

My error...he was part of the team...  Dr. Alex Filippenko.

 

Do you know the context of his remark, Ed? 

 

Was he expressing a personal p.o.v. on the matter?

 

Was he stressing that all of empirical science is tentative and provisional?

 

Or something else?

 

 

[Edgarcito]

Just now, walterpthefirst said:

 

Do you know the context of his remark, Ed? 

 

Was he expressing a personal p.o.v. on the matter?

 

Was he stressing that all of empirical science is tentative and provisional?

 

Or something else?

 

 

Just listened to him describe how there was no justification for the universe expanding...and then saying, "we will never know".  He mentioned younger physicists that will continue the search.  Particles that were suggested to be there and then found and understanding that is still missing.  I'm with him in that I don't see how we will know.  Maybe somethings pulling on the galaxies outside of our visible ability.  I don't know.

[walterpthefirst]

9 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I see where you're coming from.  But I don't really think either Josh or myself are strictly arguing that our senses can not be trusted.  I'm certainly not; though I'll let Josh speak for himself.  For the nuts and bolts of life, we have no choice but to trust our senses.  There simply aren't any other alternatives.  I am speaking only in terms of the philosophical, which, as I said, can be found at the extremes of most sciences.  In practical terms, I know Ms. Professor loves me, takes care of our family, has a beautiful personality, and is also really hot.  In philosophical terms, I have no idea if she even exists or not, outside of my own consciousness.  

 

So, here again, I would have absolute confidence that a counter-apologist of your calibre could draw the distinction between the practical and the philosophical for our hypothetical theist visitor.

 

Thanks again for the vote of confidence, Prof.

 

Josh and I seem to agree that we have no choice but to live as if reality were 'real'.  As you say, there are no viable alternatives.  But I think its important not to give the Theists anything that they can seize upon.  Because, seize upon it they will.

 

http://commonsensescience.net/philosophy_of_reality.html

http://commonsensescience.net/worldview_principles.html

 

This is a site run by scientists who are Christians.  They have seized upon a quote (possibly by Neils Bohr?) and are using it to serve their agenda.

 

As stated by a much honored professor of Quantum Theory, "We now know the moon is demonstrably not there when nobody looks." 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[walterpthefirst]

1 minute ago, Edgarcito said:

Just listened to him describe how there was no justification for the universe expanding...and then saying, "we will never know".  He mentioned younger physicists that will continue the search.  Particles that were suggested to be there and then found and understanding that is still missing.  I'm with him in that I don't see how we will know.  Maybe somethings pulling on the galaxies outside of our visible ability.  I don't know.

 

Well, if you can't give the proper epistemological context of his comments, then I can't really comment either can I?

 

What you've given us here Ed is hearsay.