The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Yes I asked you to prove that assumptions are the rules of logic. Your comment there in no way proved that.
I explicitly wrote that non-contradiction was the assumption that I was referring to.
I'll try to explain it better, on 2, if all assumptions are equal, then my assumption, "that all assumptions are not equl" would have to be equal to that
I never made a decision one way or the other. Like I said, it becomes ackward to refer to truth values in such a situation.
Well then are you saying that asumptions are not equal?This shouldn't be too hard to figure out but I'll help you.
By "equally true" the person who said 2 is saying "all assumptions are equal" there is a big gap between claim 1 and claim 2.
Again, I'm not saying that all assumptions are equal or that all assumptions are not equal.
And would you mind not referring to numbers?
If it's all assumption then there is no evidence. You say all belief is unwarranted assumption, then ask for evidence as a standard.
Ok then, assuming a logical framework, prove that assertion.
And it isn't. According to you my claim is equal to yours.
'
Are you reading someone else's posts? You're attributing claims to me that I've never made.
Ostensibly. And yes they have inherit meaning as symbols that represent quantities.
Then again though, the above statement was just an assumptions anyways, as is that statement, as is the statement that the prior statement was an assumption in your system according to you.
You're just being intentionally confusing!
Again, that last "assumption" was derived from the framework of logic.
The deterministic interpretation has always been the more logical of the two.
And has little scientific credibility.
Then again he above is just your assumption...perhaps there is no Quantum Mehcanics. Your just assuming there is...and that it proves something. If its all assumption then its ALL assumption.
Egads man, can you try not making strawmen for a moment? My assumptions are that I exist, the world around me exists, I'm not delusional, and that the physics community is not delusional. Quantum mechanics logically follows from these assumptions (and probably some minors ones I'm not thinking of).
Actually that is to go by reason. To ditch logic in order to embrace a given interpretation is to go by faith.
Logic has no basis in reality. It only exists in the human mind. We cannot observe logic. We can observe Physical phenomenena. Surely what we can observe should be given more credibility than what we pull out of our asses.
Question begging. How do you know they don't exist? Maybe they do without you knowing.
Because they're different for different observers...
Like I said phycisists disagree on the issue as many physicists are as succeptible to idealogical irrationalism as the rest of us.
I was just pointing it out for your benefit...
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-Bokonon
Originally posted by connorkimbro
It's still something that would have to be proven though, and I don't feel like trying.
You'd deserve to be locked in a loony bin if you were willing to tackle a proof like that, especially with such a surplus of skeptics at arm's reach...
<p style="font-size:1024px">HTML is disabled in signatures </p>
Originally posted by Logical Realist
See above for the disprove. I have shown how your viewpoint is contradictory. That is disproof.
No you haven't because your argument does not hold water. Perhaps you would be better calling yourself Illogical realist.
Either subjectivism is true, in which case there is no truth or falsehood. In which case both objectivism and subjectivism are true at the same time(cause if there is no right or wrong, objectivism cannot be wrong). This is contradictory. And hence false in logic.
I disagree with the very first sentence. Things can still be true or false in a subjective world. Your problem with the understanding of this may be down to how you define 'true' and 'false'....
You are at that point asking me to "disprove" your claim while expecting me to abandon ALL standards of proof. Of curse such a task is impossible.
No - I am asking you to prove it without making any assumptions which you do not prove. Disprove it from first principle! This shouldn't be so hard in your objective universe should it, but I don't believe you can.
Before you said "everything is subjective" now you're saying everything "might be" subjective.
Well it is a very subjective statement.
I "know" rocks and bricks exist because I can see them.
Not good enough. If you see a ghost or a manifestation of God, does that mean they exist?
Also because rocks and bricks do not behave in ways that one would expect them to if they were imagined. I cannot for example lift them up with my mind as I could an imaginary object. They're behavious also tends to be uniform, and predictable, while dream or imaginary objects tend to behave in very arbitrary non-causal ways.
i don't think the basis for reality should be what you 'expect'. And I don't think you should make categorical statements based apon words like 'tend to'.
The laws of physics tell us how we expect things to move and interact, but it I would have a bloody boring job if everything was as we 'expect' it to be.
I'll explain. You are not saying that people just have different views of reality but that these different viewpoints ARE reality. That's what subjectivism is. And in subjectivism all point of views are true.
I agree with the first bit but not with the last sentence. All points of view are not true for any particular individual.
According to the subjectivist viewpoint my antisubjectivist claim would be just as true as the subjectivist one...that situation would be contradictory, asburd and hence disproven.
It is not contradictory, you can still be subjectively wrong....
I am not questioning the truth of Quantum Mechanics but your interpretation and extension of it to all areas of philosophy.
It is more the other way around. I must admit I too get a little sick of 'Quantum Quackery'. There is a vast tendancy for certain types of people who get their physics knowledge from the Discovery channel to assume that science can explain everything. In reality, science starts from basic assumptions and based on these assumptions, makes and attempt to describe the universe in a predictive sense. The more we confirm the predictivity, the more we can be certain of the assumptions which were originaly made, but they remain assumptions never-the-less. Therfore there are things which science can never prove (or disprove), and indeed makes no attempt to prove. It is only the practioners of 'Quantum Quackery' who try to do this.
This whole thing of which you speak has many explanations offered to explain why this happens, none of them definitive and very few subjectivist.
Where di you pluck that misconception from? Perhaps you would like to tell me of a completely observer independent explanation of quantum theory then? There isn't one.
There are recognized limits to Quantum Mechanics, like the fact that no Quantum observations have been superluminal(faster then light) and hence are limited by physical laws.
Just because things are subjective doesn't stop people agreeing!
That is flawed reasoning in that you assume that since we only know the object exists when we see it, that our lack of knowledge equal a lack of existence.
I have to ask you what defines an object? Is it a collection of particles with some predefined position and momenta? If so, it does cease to exist when we are not observing it because it no longer fits into your definition of the object. I wouldn't go that far actually, although I would say that certain properties of the objects do not have definite values until we observe them. For example, if we know a point particle is at a certain position at a certain time, the momentum of the particle is not defined until we measure it.
There is a difference between knwoing the value of something and an object having a value.
That is the whole point - there is no difference!!! The act of knowing (or not knowing) the value changes the entire system!
To discard this is to discard logic and go by faith. In which case your theory is very,very weak especially when other more logical theories are available.
No - again you have it backwards. You are the one who is resorting to assumptions, or in other words 'faith' by assuming that my observations must be the same as your's. I make no such assumption, and acknowledge that we may live in a universe which is different for different observers You make the assumption that the universe is the same for every observer. (I actually don't think it is a bad assumption - I make it all the time in my work - but you must recognise that it is an assumption!)
Not that your Quantum Mechancal theory was the first abuse of science. Every new branch of science or anamoly(unexplained event) is usually used to support some form of subjectivism or supernaturalism. This is nothing more then the argument from ignorance given a face lift. ...
I will end by quoting Victor J. Stenger(professor of physics and astronomy) at the University of Hawaii on this abuse:
Rather than quoting professors of physics, I suggest you go away and learn some physics so you can understand the limitations of science for yourself.
I really feel that the public of today regard scientists as a sort of new preisthood. They believe everything that scientists say as a matter of faith rather than taking some time to try and understand the ideas for themselves and viewing everything in a light of skepticism. Fair enough, you need to take some things on trust (there is far to much for one man to understand everything) but you should keep in the back of your mind that it could all be wrong.
Originally posted by Logical Realist
Here you totally evaded the issue. I'm asking if morality is defined by "correcr behavior" what then is correct behavior?
I don't think I do.
I presented you a definition of Morality so that we could be on common ground.
I proposed that Morality is simply put, the set of rules through which a Society evaluates whether a behaviour is correct or incorrect. When you ask me what is then Correct Behaviour, I have to answer, following the definition I proposed: the moral one. That, however is a tautology.
You seem to want that I state here what is, in my opinion, the Christian view of what is moral behaviour. The problem is that, all I can present to you is My Christian view, so I wont start a new discussion thread on this. On the other hand, as I stated in my previous post, I don't believe that is the point in this debate.
Originally posted by Logical Realist
Here you're confusing many things:
You seem to at one moment posit that morality is something that exists without God or uncreated by God. And that God in his Omnsicience discovered this morality where manind could not. Such a theory deserves its own criticism and is not what I'm talking about in my post.
Your right, such a theory deserves criticism, but the one making the confusion isn't me.
I never stated the the Omniscient God discouvered anything.
I clearly stated He cannot discouver anything, because, being Omniscient, i.e., All Knowing, He Allready Knew, Knows and Will Know, Anything and Everything. So God didn't discouvered morality, He knew the Perfect rules of Moral Behaviour all along.
This, according to Christian belief, of course.
Originally posted by Logical Realist
What I'm talking about is the Christian view that the universe without God loses morality...is naturally amoral. In this view God is just pushing his arbitrary dictums on humanity by means of using his strength.
Originally posted by Logical Realist
About how the universe without God HAS no morals...not ignorant of morals...has no morals. That God is where all morals come from. Expressed ultimately, that without God, its all relativism. Now I ask...how does this change with God? The only significant difference over manknd here, that would make his "opinion" better then ours in this matter is his power.
You know, to a Christian there is no such thing as a universe without God. And, God's Will is like a roadmap that allows you to follow the best and quickest route from one place to another, only the path you lead is your life. Of course, there are two issues here: as far as we, Christians, know, noone but Jesus knew exactly how that "map" was "drawn" and you can allways draw your own map (will you get lost in the process? whitout a guiding light...who knows?).
And we Humans tend to set moral rullings (remember that part when I said Christian Religion does not state that we are primal beasts?). You will never hear or read Christian doctrine stating that Man is naturally amoral - misguided is usually the common term . The point, again, is "drawing the map" with a "guiding light".
Originally posted by Logical Realist
In this view "morals" are just what God makes up. That's what I'm criticizing.
As far as what Christianity believes, last time God "made something up" was when He created all that exists. I believe that, according to Christian belief, is fair to say that what is moral and what is not moral derives from that Creative Action alone.
Originally posted by Logical Realist
Now you say "Christianity doesn't say this" but then what about the test of Abraham? All the immoral things that later on became moral?
Why do you think, Christians believe Jesus had a purpose in comming?
Originally posted by Logical Realist
See if it was just a matter of God being smarter, then morality would not just become opinion without God. There would still be right and wrong, we'd just be too stupid to figure out what right and wrong is. But that's not what is said. Christians say that without God "there is no morality". Meaning that morality is based on God's power. Heaven and hell. That what keeps mankind moral is "fear of hell" sounds like power is running it to me. And also in Christianity Gods word=morality by definition. Again that sounds like power is running it, as if that's true;if God says to rape, then rape becomes moral. If it was intellect then God's word wouldn't always be moral, in which case the atrocities in the Bible can be questioned.
I believe you keep missing the point about god being Omniscient a awfull lot. I know you never though about that this way, but I'm offering you that opportunity. I ask you, please, to ponder what Omniscient means, all the repercussions of that notion, so I don't have to be writing the same thing on and on.
That all Heaven and Hell and fear of Hell is the reasining usually presented to children in Sunday School but, like with the "Boogie Man", "Santa Claus" and sorts, we usually get over that with age.
If you start questioning that reasoning you may find another answer, like the one I'm proposing. I suggest you try and go beyond the simple denial. I for one don't try to understand God's Will out of fear from the "burning flames of Hell" but out of the Goodness I perceive in it.
Also, on the Heaven and Hell stuff, I would like to direct you to Regan Josh's post in 20-02-2002 11:02. That is current Catholic doctrine on Hell, IIRC.
Originally posted by Logical Realist
As far as I see what you seem to be saying then, in a way, is that iots not the power of God that makes his rules moral. But God's intellect, in which case morality is determined by who is smartest. Still sounds like a dictatorship to me.
I normally can find the difference between Knowledge and Cleverness. Don't you? One more time: we believe God is Omniscient, therefore, all Knowledgable.
On one thing I have to say I agree with you though: we also believe God is Omnipotent, that is All Might, therefore stronger, faster... and cleverer too .
So, again being able to know the Perfect Moral Behaviour comes from Omniscience. That, my friend, is plain logic and a full awareness of what Omniscient means.
Originally posted by Logical Realist
Also even though it had slaves, it still had morals, some immorality on its part does not negate morality as a whole.
Agreed.
But, as I wrote too many times already, Christian doctrine does not state that Humans are not able to have their own set of moral rules. They will, however, have faults, and some of them will never be preceived without the awareness that we are all equal, that we have a Loving Father that created us out of Love, making Love the Ultimate Moral Rule. Given insuficient information, Logic is bound to drive you to a wrong conclusion. How wrong the conclusion is and what is the extension of the damage it provokes, I believe, no one can evaluate (other than God Himself ). Being aware of God does not grant you, automatically the right conclusion, but it can surelly add information that will help Logic to achieve a better conclusion, and hopefully lead the Human effort of drawing the Best Moral Behaviour Mapping in the right way (of course this last statment is a question of Faith, so I don't ask you to agree with it).
Originally posted by Logical Realist
Also as for the Catholic's immoral behavior changing. I find it odd how the Chruch dedicated to preserving Christianity and studying the Bible would misinterpret the scripture for almost a thousand years.
When you show me one thing about which Humankind already achieved the Perfect Knowledge and Interpretation of, maybe I'll start believing that the Church has some hope in gatting there, also. Meanwhile, I keep a faithfull, although critic, perspective on the Churchs effort. Surrelly is not perfect, but it's the best yet (in my opinion, of course). I believe that is also the Catholic Church's perspective (at least). Otherwize I wouldn't understand all those "forgive us" pleedings of the Pope nor would I understand the reason Christian Theological studies exist and are promoted by the Christian Churches.
Originally posted by Logical Realist
As for the Mosiac law commanding that one stone a child, here it is:
Thanks. Hopefully you do agree that Jesus, by doing what He did with the aledged adulterous woman also shown His disaproval of the other stoning practices, no?
How could we do anything contradictory to God's nature, if God created us to be in his image? That's kind of where I was going with that, but I did have some legitimate philisophical questions too.
I also have issue with this omniscient God changing the rules in the NT. According to Christians (well, most of them), Jesus and God are one (Holy Trinity, and all that). Well, we know, from reading both the OT and the NT that there is a distinct shift in philosophy. Now, how could he change his mind on what is moral or immoral?
How come God is moral, inall things that he does? I semm to recall different parts of the OT, where he purposely kills of many people. Yet, he gives us the commandment "Thou shalt not kill", so, is God immoral? Does God have a different morality?
I never know their names, But i smile just the same
New faces...Strange places,
Most everything i see, Becomes a blur to me
-Grandaddy, "The Final Push to the Sum"
To MacTBone: About God's change of Mind and other stuff
To current Catholic doctrine (I know the creationists will say i'm wrong, but... ) the Creation description in the Book of Genesis is not to be taken literally but to be interpreted. By saing that Human were created in God's image is a statement of dignity. Basicly what it is stating is that we Humans are diferent that the rest of God's creation. But, that same description shows Eve being tricked by the clever serpent, which by itself points to the assumption that we are hardly divine. Given free will, we are allowed to go against God's Will and Nature.
In the New Testament, Jesus offers a reasoning about your question of "changing the rules". He said that He didn't came to change the rules, but to re-interpret them. In Christian doctrine, all the rulings that are presented in the Law (Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomium) are summarized in the Ten Commandments, which are, themselves summarized in two (Loving God, and Loving the Other) and in the Twelve Blessings
(Mathew 5:1-12). They are not at all contradictory with the Law, but they clear many precepts the Jesus found to be useless and drawing people from the Love of God. The question here is that, other than the Ten Commandments, which are clearly presented as being proclamed by God Himself, therefore eternal, the other rullings can be said to be dated (in a Christian perspective, of course).
About the ocasions: God killed or helped killings (Sodom and Gomorra, the Flood, the Plague, some of Israel's victories,...) to Christian doctrine some are Paraboles (the Flood, Sdom and Gomorra) and the others are interpretations of the facts as God's doings. Christian belief does not dwell that much on those issues: maybe because they are contradictory, as you pose and I agree; maybe because they are not essencial, to our belief; maybe both.
How can something that is (at least for now) only a matter of interpretation have "scientific credibility"? I can see why philosophical credibility would apply, but IMO the many worlds theory has much more philosophical credibility than the Copenhagen interpretation (for one thing it doesn't have the problem of what "measurement" means exactly).
If you mean "popularity among scientists" by "scientific credibility": the Copenhagen interpretation is the most popular but it's not that much more popular than the MWI.
Rogan Josh:
Where di you pluck that misconception from? Perhaps you would like to tell me of a completely observer independent explanation of quantum theory then? There isn't one.
The many worlds interpretation says the universe is nothing but a wave function that evolves according to the Schrödinger equation. It is completely deterministic and local.
I don't see how this is observer-dependent. Of course, different observers observe different parts of the universe, and there are limits to measurement (uncertainty principle), but if that means the theory is observer-dependent then any theory is and there's no need to invoke quantum mechanics.
Likewise I don't see how the transactional interpretation or Bohm's theory is observer-dependent.
IMO it's really not necessary how almost everyone sees quantum mechanics as something mysterious - it's the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics that's bizarre, not the theory itself (and some of the other interpretations, too). I still resent having had it crammed down my throat in secondary school physics and having it crammed down my throat in university.
connorkimbro: Not necessarily. Most intelligent christians would argue the following: That God does not arbitrarily decide what is a sin, and what is not a sin, but that a thing is a sin because it is contrary to his nature, IE, even God himself could not be any other way. For example, because God is honest, lying is a sin. Given that, they'd still have to show that each and every sin is based on God's nature, and NOT arbitrary . . . my only contribution is that it is not NECESSARILY arbitrary or based on the "opinion" of a higher being.
True. But then keep in mind that this takes away God's free will, in that IF God must necessarily be the way he is, and make the decisions that He is making then God cannot really be said to have "free" undetermined will. Also in this sense, God could no longer be omnipotent because then He could not do things contrary to His nature.
I presented you a definition of Morality so that we could be on common ground.
I proposed that Morality is simply put, the set of rules through which a Society evaluates whether a behaviour is correct or incorrect. When you ask me what is then Correct Behaviour, I have to answer, following the definition I proposed: the moral one. That, however is a tautology.
You seem to want that I state here what is, in my opinion, the Christian view of what is moral behaviour. The problem is that, all I can present to you is My Christian view, so I wont start a new discussion thread on this. On the other hand, as I stated in my previous post, I don't believe that is the point in this debate.
See then if its a tautology here, it seems to me that it it is still "what God commands" with God's commands based on very little other then arbitrary decisions.
Your right, such a theory deserves criticism, but the one making the confusion isn't me.
I never stated the the Omniscient God discouvered anything.
I clearly stated He cannot discouver anything, because, being Omniscient, i.e., All Knowing, He Allready Knew, Knows and Will Know, Anything and Everything. So God didn't discouvered morality, He knew the Perfect rules of Moral Behaviour all along.
This, according to Christian belief, of course.
Maybe discover was the wrong word. What I meant was more like....know of. I'm saying that if its not arbitrary and based on God's knowledge(though by no means created by it) this means that morality is something that exists outside of God. Such a viewpoint is not what I'm criticizing and is by no means the mainstream Christian one though.
You know, to a Christian there is no such thing as a universe without God. And, God's Will is like a roadmap that allows you to follow the best and quickest route from one place to another, only the path you lead is your life.
See that's what I'm criticizing, it seems on that basis God is just making his road map out of nothing. Just inventing it. If not...on what basis is He making it? What makes God's invented road map better then another person?
You state that it's his supperiority on intellect...I think Christians really believe its power. In the former case you are saying that who's smartest is who gets to make true or false...right or wrong.
You will never hear or read Christian doctrine stating that Man is naturally amoral - misguided is usually the common term .
I hear about it all the time. How without Christianity everyone will become an "immoral animal", without fear of hell everyone will just do whatever "sins" they want. In his book "Losing faith in Faith" Dan Barker describes a preacher who talks about how he(the preacher) would become an immoral animal without God, killing and raping people(he said this in front of his wife and kids).
To quote the Bible:
3 Romans 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
Ecowiz:
So, again being able to know the Perfect Moral Behaviour comes from Omniscience.
This still doesn't answer whether morality is determined by God, or whether God knows of some external morality and basis His orders on that.
Thanks. Hopefully you do agree that Jesus, by doing what He did with the aledged adulterous woman also shown His disaproval of the other stoning practices, no?
See I can't be sure of that because Jesus didn't go all out and say "stoning is outdated" He seemed to only criticize the stoning of women and even there only in that one case. Remember Jesus said in the Bible that "he did not come to destroy the Law"(Old Testament Law). In fact I don't know of any passage in the New Testament that says that Old Testament Laws are outdated or no longer apply. And if there is a New Testament passage that clearly makes the Old Testament outdated...I wonder...why are Christian's still trying to post the Ten Commandments in publics schools?
Also in this sense, God could no longer be omnipotent because then He could not do things contrary to His nature.
A person who made such an argument would agree that, in that sense, god is not omnipotent. In fact, some even go so far as to say he's not omniscient either. There are some really different arguments out there. . .
-connorkimbro
"We're losing the war on AIDS. And drugs. And poverty. And terror. But we sure took it to those Nazis. Man, those were the days."
The first thing that comes to mind is why I should even bother writing a proper criticism on someone who puts up the statement "Yay, more philsophical jacking off!" as his or her title. Such immaturaty speaks of a person who does not take the issue seriously and puts in as much thought accordingly.But since he or she has not been too immature I will continue on:
(on Ramo's evasion of proving his point)
I explicitly wrote that non-contradiction was the assumption that I was referring to.
Ramo I have asked you several times to prove just that. All you seem to be doing is restating your opinion.
I never made a decision one way or the other. Like I said, it becomes ackward to refer to truth values in such a situation.
Really? You seemed pretty sure that everything was all of it is based on "baseless assumptions" and stated that:
Why should truth values be attached to baseless assumptions? They're meaningless.
That sounds like a pretty strong relativist stance to me. In that you are in effect saying all knowledge is meaningless.
Again, I'm not saying that all assumptions are equal or that all assumptions are not equal.
And would you mind not referring to numbers?
I'll refer to numbers when it is effiecient to do so. Also you did say it was all based on assumptions and all assumptions are baseless.
I also showed how number 2 cannnot be true because it is self-contradictory. To which you said "that's just an assumption"...sounds like you are saying all assumptions are equal to me.
Ok then, assuming a logical framework, prove that assertion.
That's kind of a backwards thing to ask since there can be no proof without logic. It's kind of like asking to establish numbers by means of algebra. Numbers come before algebra: logic comes before proof.
I would make this short by saying logic is self-evident, because without logic all statements lead to absurdity and communication becomes impossible. (For if a thing could be what it is not: One could never say nor know that, as then knowledge of something could be knowledge of its opposite). In effect to deny logic, one must use logic, and that's absurd.
I found this to be amusing. Here Ramo jettisons logic by saying:
You're just being intentionally confusing!
Again, that last "assumption" was derived from the framework of logic.
Then argues from it by saying:
My assumptions are that I exist, the world around me exists, I'm not delusional, and that the physics community is not delusional. Quantum mechanics logically follows from these assumptions (and probably some minors ones I'm not thinking of).
then follows with:
Logic has no basis in reality. It only exists in the human mind. We cannot observe logic.
In other words, logic has no basis in reality but helps to establish Quantum Mechanics. I suppose that is somewhat inconsistent but then again, one thing I'd never accuse a subjectivist of is constistency.
Also Ramo said "I'm not delsuional" but in his framework that's just an "assumption". Perhaps he is delsuional and all the solipsists are right. That ideas just as good as any, according to Ramo. Perhaps creationists are the true scientists, afterall what many consider to be real science is based on their "assumptions" according to Ramo.
This was Ramo's response to my statement concerning whether something can exist without him knowing of its existence. His evidence that they don't exist or exist subjectively is:
Because they're different for different observers...
That in no way proves 1) That these things do not exist until we know of them and 2)that is circular reasoning. Again, what if they are seen differently but ARE the same? And are things really seen THAT differently?
Now onto "RJ":
No you haven't because your argument does not hold water. Perhaps you would be better calling yourself Illogical realist.
That in no way refutes my argument...you are just saying "it's wrong: cause its wrong." Oh yes btw, har har harrr.
I disagree with the very first sentence. Things can still be true or false in a subjective world. Your problem with the understanding of this may be down to how you define 'true' and 'false'....
This shows that you have no real clue as to what subjective means. I suggest you look it up in a logic text or critical thinking book.
Actually I know you won't so I'll just quote one right now:
(From the book "Critical Thnking Fourth Edition) Claims about factual matters are known as subjective claims; claims about matters of pure opinion are known as subjective claims. Objective claims are statements that are true or false regardless of our personal preferences,tastes,biases and so on. Subjective claims are expressions of those preferences, tastes, biases and so on.
Also from the same textbook it states this concerning what is known as "the subjectivist fallacy":
This pattern of pseudoreasoning: "Well, X may be true for you but its not true for me," said with the intent of dismissing X.
Lastlyfrom the same book)
The view that underlies the subjectivist fallacy is sometimes called relativism, and it seems a common view among many students. Simply put, this view maintains that truth is relative. Now, lots of things are relative among individuals......But most claims, certainly straighforward matters of fact....are simply true or false independent of any paticular person's acceptance of them.
Back to Rogan:
No - I am asking you to prove it without making any assumptions which you do not prove. Disprove it from first principle! This shouldn't be so hard in your objective universe should it, but I don't believe you can.
I did using the principle of identification(with its counterpart "the principle of noncontradiction") as the first principle then.
me:Before you said "everything is subjective" now you're saying everything "might be" subjective.
RJ's response:
Well it is a very subjective statement.
Really? Right before he said:
There is no such thing as 'true objectivism'. Everything is subjective.
On the subjectivist point of view he later says:
But I never said this point of view was true, so I make no assumption. I am only saying that it may be true, and you cannot disprove it.
Not good enough. If you see a ghost or a manifestation of God, does that mean they exist?
There are different kinds of observations each contextual. None are made tabula rasa or in a vacuum. In that sense seeing God or a ghost on one occasion for a short period of time, under questionable conditions would not establish their existence. But if they were seen on numerous occasions for long durations....under normal conditions with many viewers at once, it would mean they are probably real.
i don't think the basis for reality should be what you 'expect'. And I don't think you should make categorical statements based apon words like 'tend to'.
The vast majority of our knowledge is based on tendencies and probabilities. Hence, that is a good enough standard to establish something as real. Knowledge doesn't have to be perfect to be valid.
The laws of physics tell us how we expect things to move and interact, but it I would have a bloody boring job if everything was as we 'expect' it to be.
So how entertaining a theory is determines its truth-value?
It is not contradictory, you can still be subjectively wrong....
...there's an oxymoron.
It is more the other way around. I must admit I too get a little sick of 'Quantum Quackery'. There is a vast tendancy for certain types of people who get their physics knowledge from the Discovery channel to assume that science can explain everything. In reality, science starts from basic assumptions and based on these assumptions, makes and attempt to describe the universe in a predictive sense. The more we confirm the predictivity, the more we can be certain of the assumptions which were originaly made, but they remain assumptions never-the-less. Therfore there are things which science can never prove (or disprove), and indeed makes no attempt to prove. It is only the practioners of 'Quantum Quackery' who try to do this.
Agreed, science is not perfect. But it is the best tool for discovery we have. But keep in mind that in places where science is limited...philosophy is not.
Where di you pluck that misconception from? Perhaps you would like to tell me of a completely observer independent explanation of quantum theory then? There isn't one.
Keep in mind that being affected does not make it subjective and that Quantum laws become irrelevant at the macroscopic level.
Just because things are subjective doesn't stop people agreeing!
I fail to see the relavance of this clarly. Are you saying that all determined phenomenon are the result of people agreeing? Well then, why don't you Subjectivists change that? It seems some of you would disagree here.
I have to ask you what defines an object?
That's ostensible. It has to be else we would have infinite regress.
Is it a collection of particles with some predefined position and momenta?
That is what makes up an object not defines it.
If so, it does cease to exist when we are not observing it because it no longer fits into your definition of the object.
Among physicists that's controversial, but even if the person's presence is what determines the value of tiny particles, that fails to apply at the macroscopic level.
I wouldn't go that far actually, although I would say that certain properties of the objects do not have definite values until we observe them. For example, if we know a point particle is at a certain position at a certain time, the momentum of the particle is not defined until we measure it.
Like I said we could simply be ignorant of these values until we measured them. Or the values may just change with measurement.
That is the whole point - there is no difference!!! The act of knowing (or not knowing) the value changes the entire system!
That is question begging. And contradictory, in that, if what you are saying is the case: then Quantum Mechanics never existed until I knew of it. Neither did your position on this matter of things existing without being known.
I make no such assumption, and acknowledge that we may live in a universe which is different for different observers
Well that's odd, you were pretty sure of it in your first post:
There is no such thing as 'true objectivism'. Everything is subjective.
You make the assumption that the universe is the same for every observer.
Perhaps you are a little too vague on what you mean by assumption and again, not all assumptions are necessarily equal.
Rather than quoting professors of physics, I suggest you go away and learn some physics so you can understand the limitations of science for yourself.
I'm not a scientist, and don't therefore see any merit in spending several years researching Quantum Mechanics. Nor is it reasonable for you to expect anyone else to expect people to spend several years trying to disprove your theories or find your evidence. I get my information on physics from physicists as that is efficient.
I really feel that the public of today regard scientists as a sort of new preisthood. They believe everything that scientists say as a matter of faith rather than taking some time to try and understand the ideas for themselves and viewing everything in a light of skepticism. Fair enough, you need to take some things on trust (there is far to much for one man to understand everything) but you should keep in the back of your mind that it could all be wrong.
Well it is illogical to assume someone is lying or is wrong off the bat. What is more logical is to believe them until people know they are lying. Science is far from the new priesthood though some may treat it that way, as is clear by Hollywood's constant negative portrayal of science and the public's reaction to genetic engineering. Of course people can question science,(that's why science is part of what makes it science, and what makes science a self-correcting enterprise). However like you said, there is trust involved. And one of the ways to check this is with logic(does this theory I know little about go against the logic I am certain of?) If a given theory fails that test it fails uttelry.
I would like to thank those that actually take the time to read and understand my posts as I know of how tedious they are. Ands those who have examined my ideas with an open mind on the basis of their logic and empirical strength. Thank you. ANd a special thanks to those who have given me positive feed back(supportjavascript:smilie('')
cool) concerning my theories and ideas. javascript:smilie('')
smile
) the Creation description in the Book of Genesis is not to be taken literally but to be interpreted. By saing that Human were created in God's image is a statement of dignity. Basicly what it is stating is that we Humans are diferent that the rest of God's creation. But, that same description shows Eve being tricked by the clever serpent, which by itself points to the assumption that we are hardly divine. Given free will, we are allowed to go against God's Will and Nature.
from the same book)
')
Tweet
Comment