2 2
RonD1120

Pope Francis Called Out, Against The Faith

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

No, I meant what I said. I am convinced that we can never know the true nature of existence. Any answers we find can only lead to deeper questions.

I like how you said "convinced."  I don't believe in absolute certainty in any subject.  We are all operating on being convinced that we share this reality based on the available evidence presented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/6/2019 at 5:40 PM, yobnoc said:

Falsifiability is a term that has a specific meaning.  You cannot disprove it.  No matter how absurd it is on the surface, there is always some special pleading apologetic to get around the glaring inconsistencies.

Continuing the topic-drift:
It isn't so much about getting around inconsistencies or apologetics; "unfalsifiable" means that something cannot be disproven IN PRINCIPLE.
So, in the case of "God" it depends on what kind of "god" we are talking about:

A god who interferes in human (or universal) affairs, for example, would in principle be falsifiable. If we can track down every single cause and effect and find that no causes are missing (so every effect can be proven to be caused by something inside the physical Universe) then such a god would be proven to not exist (or to not be of the nature of such an interfering god)
If we are talking about a god, who stands completely outside of the universe and does not interfere, then this would be unfalsifiable. If we are talking about an initial creator, who interfered at the moment of creation (before the big bang) and then left his creation to its own devices, this may or may not be falsifiable (depending on if we can trace causality back to "before" the big bang--there seem to be different theories on that)
For an unfalsifiable theory that is proposed by many serious scientific minds, we have the multiverse theory. At least the versions of this theory that postulates that there is no way that the different universes can influence each other in any way whatsoever, (either through causality or any weird quantum effects) is an unfalsifiable theory. It cannot, in principle, be disproven as there are no effects we could find that would prove that there cannot be another universe (which has no effect on ours).

So: If we say something is unfalsifiable, it means it is not something that is useful to explain our universe in a scientific manner. It could be true, it could be false. There is no way to prove or disprove it, and many people would say it is therefore irrelevant. It does however not mean it cannot be true. There is absolutely no reason why something should not exist, just because it does not conform to our need to prove or falsify something.--That is not meant to be an argument for god, just a clarification of what that term is supposed to mean.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mbohu said:

Continuing the topic-drift:
It isn't so much about getting around inconsistencies or apologetics; "unfalsifiable" means that something cannot be disproven IN PRINCIPLE.
So, in the case of "God" it depends on what kind of "god" we are talking about:

A god who interferes in human (or universal) affairs, for example, would in principle be falsifiable. If we can track down every single cause and effect and find that no causes are missing (so every effect can be proven to be caused by something inside the physical Universe) then such a god would be proven to not exist (or to not be of the nature of such an interfering god)
If we are talking about a god, who stands completely outside of the universe and does not interfere, then this would be unfalsifiable. If we are talking about an initial creator, who interfered at the moment of creation (before the big bang) and then left his creation to its own devices, this may or may not be falsifiable (depending on if we can trace causality back to "before" the big bang--there seem to be different theories on that)
For an unfalsifiable theory that is proposed by many serious scientific minds, we have the multiverse theory. At least the versions of this theory that postulates that there is no way that the different universes can influence each other in any way whatsoever, (either through causality or any weird quantum effects) is an unfalsifiable theory. It cannot, in principle, be disproven as there are no effects we could find that would prove that there cannot be another universe (which has no effect on ours).

So: If we say something is unfalsifiable, it means it is not something that is useful to explain our universe in a scientific manner. It could be true, it could be false. There is no way to prove or disprove it, and many people would say it is therefore irrelevant. It does however not mean it cannot be true. There is absolutely no reason why something should not exist, just because it does not conform to our need to prove or falsify something.--That is not meant to be an argument for god, just a clarification of what that term is supposed to mean.

But to put an unproven claim on 50/50 ground, where it's just as likely true as not true, is a logical error.  You're absolutely right about the part where you said that if a claim is unfalsifiable it says nothing to whether it's true or not.  But that wording is deceptive, I think.  It leads the casual reader or listener to put it on an even playing field where it's a binary choice with equal probability of truth.  That is not the case, however. I could say that mermaids exist (as in the mythological version), and while that claim is either true or untrue (also unfalsifiable), there is no evidence whatsoever to bolster the probability of it being true.  There is an infinitesimally small chance of the claim being true.  Much smaller of a chance than 50/50, most would agree, though the choice will, by definition, be binary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, yobnoc said:

But to put an unproven claim on 50/50 ground, where it's just as likely true as not true, is a logical error.  You're absolutely right about the part where you said that if a claim is unfalsifiable it says nothing to whether it's true or not.  But that wording is deceptive, I think.  It leads the casual reader or listener to put it on an even playing field where it's a binary choice with equal probability of truth.  That is not the case, however. I could say that mermaids exist (as in the mythological version), and while that claim is either true or untrue (also unfalsifiable), there is no evidence whatsoever to bolster the probability of it being true.  There is an infinitesimally small chance of the claim being true.  Much smaller of a chance than 50/50, most would agree, though the choice will, by definition, be binary.

Well, I would see that differently: First of all, the mermaid example is not something that is IN PRINCIPLE unfalsifiable. There are many ways that their existence COULD be--in theory--disproven. One could drain all oceans or simply survey them completely, etc, etc. This is certainly impractical but not in principle impossible.
The theory of multiverses and the existence of a god who does not interfere with the universe, are IN PRINCIPLE (on logical grounds) unfalsifiable. They are also in principle unverifiable. That puts them in a different category: We will NEVER be able to find out if either of them is true--using our current way of attaining knowledge or realization about the truth. These things are not accessible to our methods of attaining knowledge.
This means that assigning any likelihood (99/1, 50/50, 0/100 etc.) is also completely inappropriate.
The interesting philosophical question is:
Is it likely that the universe is structured in a way that it only allows things to exist that are accessible to our particular method of attaining knowledge? That seems unlikely to me.
Therefore: If things can exist but be completely inaccessible to our current form of attaining knowledge about them should we postulate that:
A) Such things--being inaccessible to us and having no direct effect on us--are simply irrelevant and we should not bother to philosophize about them
or B) We should assume them to not exist
or C) Just because they are not accessible to our current method of attaining knowledge of truth, does not mean they can't be accessible to some other method of finding truth (but it would have to be an entirely new method, not just something like getting better at science, etc.)
 

Again, this does not apply to a god who interferes in our affairs (which is what most people mean, when they talk about god.) Such a god is potentially verifiable and also falsifiable. Here we can talk about probability, such as: how likely is it that there is an influence of a supernatural being on things that happen in this universe, given that for every effect we have so far always found some kind of "natural" cause--even if there are still things in the Universe of which we have not YET determined their cause (but which we assume to have a similarly "natural" cause which we just haven't found yet.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, mbohu said:

Well, I would see that differently: First of all, the mermaid example is not something that is IN PRINCIPLE unfalsifiable. There are many ways that their existence COULD be--in theory--disproven. One could drain all oceans or simply survey them completely, etc, etc. This is certainly impractical but not in principle impossible.
The theory of multiverses and the existence of a god who does not interfere with the universe, are IN PRINCIPLE (on logical grounds) unfalsifiable. They are also in principle unverifiable. That puts them in a different category: We will NEVER be able to find out if either of them is true--using our current way of attaining knowledge or realization about the truth. These things are not accessible to our methods of attaining knowledge.
This means that assigning any likelihood (99/1, 50/50, 0/100 etc.) is also completely inappropriate.
The interesting philosophical question is:
Is it likely that the universe is structured in a way that it only allows things to exist that are accessible to our particular method of attaining knowledge? That seems unlikely to me.
Therefore: If things can exist but be completely inaccessible to our current form of attaining knowledge about them should we postulate that:
A) Such things--being inaccessible to us and having no direct effect on us--are simply irrelevant and we should not bother to philosophize about them
or B) We should assume them to not exist
or C) Just because they are not accessible to our current method of attaining knowledge of truth, does not mean they can't be accessible to some other method of finding truth (but it would have to be an entirely new method, not just something like getting better at science, etc.)
 

Again, this does not apply to a god who interferes in our affairs (which is what most people mean, when they talk about god.) Such a god is potentially verifiable and also falsifiable. Here we can talk about probability, such as: how likely is it that there is an influence of a supernatural being on things that happen in this universe, given that for every effect we have so far always found some kind of "natural" cause--even if there are still things in the Universe of which we have not YET determined their cause (but which we assume to have a similarly "natural" cause which we just haven't found yet.)

Interesting.  You ask the question of whether the universe only allows things to exist that are attainable by our knowledge.  I don't know if I can get on board with that as a solid hypothesis.  I think consciousness is an emergent property of matter in motion, like wetness.  A water molecule is not wet, and we don't know how many water molecules it takes to cause the property of wetness to emerge.  It is a property that emerges based on our sensory perception.  Similarly, our human trait of consciousness is the result of neurons firing in an attempt to navigate the environment (universe) around them, as a survival mechanism.  I think it's best put as: we are the universe's way of knowing itself.  I think that was from the "Cosmos" reboot.  I feel like I'm rambling here, and maybe a bit incoherently.  But I like where your head is at for the most part.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

I think consciousness is an emergent property of matter in motion, like wetness. 

Thanks for indulging me on this topic! Looks like we're getting off the "unverifiable" track, and it's getting really interesting.
Can I ask what exactly you mean by "consciousness"? And: Why do you think it's an emergent property of matter? Just interested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, mbohu said:

Thanks for indulging me on this topic! Looks like we're getting off the "unverifiable" track, and it's getting really interesting.
Can I ask what exactly you mean by "consciousness"? And: Why do you think it's an emergent property of matter? Just interested.

If it is unfalsifiable in principle, it can have no effect whatsoever on our lives, property, planet, galaxy or universe; is unmeasurable, and IMO completely irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kallend said:

If it is unfalsifiable in principle, it can have no effect whatsoever on our lives, property, planet, galaxy or universe; is unmeasurable, and IMO completely irrelevant.

So option A then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mbohu said:

Thanks for indulging me on this topic! Looks like we're getting off the "unverifiable" track, and it's getting really interesting.
Can I ask what exactly you mean by "consciousness"? And: Why do you think it's an emergent property of matter? Just interested.

Another topic people have subjective definitions for: consciousness.  I'd simply pare it down in layman's terms (that's me) as the state of being aware of the concept of self - measured subjectively on a spectrum.  A housefly is aware of itself at some level - although I think it would be commonly agreed not to be nearly at the same level of complexity as humans.  I'm an expert in absolutely none of this, however.  Much like skydiving.  Just my thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

2 2