Philosophy, Science & Reality

[beecee]

 

 

So I am guessing most people here take the standard model as being correct, and the rest are implications of exactly what the measurements must then indicate.

Until we have a better model that predicts more accurately, and matches observations more closely, and explains the anomalies that require DE and DM without invoking the same, then it is the best we have.

Edited July 2, 2017 by beecee

[swansont]

Epicycles were probably to explain the observed retrograde motion of nieghboring planets.

 

The math worked...if you understood it.

And we understand why the math works. Nevertheless, it was replaced after a mechanism was found.

 

 

So its not a theory, yet Wiki talks about it like it is accepted fact, and they don't mention the placeholder

 

What if you don't ignore the first paragraph of the article?

 

As to the rest, this is not the place to discuss details.

 

presumably these are the best examples you have, seeing as they do not support your claim, are you willing to modify or retract?

[tar]

 

 

Do you have some examples of science not being the best fit, and still conforming to the protocols of science? Making ideas fit to our notions, to please us, is regularly rejected by science.

 

So no, I do not have any specific examples...except most all that conform to the standard model, or the simple gas laws, or Einstein's field equations, or Newton's laws of motion, or the laws of thermodynamics, provide a certain joy to the scientist, when a match is found. I am not saying the match is false. I am saying the match is true, but it pleasures a person to find their model matches the place.

 

Regards, TAR

Makes a person feel somehow in possession of the truth. That they know reality a little better, their model fits the place and life is good. People like to be right about the world.

There is however a little bit of difference between finding your model works, and finding out something new about the place. Discovering that the world fits together in some way that you were not aware of is joyful. It is also joyful to solve a problem you had with your model...but just finding that solution is not the end, you still have to check it out and see if it works in reality. Then when it does, you feel great.

[beecee]

There is however a little bit of difference between finding your model works, and finding out something new about the place. Discovering that the world fits together in some way that you were not aware of is joyful. It is also joyful to solve a problem you had with your model...but just finding that solution is not the end, you still have to check it out and see if it works in reality. Then when it does, you feel great.

And so far the BB, and GR have done OK.......

But by the same token, most any young up and coming physicist, would dearly love to show that Einstein's work was limited and to find a valid model that extended beyond the BB and GR:

In fact they are trying to do this everyday.

[tar]

BeeCee,

 

One of my own scientific searches has to do with the meaning behind language. When WIKI uses declarative statements, that is universally understood to be the sharing of information. "The world IS this way or that." "This what I am saying is true." And wiki articles are suppose to be unbiased. "This is not how I feel, this is what I know to be true" And to me, information is the internalization of the outside world. We have no direct access to the world beyond our fingertips, but we have myriad ways of getting outside and even distant or unseen "forms", "in".

 

Earlier I claimed that the point of science was to confirm reality. And I still think this is true. The information process is fraught with dangers. Bias, imprecision, limited reach, limited storage capacity, errors of all sorts...but our human information process is pretty amazing. We can drive down the street, avoid collisions, get where we are going without injuring anyone or destroying anything, AND we can notice at 60 miles an hour the new siding on the old barn we pass every day. We have an excellent model of the place, built in the synapses and cells, chemicals and connections in our brain. Instant, or at least really fast updates of our model of the place, continuously.

 

Now you and I have a different personal model. It is not false because it is different. Each is true. Mine might include the mineral museum in Franklin, and an old Edison iron mine back in the woods behind Lake Arapaho, and these real places might not be in your model. But both are real and are of real portions of our common world. When I say there is an old iron mine in the woods behind Lake Arapaho, you can pencil that in to your model, and might check it out for a match if you happen to be wandering on a trail behind second lake, near lake Arapaho in NJ. It is a declarative statement of fact, of truth, a facet of our common reality.

 

Science's job, in my estimation is to facilitate the information process. To catalog and measure and record the place in a common, sharable language. To experiment, to discover, to focus on this or that aspect of reality and inform the rest of us of how the place works, how the place is, the reality of the place, in clear and precise declarative language.

 

We individually can notice stuff about the world, manipulate it to our advantage and enjoy the place and seek to arrange things in such a manner consistent with the continued survival of ourselves and those we love. Science is, to me, how we do this noticing of reality and this experimentation with reality, and this manipulation of reality, together, in an agreed upon manner, and report the facts to each other in a common language.

 

Regards, TAR

[Strange]

 

Just the solipsism argument. It seems to me that the reality of others is unquestionable. I don't see how someone can say there is no proof of others when there is nothing but proof.

That "proof" only exists inside your own mind. As does everything you know about "reality".

 

Anything you think of as independent evidence of the existence of others is also purely in your own mind.

 

You have no access to reality (or the existence others) except through your senses; in other words, what your mind tells you. And we know that often deceived you.

 

So it may seem obvious that reality exists "out there" and that there are other people, but it is just your mind telling that!

"Assuming that the standard model of cosmology is correct, the best current measurements indicate that dark energy contributes 68.3% of the total energy in the present-day observable universe. The massenergy of dark matter and ordinary (baryonic) matter contribute 26.8% and 4.9%, respectively, and other components such as neutrinos and photons contribute a very small amount.^[3][4][5][6]The density of dark energy (~ 7 × 10⁻³⁰ g/cm³) is very low, much less than the density of ordinary matter or dark matter within galaxies. However, it comes to dominate the massenergy of the universe because it is uniform across space.^[7][8][9]"

 

So I am guessing most people here take the standard model as being correct, and the rest are implications of exactly what the measurements must then indicate.

The words you should have highlighted were ones like "assumin" and "indicate" and others showing a lack of certainty.

 

Also, as you should know, all scientific statements of "fact" should be (and implicitly are) accompanied by statements such as: as far as we know; current evidence indicates; consistent with our best models; subject to change; etc

[swansont]

 

So no, I do not have any specific examples...except most all that conform to the standard model, or the simple gas laws, or Einstein's field equations, or Newton's laws of motion, or the laws of thermodynamics, provide a certain joy to the scientist, when a match is found. I am not saying the match is false. I am saying the match is true, but it pleasures a person to find their model matches the place.

 

Regards, TAR

Makes a person feel somehow in possession of the truth. That they know reality a little better, their model fits the place and life is good. People like to be right about the world.

There is however a little bit of difference between finding your model works, and finding out something new about the place. Discovering that the world fits together in some way that you were not aware of is joyful. It is also joyful to solve a problem you had with your model...but just finding that solution is not the end, you still have to check it out and see if it works in reality. Then when it does, you feel great.

 

 

So what? A lot of people do the work they do because they enjoy it. I fail to see how that has any bearing on the validity of the work, or how this impacts the issue of whether science is attempting to find reality.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I have seen a comment on this thread, that stated that Science does not need reality , in order for science to be correct and true .

 

I can not see that , that can be correct !

 

It might be correct in a stand alone capability. The capability of working within the zone of science ONLY .

BUT in the zone of EVERYTHING , like REALITY included , it would be an incomplete understanding of the COSMOS.

 

MIKE

 

Eg 1+1 = 2 is true in one setting ( real numbers ) but is not true with (complex variables !! )

Edited July 3, 2017 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[beecee]

BeeCee,

 

One of my own scientific searches has to do with the meaning behind language. When WIKI uses declarative statements, that is universally understood to be the sharing of information. "The world IS this way or that." "This what I am saying is true." And wiki articles are suppose to be unbiased. "This is not how I feel, this is what I know to be true" And to me, information is the internalization of the outside world. We have no direct access to the world beyond our fingertips, but we have myriad ways of getting outside and even distant or unseen "forms", "in".

 

Earlier I claimed that the point of science was to confirm reality. And I still think this is true. The information process is fraught with dangers. Bias, imprecision, limited reach, limited storage capacity, errors of all sorts...but our human information process is pretty amazing. We can drive down the street, avoid collisions, get where we are going without injuring anyone or destroying anything, AND we can notice at 60 miles an hour the new siding on the old barn we pass every day. We have an excellent model of the place, built in the synapses and cells, chemicals and connections in our brain. Instant, or at least really fast updates of our model of the place, continuously.

 

Now you and I have a different personal model. It is not false because it is different. Each is true. Mine might include the mineral museum in Franklin, and an old Edison iron mine back in the woods behind Lake Arapaho, and these real places might not be in your model. But both are real and are of real portions of our common world. When I say there is an old iron mine in the woods behind Lake Arapaho, you can pencil that in to your model, and might check it out for a match if you happen to be wandering on a trail behind second lake, near lake Arapaho in NJ. It is a declarative statement of fact, of truth, a facet of our common reality.

 

Science's job, in my estimation is to facilitate the information process. To catalog and measure and record the place in a common, sharable language. To experiment, to discover, to focus on this or that aspect of reality and inform the rest of us of how the place works, how the place is, the reality of the place, in clear and precise declarative language.

 

We individually can notice stuff about the world, manipulate it to our advantage and enjoy the place and seek to arrange things in such a manner consistent with the continued survival of ourselves and those we love. Science is, to me, how we do this noticing of reality and this experimentation with reality, and this manipulation of reality, together, in an agreed upon manner, and report the facts to each other in a common language.

 

Regards, TAR

I highlighted one word in post 174......"Assuming"

And that was In reply to your incorrect statement that WIKI talks about it "like an accepted fact".

[Strange]

I have seen a comment on this thread, that stated that Science does not need reality , in order for science to be correct and true

 

Science has nothing to do with truth. It creates models that describe and, to some extent, explain what we perceive around us. That does not depend on the existence of any external reality (see also, the regular threads about living in a simulation).

[swansont]

I have seen a comment on this thread, that stated that Science does not need reality , in order for science to be correct and true .

 

I can not see that , that can be correct !

 

It might be correct in a stand alone capability. The capability of working within the zone of science ONLY .

BUT in the zone of EVERYTHING , like REALITY included , it would be an incomplete understanding of the COSMOS.

 

MIKE

 

Eg 1+1 = 2 is true in one setting ( real numbers ) but is not true with (complex variables !! )

 

 

Just because you can't see it does not mean anything about the veracity of the statement.

 

Our understanding of the cosmos is incomplete. There is no guarantee that it will ever be otherwise.

 

Math is not science

[Strange]

Earlier I claimed that the point of science was to confirm reality. And I still think this is true.

 

 

Nope.

 

Reality is inherently unknowable. All we can know is what our senses tell us (actually, the idea that we have senses could be an invention of our mind!).

 

 

Science is, to me, how we do this noticing of reality and this experimentation with reality, and this manipulation of reality, together, in an agreed upon manner, and report the facts to each other in a common language.

 

You seem to be missing the key point about science which is that it tests its models. (And that works, whatever the nature of reality, or even if there is no such thing.)

[tar]

BeeCee,

 

I read the words and I understood them to say if our model is correct, then putting the measurements we took into the equations, the indication is that the universe is 5 percent normal matter and energy and 95 percent dark matter and energy. There was no suggestion that dark matter and energy were placeholders for a fudge factor needed to have the numbers come out clean.

 

Which goes directly to several points of disagreement on the thread, and to the OP questions.

 

 

"This topic talks about the relationship of philosophy, science and reality.
I will expound it thru questions:
1. Is philosophy more advance than science in understanding reality because it can form ideas even when there is no experiments performed or observations (While science on the other hand can't step forward because it relies on data)?
2. Is philosophy always correct? Are there instance that science prove philosophy?If philosophy always correct, we can rely solely to philosophy than science.
3. Is philosophy as accurate as science?
4. When can we say that a question become philosophical? Can we say that philosophy is an advance science? If yes then we can conclude that the only task of science is to prove philosophy ( is it correct?).

I hope you understand my points. If you need clarifications, just ask me. Thank you..."

 

To these questions the status of reality is important to get straight between us, to begin with. If you can't assume reality is real, then all discussions concerning the nature of it, are put on hold until you can determine or stipulate that reality is real. That there is something "out there" beyond our fingertips to model. So we have to logically stipulate the place exists and we have to stipulate that we notice the place, and we have to stipulate that each of us indeed has fingertips for everything else to be beyond. If these things are not "assumed" to be true, then there is no discussion.

 

Regards, TAR

Even if the place is an elaborate dream or a virtual reality episode, there is still TAR to account for. Either TAR is someone else's illusion, in which case that someone else is real, or EVERYBODY is someone else's creation, in which case THAT someone else is real.

 

 

Nope.

 

Reality is inherently unknowable. All we can know is what our senses tell us (actually, the idea that we have senses could be an invention of our mind!).

 

 

You seem to be missing the key point about science which is that it tests its models. (And that works, whatever the nature of reality, or even if there is no such thing.)

 

I am missing no point. The reason that the models work is because reality works first. If you think that the models cause reality to work you are giving science too much credit.

 

Regards, TAR

[swansont]

I read the words and I understood them to say if our model is correct, then putting the measurements we took into the equations, the indication is that the universe is 5 percent normal matter and energy and 95 percent dark matter and energy. There was no suggestion that dark matter and energy were placeholders for a fudge factor needed to have the numbers come out clean.

You have to ignore the word "hypothesis" (twice) and then "assuming" to arrive at the conclusion that there was "no suggestion".

 

To these questions the status of reality is important to get straight between us, to begin with. If you can't assume reality is real, then all discussions concerning the nature of it, are put on hold until you can determine or stipulate that reality is real. That there is something "out there" beyond our fingertips to model. So we have to logically stipulate the place exists and we have to stipulate that we notice the place, and we have to stipulate that each of us indeed has fingertips for everything else to be beyond. If these things are not "assumed" to be true, then there is no discussion.

The assumption that there is a reality is not the same as saying that science is the search for what that reality is.

[tar]

Which brings up the consideration of the Earth being seeded by some advanced alien race. I bring it up because the logic of such a scenario fails as surely as the logic allowing reality to be somebody's dream fails. Who or what seeded the planet the advanced alien race grew up on?

You have to ignore the word "hypothesis" (twice) and then "assuming" to arrive at the conclusion that there was "no suggestion".


The assumption that there is a reality is not the same as saying that science is the search for what that reality is.

 

Swansont,

 

If you read the passage, knowing what you know, you can read the hypothetical nature of statements, you can assess the conditional portions as conditional. But as a laymen I can only read it as this is what scientists that believe the standard model is correct think the place is made of.

 

Right, we established that science and/or an individual human, can not know the thing in itself. But we can still say a heck of a lot about our models of the place.

 

Philosophy can talk about "how the universe looks" from a God's eye perspective. Science, bound by the requirement to retrieve empirical data, can not say much about what a star 4 lys from here, is doing now. All science can do is tell us what it was doing 4 years ago, and perhaps predict what it will look like in our sky IN four years and imply that is what it is probably doing now, but there you have two instances of the star. One that exists in our telescopes, and one that exists in our minds. Which one is more real?

 

 

Regards, TAR.

that is, which reality does science form its models from, and which reality does a scientist seek to match her model to?

for instance the CMB (or the matter we are currently sensing) was relatively very close to us (the matter that formed the MilkyWay) at the time of last scattering, but that same matter is currently part of some system 46 billion lys from here, and because of the expansion of the universe we will never see what that system is currently doing...NO empirical evidence ever available as to what that system is currently doing, but plenty available as to what the matter was doing at the time of last scattering when the universe came clear...but it is the photons that are hitting us now that are real to us...we have no scientific concern with that system as it ages beyond how it ages in front of us....we will never empirically be able to verify what kind of system it evolved into as it is currently extant

[Randolpin]

That "proof" only exists inside your own mind. As does everything you know about "reality".

 

Anything you think of as independent evidence of the existence of others is also purely in your own mind.

 

You have no access to reality (or the existence others) except through your senses; in other words, what your mind tells you. And we know that often deceived you.

 

So it may seem obvious that reality exists "out there" and that there are other people, but it is just your mind telling that!

 

The words you should have highlighted were ones like "assumin" and "indicate" and others showing a lack of certainty.

 

Also, as you should know, all scientific statements of "fact" should be (and implicitly are) accompanied by statements such as: as far as we know; current evidence indicates; consistent with our best models; subject to change; etc

 

I have a new argument against this. This is called- Conscious individual argument. This argument rationally argue against solipsism in the sense that each of us independently exist because each of us human beings are conscious on our own selves. I am conscious that you and others exist as well as you is also conscious that me and others exist and also others are also conscious that you and me and others themselves exist. Therefore since we human beings has consciousness on our own selves, and since we know for sure (base on solipsism) that you know you yourself exist and base on this, since all of us know individually that we exist therefore you, me and other people really exist.

[dimreepr]

 

I have a new argument against this. This is called- Conscious individual argument. This argument rationally argue against solipsism in the sense that each of us independently exist because each of us human beings are conscious on our own selves. I am conscious that you and others exist as well as you is also conscious that me and others exist and also others are also conscious that you and me and others themselves exist. Therefore since we human beings has consciousness on our own selves, and since we know for sure (base on solipsism) that you know you yourself exist and base on this, since all of us know individually that we exist therefore you, me and other people really exist.

 

It's not a new argument, essentially it's the same as tar's and contains the same flaws of logic; as Strange has shown ones senses can be fooled, you can't know they aren't being fooled now.

[Strange]

 

I have a new argument against this. This is called- Conscious individual argument. This argument rationally argue against solipsism in the sense that each of us independently exist because each of us human beings are conscious on our own selves. I am conscious that you and others exist as well as you is also conscious that me and others exist and also others are also conscious that you and me and others themselves exist. Therefore since we human beings has consciousness on our own selves, and since we know for sure (base on solipsism) that you know you yourself exist and base on this, since all of us know individually that we exist therefore you, me and other people really exist.

 

 

That doesn't seem any different from your other argument.

 

It also the fallacy of begging the question: if you accept that there are other conscious individuals, then this disproves solipsism. But there is no evidence, outside of your own mind, for other conscious individuals. Therefore there is no evidence against solipsism.

Another idea that I think an argument against sollipsism is the fact that we ourselves are conscious and have freedom on what we will do (freewill). In this view, we ourselves are independent from an ultimate mind or consciousness because again we are free to choose which action we should do. Therefore, me, you and any other persons independently exist not depending from an ultimate mind or consciousness because again, we have free will.

 

 

1. It is not a fact that you have free will. Depending on which definition of "free will" you uses, this ranges from impossible, to implausible to meaningless.

 

2. Even if you appear to have free will, it could be an invention of your mind. It says nothing about the existence of anything outside your mind.

 

3. Solipsism does not require an "ultimate mind or consciousness" (whatever that means); only that all the other conscious individuals you perceive are creations of your own mind. At an extreme (idealism) nothing exists except what is crated by your mind.

[Randolpin]

 

 

That doesn't seem any different from your other argument.

 

It also the fallacy of begging the question: if you accept that there are other conscious individuals, then this disproves solipsism. But there is no evidence, outside of your own mind, for other conscious individuals. Therefore there is no evidence against solipsism.

 

 

1. It is not a fact that you have free will. Depending on which definition of "free will" you uses, this ranges from impossible, to implausible to meaningless.

 

2. Even if you appear to have free will, it could be an invention of your mind. It says nothing about the existence of anything outside your mind.

 

3. Solipsism does not require an "ultimate mind or consciousness" (whatever that means); only that all the other conscious individuals you perceive are creations of your own mind. At an extreme (idealism) nothing exists except what is crated by your mind.

 

 

I think the issue is solved because, you know I exist, as well as I know that you exist. There is no hard thing about this to attach to solipsism. You are not my illusion because you are independent from me. I don't even know what your mind is thinking now and vice versa.

[Strange]

To these questions the status of reality is important to get straight between us, to begin with.

 

Indeed. And most people are avoiding that - partly by talking about science.

 

 

If you can't assume reality is real, then all discussions concerning the nature of it, are put on hold until you can determine or stipulate that reality is real. That there is something "out there" beyond our fingertips to model. So we have to logically stipulate the place exists and we have to stipulate that we notice the place, and we have to stipulate that each of us indeed has fingertips for everything else to be beyond. If these things are not "assumed" to be true, then there is no discussion.

 

That is correct. So science employs a philosophy of methodological naturalism that assumes that what we measure has some sort of independent existence and there are no supernatural effects beyond that.

 

But that doesn't mean it is true. Science would work just the same, whatever the "true" nature of reality. The universe could have been created 5 minutes ago complete with our memories, fossils, 13.8 billion year old radiation, etc. Or it could be a simulation by hyperdimensional white mice. Or a figment of your imagination.

 

And our science would work equally well in any case.

The reason that the models work is because reality works first. If you think that the models cause reality to work you are giving science too much credit.

 

The models work because they are consistent with our observations. Our observations do not necessarily correspond to any sort of reality.

[tar]

 

 

That doesn't seem any different from your other argument.

 

It also the fallacy of begging the question: if you accept that there are other conscious individuals, then this disproves solipsism. But there is no evidence, outside of your own mind, for other conscious individuals. Therefore there is no evidence against solipsism.

 

 

1. It is not a fact that you have free will. Depending on which definition of "free will" you uses, this ranges from impossible, to implausible to meaningless.

 

2. Even if you appear to have free will, it could be an invention of your mind. It says nothing about the existence of anything outside your mind.

 

3. Solipsism does not require an "ultimate mind or consciousness" (whatever that means); only that all the other conscious individuals you perceive are creations of your own mind. At an extreme (idealism) nothing exists except what is crated by your mind.

 

does this mind then exist? if so, is it a constituent of some greater reality? That is, where, and in what manner does this mind of yours exist?

[Strange]

Philosophy can talk about "how the universe looks" from a God's eye perspective.

 

 

It can. But there is no reason to think it is correct.

 

 

Science, bound by the requirement to retrieve empirical data, can not say much about what a star 4 lys from here, is doing now.

 

Actually, it can tell us a lot about what the star is doing now (in most cases).

 

Unless you invoke the sort of reality you don't like, where stars can magically change their behaviour in defiance of known physics.

 

There are a few exceptions. For example, Betelgeuse could have already gone nova (or could do so tomorrow) and we wouldn't know. But we only know that is a possibility because of science.

 

Philosophy is not bound by the sort of "reality" that you think science describes and so is free to say anything at all about distant stars ("they are the eggs of space unicorns, and that star 4 light years away has recently hatch and will no long be visible in 3.5 years time").

 

 

 

All science can do is tell us what it was doing 4 years ago, and perhaps predict what it will look like in our sky IN four years and imply that is what it is probably doing now, but there you have two instances of the star. One that exists in our telescopes, and one that exists in our minds. Which one is more real?

 

No, there is only one star. (In reality, even if there are two in your mind.)

 

does this mind then exist? if so, is it a constituent of some greater reality? That is, where, and in what manner does this mind of yours exist?

 

Who knows. The nice thing about philosophy is that you get to choose the answers to these questions. (And religions lets someone else choose them for you! )

 

(If it reassures you at all, I am a "naive realist"; I believe that reality is pretty close to what we observe. But I know this is an irrational and completely unsupportable belief.)

I think the issue is solved because, you know I exist, as well as I know that you exist.

 

No I don't. For all I know, you could be a hallucination.

[tar]

For instance, Earth science would be a pretty lean study, without an Earth.

Strange,

 

I did not pick up, until a few posts ago that you are making an anti-(The Existence of God) argument.

 

Can we stipulate that there is no anthropomorphic God/Creator, and still stipulate that the world in all its glory, complexity and wonder does exist?

 

Regards, TAR

Edited July 3, 2017 by tar

[Randolpin]

 

 

No I don't. For all I know, you could be a hallucination.

 

 

But how can a hallucination can have a rational mind just like you? Have physical characteristics just like you? Things that really exist has logical existence containment (LEC) -my own words. LEC means the individual exist in a logical way as you observed. Hallucinations does not follow LEC. For example a person takes a drug that causes hallucinations, suddenly a snake just pop into existence from nothing and bite his leg. The existence of the snake is invalid or not real because it does not follow the logical way because it is like magic, it just pop into existence.

Edited July 3, 2017 by Randolpin

[Strange]

For instance, Earth science would be a pretty lean study, without an Earth.

 

 

But the Earth that is studied may not have any existence beyond our minds.

 

 

 

I did not pick up, until a few posts ago that you are making an anti-(The Existence of God) argument.

 

Perhaps because I am not. I don't know what the existence or non-existence of gods has to do with the subject.

 

 

 

Can we stipulate that there is no anthropomorphic God/Creator, and still stipulate that the world in all its glory, complexity and wonder does exist?

 

What difference does it make, whether you believe in a god/creator or not? Either way, you know nothing beyond what your senses tell you.