Favorite Scientific mistakes and Pseudoscience

[bascule]

thats the very definition of non-determinism, you just said there were multiple futures that could exist, in a deterministic universe there is only one future

 

Consciousness models reality. This model is very often inaccurate. This doesn't say anything about the possibility of multiple futures, but it does provide for the ability of consciousness to predict multiple possible futures.

[bascule]

That is the definition of non-deterministic! All physics statements' date=' like "the state of a system does not determine a unique collection of values for all its measurable properties" are already "general statement[s'] about the universe".

 

First of all, many worlds is also non-deterministic, in exactly the same way (since it is random which branch the measurement is made on). Secondly, that "indeterminacy isn't the result of unmeasurable properties" is exactly what Bell's Theorem is all about. Bell's inequality has been proven, which implies that there are no hidden variables ("unmeasurable properties").

 

I'm going to go ahead and conceed this all to you because, when it comes right down to it, I don't know what I'm talking about.

[JohnB]

I admit I'm more of a history and Archaeology buff, so my favourite "Psuedoscience" theories are;

 

1. The Sphinx was carved during the reign of Khafre.

(The only evidence linking the Sphinx to Khafre, or indeed the 4th dynasty, is the "Dream Stela" which says only that Khafre rode his chariot around the Giza Necropolis.)

 

2. Pyramids were tombs and only tombs.

(The only inscriptions are the Pyramid Texts found in 10 pyramids of the 5th, 6th, and 8th dynasties. No mummy or any funerary item has ever been found in any pyramid. If graverobbers looted the tombs, then they were the only 100% efficient graverobbers in recorded history.)

 

3. The "Aryan Invasion" of the Middle East and Indian subcontinent.

(Now mostly discredited, but it held sway for over 100 years despite the total lack of any supporting evidence. In truth, there is no evidence at all that such a people as the Aryans ever actually existed.)

 

Re 1 & 2, unlike this fool I don't have an alternative hypothesis, I simply view that there is insufficient data to draw a defensible conclusion. Hence I view the dogmatic defense of these by archaeologists to be "Psuedoscience".

 

Re 3, any theory that has no basis in fact can only be regarded as Psuedoscience.

[Chupacabra]

We model and predict reality' date=' then choose from possible futures. Prediction is what gives way to choice, not non-determinism.

 

The seemingly deterministic nature of reality (at least on the level at which we experience) is what allows us to model and therefore predict reality. I'd therefore argue that without a deterministic universe, consciousness could not exist.[/quote']

 

Our models of reality don't predetermine our actions, they just inform us about possible consequences of our free decisions.

 

You seem to espouse a Marxist notion of freedom as a "recognized necessity" (we were taught this definition in Soviet school, I hated it even then).

 

By the way, it's very human to hate freedom and prefer slavery. This position is very comfortable psychologically. If you've done something wrong, made some mistake etc., it's not you who is really responsible, but your master (or a "wrong" arrangement of molecules in your brain). No freedom, no responsibility.

[bascule]

Our models of reality don't predetermine our actions, they just inform us about possible consequences of our free decisions.

 

We still compute choice in a deterministic manner

 

You seem to espouse a Marxist notion of freedom as a "recognized necessity" (we were taught this definition in Soviet school, I hated it even then).

 

Strawman. I recognize freedom as an evolved in characteristic. If you're trying to group my views in with someone else's, try Daniel Dennett's, as expressed in Freedom Evolves.

 

By the way, it's very human to hate freedom and prefer slavery. This position is very comfortable psychologically. If you've done something wrong, made some mistake etc., it's not you who is really responsible, but your master (or a "wrong" arrangement of molecules in your brain). No freedom, no responsibility.

 

Again, strawman. You act as if determinism vs. non-determinism somehow has an effect upon responsibility. However, you can just as easily try to eschew responsibility if consciousness is non-deterministic by saying:

 

"It wasn't me, it was randomness!"

 

vs.

 

"It wasn't me, my actions have been predestined since the dawn of time!"

[Chupacabra]

Again' date=' strawman. You act as if determinism vs. non-determinism somehow has an effect upon responsibility. However, you can just as easily try to eschew responsibility if consciousness is non-deterministic by saying:

"It wasn't me, it was randomness!"

vs.

"It wasn't me, my actions have been predestined since the dawn of time!"[/quote']

 

You are right only PROVIDED the Universe is a fully material thing, the consciousness ist just an epiphenomenon of material processes, and there are no things like God and souls that can intervene into these processes. Provided these, there is only "determinism vs. randomness" choice, and neither leave any space for a free will.

 

Still, you're using circular reasoning here, starting with "only matter" presupposition and ending with proclaiming that all freedom is illusion and we are slaves of our bodies because we are nothing more than our bodies.

 

However, if there is something more than just matter (e. g. souls or God), it can freely interfere into material processes, using both relative determinism (to make predictions) and indeterminism (to make choosing possible).

[Sisyphus]

You are right only PROVIDED the Universe is a fully material thing, the consciousness ist just an epiphenomenon of material processes, and there are no things like God and souls that can intervene into these processes.

 

And how, exactly, would such nonmaterial things change anything? If a soul does something, it either does it for a reason (deterministic) or not (random.) Material vs. immaterial has nothing to do with it.

 

Further, there is nothing in the limitation to these two options that precludes free will. A choice is a choice, a will is a will.

[Sisyphus]

I admit I'm more of a history and Archaeology buff' date=' so my favourite "Psuedoscience" theories are;

 

1. The Sphinx was carved during the reign of Khafre.

(The only evidence linking the Sphinx to Khafre, or indeed the 4th dynasty, is the "Dream Stela" which says only that Khafre rode his chariot around the Giza Necropolis.)

 

2. Pyramids were tombs and only tombs.

(The only inscriptions are the Pyramid Texts found in 10 pyramids of the 5th, 6th, and 8th dynasties. No mummy or any funerary item has ever been found in any pyramid. If graverobbers looted the tombs, then they were the only 100% efficient graverobbers in recorded history.)

 

3. The "Aryan Invasion" of the Middle East and Indian subcontinent.

(Now mostly discredited, but it held sway for over 100 years despite the total lack of any supporting evidence. In truth, there is no evidence at all that such a people as the Aryans ever actually existed.)

 

Re 1 & 2, unlike this fool I don't have an alternative hypothesis, I simply view that there is insufficient data to draw a defensible conclusion. Hence I view the dogmatic defense of these by archaeologists to be "Psuedoscience".

 

Re 3, any theory that has no basis in fact can only be regarded as Psuedoscience.

 

I admit I thought all of those things were true. Weren't the tombs in the Valley of the Kings similarly empty, with the exception of Tutankhamen? Didn't enough centuries go by when the pyramids were essentially open that it wouldn't be surprising if there was nothing at all left?

[Chupacabra]

And how, exactly, would such nonmaterial things change anything? If a soul does something, it either does it for a reason (deterministic) or not (random.) Material vs. immaterial has nothing to do with it.

 

Indeterminism (not randomness!) creates possibilities for conscious choice. Doing something "for a reason" doesn't preclude the free choice. I can take free conscious decisions that are guided by reason but not predetermined by it (in fact, people often take unreasonable decisions).

 

Further, there is nothing in the limitation to these two options that precludes free will. A choice is a choice, a will is a will.

 

We are talking about FREE will. No such thing in a fully materialistic and deterministic Universe.

[Sisyphus]

By reason I meant cause. If there are two options, and something causes me to choose one over the other, that is deterministic. If there is no such cause, it is random.

 

FREE will, then, is a meaningless phrase as you're using it. However, I think you'll find that what you're looking for in "free will" is not absent from a deterministic or random world. You seem stuck on the notion that such things somehow make us less than conscious, willful beings who should be held responsible for our actions. In fact, it does nothing of the sort.

[padren]

Indeterminism (not randomness!) creates possibilities for conscious choice. Doing something "for a reason" doesn't preclude the free choice. I can take free conscious decisions that are guided by reason but not predetermined by it (in fact' date=' people often take unreasonable decisions).

 

 

 

We are talking about FREE will. No such thing in a fully materialistic and deterministic Universe.[/quote']

 

 

Chupacabra, its a matter of point of reference. From within the system, we have free will, because there is no way to know the system and we are forced to make choices from within it.

 

If you could view the system from "outside" then the system, (ie, the universe) would appear as energy/matter via physical laws acting like a series of precise interlocking gears in a clock. If you want to add "souls" or even "god" you simply have to add their gears into the mix, which is still just a bunch of gears. If you can "see" their gears, then you are not far enough outside the system. Ultimately, one of two things can be the case: 1) everything clicks together 2) one or more gear slips randomly.

 

Both of these negate absolute free will - either you are playing the cards you were dealt deterministically or you are in that moment rolling the dice.

 

Still, absolute free will is a trivial concern, as we do have perceptive free will, due to our position within the either random or (more likely) deterministic system, and can use that just as well when it comes to responsibility and everything else.

 

 

Edit: remember if you insert the soul or god, and say something is done because "God wants to" or "the soul wants to" then you must ask "why does god/the soul want that?" To answer it, you must add more gears into the clock-system to understand their processes. At the end of the day, their processes are either deterministic or random, but it still doesn't allow for absolute free will.