Testable Predictions of Metaphysics? (Split from Richard Dawkins Documentary - Enemies of Reason)

[PeterJ]

ypoaDs - I'm interested in this speed of light thing. Could you say a bit more about why we cannot measure it's velocity?

[Moontanman]

ypoaDs - I'm interested in this speed of light thing. Could you say a bit more about why we cannot measure it's velocity?

 

 

Seriously? Read a book for goodness sakes...

[ydoaPs]

ypoaDs - I'm interested in this speed of light thing. Could you say a bit more about why we cannot measure it's velocity?

Any test for the one-way speed of light will require syncing distant clocks. That requires the assumption of the one-way speed of light. You cannot test it without assuming it.

[PeterJ]

Okay. Thanks.

[Villain]

This makes no sense to me, how can materialism not be the most probable explanation for reality? Ever hear of the shotgun test?

 

What would you base the probability on?

[PeterJ]

Let us suppose tha Materialism is true.

 

We then have to suppose that the universe emerged from Something or Nothing. If it's the former, then there can be no scientific explanation for its existence, and indeed no cause or reason for it. If it is the latter, then the universe is paradoxical in that it contains true contradictions. This is why most philosophers reject Materialism. We don't have to reject it, but it will always remain a metaphysical conjecture and not a scientific theory. It is untestable in physics. According to metaphysical analysis the probability of it being true is precisely zero.

[Moontanman]

Let us suppose tha Materialism is true.

 

We then have to suppose that the universe emerged from Something or Nothing. If it's the former, then there can be no scientific explanation for its existence, and indeed no cause or reason for it. If it is the latter, then the universe is paradoxical in that it contains true contradictions. This is why most philosophers reject Materialism. We don't have to reject it, but it will always remain a metaphysical conjecture and not a scientific theory. It is untestable in physics. According to metaphysical analysis the probability of it being true is precisely zero.

 

 

I suggest you read "something from nothing" by Lawrence Krauss....

 

What would you base the probability on?

 

 

To be fair it's the only possibility we have empirical evidence for...

[Villain]

To be fair it's the only possibility we have empirical evidence for...

 

Empirical evidence is subject to your metaphysical position.

 

I'm sure you don't consider the 'empirical evidence' that occurs in your dreams to be empirical and I'm sure you could imagine the reality that you're in now as a dream.

[Moontanman]

Empirical evidence is subject to your metaphysical position.

 

I'm sure you don't consider the 'empirical evidence' that occurs in your dreams to be empirical and I'm sure you could imagine the reality that you're in now as a dream.

 

 

No, I can be sure i am not in a dream at the moment because I can permanently injure myself, in a dream any such problems disappear when i wake up... seriously you can't tell a dream from reality?

 

btw, I am not a big fan of the something from nothing idea, just because we can't at this time know what came before doesn't mean it's nothing.

 

A Brief Introduction to the Ekpyrotic Universe

 

http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/npr/

 

 

This idea is the one that feels right to me but of course that is meaningless. But it does explain what came before...

[PeterJ]

As far as I'm aware Krauss does not propose ex nihilo creation. As far as I'm aware nobody does. Even Christians who do have to start with God. There's always something there. God, the laws of physics, a quantum fluctuation or or whatever.

 

The unfalsifiability of solipsism is the reason you cannot tell whether you are making it all up, dreaming, the victim of Descartes' evil demon, in the Matrix or whatever. There is no scientific evidence that would decide the question. This is why science cannot falsify the Buddhist idea that nothing truly, inherently or independently exists.

 

I see that you're not a fan of ex nihilo creation either. This cannot be on scientific grounds since it is a metaphysical conclusion, and an unavoidable one. Now the task is to make sense of the idea that something has existed forever. Most people cannot do it. It would require an infinite quantity of turtles.

Edited June 12, 2013 by PeterJ

[Moontanman]

Obviously you didn't read my link and Krauss does indeed suggest ex nilhilo creation which is what creationists would have us believe as well.

 

The Ekpyrotic universe sidesteps this problem by proposing a multi dimensional metaverse of which our Brane is just a small part.

 

I think the shotgun test pretty much establishes the rather high probability of materialism being true. We never observe anything that would contradict materialism, in face of a total lack of evidence to support anything but materialism the default position would be materialism.

[Villain]

No, I can be sure i am not in a dream at the moment because I can permanently injure myself, in a dream any such problems disappear when i wake up... seriously you can't tell a dream from reality?

 

So when you wake, you can tell that you have been dreaming because you're no longer injured?

[Moontanman]

So when you wake, you can tell that you have been dreaming because you're no longer injured?

 

 

Actually yes but it goes deeper than that. dreams make no sense, have no constants or rules. If I step in front of a bus while dreaming i wake up uninjured, if i dream of falling I wake up whole and not pancaked on the ground, it seems to be a reasonable test...

[Villain]

Actually yes but it goes deeper than that. dreams make no sense, have no constants or rules. If I step in front of a bus while dreaming i wake up uninjured, if i dream of falling I wake up whole and not pancaked on the ground, it seems to be a reasonable test...

 

Ok, but in this 'dream' reality we are either still dreaming in which case we would still be injured or not dreaming, likewise this 'dream' reality has no obligation to act the same as our current idea of a dream.

[Moontanman]

Ok, but in this 'dream' reality we are either still dreaming in which case we would still be injured or not dreaming, likewise this 'dream' reality has no obligation to act the same as our current idea of a dream.

 

 

So baseless speculation is what we are talking about? The shotgun test falsifies this but it is quite permanent...

[Villain]

So baseless speculation is what we are talking about? The shotgun test falsifies this but it is quite permanent...

 

I'm not familiar with this 'shotgun test', could you link something or describe it please.

[Moontanman]

I'm not familiar with this 'shotgun test', could you link something or describe it please.

 

 

you shoot yourself in the head with a shotgun, if this is a dream then you are ok, if not then well you no longer exist...

[Villain]

you shoot yourself in the head with a shotgun, if this is a dream then you are ok, if not then well you no longer exist...

 

I feel like you're missing the point.

[PeterJ]

Apparently the greatest minds in human history are wrong and Materialism makes sense after all. That's a turn up.

 

And it seems that the in principle inability of science to falsify a theory proves it is plausible.

 

M - Of course we cannot observe anything to falsify Materialism. We cannot observe anything to verify it either. .A Materialist has adopted a metaphysical position against the results of logic and wih no evidence or any hope of any. This is the reason why the plotline of the Matrix is not just silly. I'd say this discussion nicely demonstrates the value of doing metaphysics and the danger to ones worldview of ignoring it.

 

We should dismiss the conclusions of so many great thinkers over so many centuries so casually. It is hubris. I take it for granted that every trained physicist knows that Materialism is not a scientific doctrine since it's easy enough to work out, and there are a thousand good philosophers to read on the topic, and many famous physicists among them.

 

It's a shame that on scienceforums we have to rehearse these ancient and long ago settled arguments over and over again and progress is impossible. This Materialism topic would have taken up two minutes on a philosophy forum.

 

Anyway. Thanks to all for the chat. Time to get on with other things.

[Moontanman]

Apparently the greatest minds in human history are wrong and Materialism makes sense after all. That's a turn up.

 

And it seems that the in principle inability of science to falsify a theory proves it is plausible.

 

M - Of course we cannot observe anything to falsify Materialism. We cannot observe anything to verify it either. .A Materialist has adopted a metaphysical position against the results of logic and wih no evidence or any hope of any. This is the reason why the plotline of the Matrix is not just silly. I'd say this discussion nicely demonstrates the value of doing metaphysics and the danger to ones worldview of ignoring it.

 

We should dismiss the conclusions of so many great thinkers over so many centuries so casually. It is hubris. I take it for granted that every trained physicist knows that Materialism is not a scientific doctrine since it's easy enough to work out, and there are a thousand good philosophers to read on the topic, and many famous physicists among them.

 

It's a shame that on scienceforums we have to rehearse these ancient and long ago settled arguments over and over again and progress is impossible. This Materialism topic would have taken up two minutes on a philosophy forum.

 

Anyway. Thanks to all for the chat. Time to get on with other things.

 

 

Simply amazing PeterJ, you cannot even come close to refuting anything I have asked, you ignored reasonable questions and make unreasonable assertions and dismiss me like i am an idiot child... You really shouldn't try to bullshit a bullshiter... arguing whether or not reality is real is as meaningless as arguing how many aliens it takes to change a lightbulb if they are wearing purple hats.

 

Generally speaking i use the word bullshit sparingly, when addressing the absurd I like to use the word horsefeathers. Care to guess why bullshit is not my word of choice?

 

You can make baseless assertions until the universe dies of heat death but without some means of falsification they remain speculations.

 

YdoaPs gave me an example I could understand, my main problem with it was his assertion that it would always be that way.

 

You on the other hand ignore questions, ridicule, insult, and make grandiose claims that you apparently cannot back up.

 

I asked you to tell me one example of a theory you have refuted, all I got was insult and ridicule. The absurdity of your position gives it the name of horsefeathers, it doesn't deserve to be called bullshit, bullshit is real and can be used, horsefeathers describes your arguments perfectly... absurd impossibility...

 

As for the brain in a box meme you keep alluding to, yes I do understand it, it's an interesting idea but ultimately meaningless unless you can test it, no one seems to want to take the test.

[iNow]

you ignored reasonable questions and make unreasonable assertions and dismiss me like i am an idiot child <snip> You on the other hand ignore questions, ridicule, insult, and make grandiose claims that you apparently cannot back up.

 

I asked you to tell me one example of a theory you have refuted, all I got was insult and ridicule.

If the person with whom you're arguing refuses to approach the discussion in good faith, then your best recourse is simply to walk away.

 

You are, IMO, absolutely correct in your assessment of PeterJ's responses here. He's playing games, and is responding completely tangentially to your points. I suspect a large many other readers feel the same, but have themselves already written him off and walked away from the thread themselves.

 

In fairness, I also suspect he's got a solid point to make... perhaps several. Unfortunately, he's failed to do so in an articulate, coherent, and mature thoughtful way.

[John Cuthber]

Any test for the one-way speed of light will require syncing distant clocks. That requires the assumption of the one-way speed of light. You cannot test it without assuming it.

I must be missing something here.

Imagine that I get two clocks and the help of a friend.

I synchronise the clocks when they are next to eachother.

I take one of the clocks and walk to the bottom of the garden.

My friend sets off a flash of light at exactly noon (by their clock).

I see the flash at 1 second past noon (it's a long garden).

I know that my garden is 3E8 metres long so I know that the speed of light is 3E8 m/s.

 

I know that, in principle, there's an effect from time dilation when I move the clock, I have to compensate for it, but I don't know how big the effect is.

So I repeat the experiment but this time, instead of walking, I run.

I get a very slightly different result for c.

I repeat the experiment again, but this time I go by bus.

Again I get a slightly different result for c

I do this at a number of velocities and I extrapolate the results to the value of c when my velocity (while carrying the clock) is zero.

In that case, the effect of the movement on the clock is zero.

That clock (which doesn't actually exist) gives me a measure of the true speed of light, measured in one direction.

 

Incidentally, as far as I understood it, this was essentially the method used a while back to measure the speed of neutrinos at OPERA. They famously got a slightly wrong answer, but there's nothing wrong with the method in principle.

Edited June 14, 2013 by John Cuthber

[univeral theory]

Can anyone name a single testable prediction that has ever been made using metaphysics?

what do you definitively imply by testable predictions?

[iNow]

^ So no?

[univeral theory]

^ So no?

what do you mean?