News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

I Challenge You To a Debate

Started by Casparov, April 18, 2014, 09:52:56 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

josephpalazzo

#150
Quote from: Casparov on May 26, 2014, 12:45:40 AM
For 500 years materialism has been used as an underlying assumption in science. It is not a conclusion arrived at as the result of any evidence or experiment. To point to the fact that scientists today and in the past have held to an assumption is not evidence of anything, it is indeed only an Appeal to Authority and Widespread Belief.

Science was done under the assumption of a Flat Earth for nearly 1000 years. If someone argued in the year 500, "Flat Earth theory is true because the entire body of scientific evidence to date has been done under the assumption that the Earth is Flat." Would you accept that as evidence? I wouldn't. I would point out that the Earth being flat is only an assumption, and just because it is an assumption widely held by virtually all working scientists now and for the past 100's of years is not proof that it is true. I would ask for actual evidence that the earth is flat and point out that there are only fallacious arguments from authority and widespread belief used to preserve it as deeply held belief, a preconception and foundational assumption. It is just a preferred opinion being asserted as truth. The very definition of Dogmatism

That science has preferred a particular assumption for a long time and lots of scientists prefer it... IS NOT EVIDENCE.

There is a difference that you have neglected: in the years of believing that "the earth is flat", one could have proposed on a theoretical basis a test to see if the earth was flat or not - fly far into the sky and observe if the earth is flat or not . So the assumption - "the earth is flat" - was falsifiable. Such a test couldn't have been carried in those days, as the technology wasn't available. But when it became available, the assumption "the earth is flat" was then easily rejected.

In the assumption, "all is materialism", there is a test that would falsify it -- finding an immaterial object would clearly falsify it. But in your case in regard to idealism, what theoretical test can you provide that would falsify your assumption? How do you get out of your virtual reality? The answer is you can't, and so postulating there is "another reality, an immaterial one" is superfluous. Note: it doesn't prove that the immaterial doesn't exist, all I'm saying is that it is superfluous as you can never find out.

Bibliofagus

Quote from: Casparov on May 26, 2014, 12:45:40 AM
I'm a solipsist! Everything you say or prove is bullshit!

Meh. Not interested.
Quote from: \"the_antithesis\"Faith says, "I believe this and I don\'t care what you say, I cannot possibly be wrong." Faith is an act of pride.

Quote from: \"AllPurposeAtheist\"The moral high ground was dug up and made into a walmart apparently today.

Tornadoes caused: 2, maybe 3.

Casparov

Quote from: josephpalazzo on May 26, 2014, 09:13:34 AM
In the assumption, "all is materialism", there is a test that would falsify it -- finding an immaterial object would clearly falsify it.

There are several ways we could test the assumption, "all is materialism". For instance, if one material object can effect another material object without physical or material interaction, this would violate the Principle of Locality, and thus we would have good reason that something beyond Materialism is the deeper reality.

Also, if we could prove that material objects transform into a mathematical superposition of all of it's possibilities while unobserved and only transform into a single global physical object while observed, this would be an indication that "all is materialism" is a faulty assumption and poor explanation of the data. Material objects should be observation independently and there is no explanation for why they should behave otherwise.

Also, if we could somehow prove that our decision to observe a material object in the present affects the past of the material object which lead to what we observe, such a discovery would necessitate a violation of the Principle of Causality, and thus we would have good reason that something other than Materialism is the deeper reality.

If Materialism is true, there are certain things that just cannot happen. If we observe things things happening, we have good reason to believe that Materialism isn't true. If we observe that Material objects do not behave like material objects, we have good reason to believe that they are not actual material objects.

QuoteBut in your case in regard to idealism, what theoretical test can you provide that would falsify your assumption? How do you get out of your virtual reality? The answer is you can't, and so postulating there is "another reality, an immaterial one" is superfluous. Note: it doesn't prove that the immaterial doesn't exist, all I'm saying is that it is superfluous as you can never find out.

A theoretical test just like this test proposed to do just that: http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1847

If the universe is not calculable it cannot use calculating in its operations, and if it cannot operate by calculating it cannot be a calculated reality. Hence VR theory is falsifiable as one could disprove it by showing some incomputable physics.
“The Fanatical Atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures whoâ€"in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"â€"cannot hear the music of other spheres.” - Albert Einstein

the_antithesis

Why are you still here? We were happy when you were gone.

Icarus

Quote from: Casparov on May 26, 2014, 07:24:06 PM
If the universe is not calculable it cannot use calculating in its operations, and if it cannot operate by calculating it cannot be a calculated reality. Hence VR theory is falsifiable as one could disprove it by showing some incomputable physics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

What rock have you been hiding under?

Casparov

Quote from: Icarus on May 26, 2014, 09:00:07 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

What rock have you been hiding under?

CPU's simulate chaos with ease. Virtual Realities are used in chaos theory all the time. It's trivial. What's your point?

If reality does something that information processing cannot, then the world cannot be virtual, chaos is easily produced via information processing. Chaos theory challenges determinism, not Virtual Reality. Yet while there are many incomputable algorithms in mathematics, all known physics seems to be computable. For instance if space-time had turned out to be continuous, this would have necessitated mathematical infinities and would therefore makes reality incomputable and the Virtual Reality Model of reality would be falsified, however we discovered that space-time is discrete, granular, pixelated, digital, we have a Planck Length and a Planck Time instead of continuous space-time which makes space-time computable via information processing, thus the Virtual Reality Model is not refuted.
“The Fanatical Atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures whoâ€"in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"â€"cannot hear the music of other spheres.” - Albert Einstein

Icarus

Quote from: Casparov on May 26, 2014, 10:28:32 PM
CPU's simulate chaos with ease. Virtual Realities are used in chaos theory all the time. It's trivial. What's your point?

If reality does something that information processing cannot, then the world cannot be virtual, chaos is easily produced via information processing. Chaos theory challenges determinism, not Virtual Reality. Yet while there are many incomputable algorithms in mathematics, all known physics seems to be computable. For instance if space-time had turned out to be continuous, this would have necessitated mathematical infinities and would therefore makes reality incomputable and the Virtual Reality Model of reality would be falsified, however we discovered that space-time is discrete, granular, pixelated, digital, we have a Planck Length and a Planck Time instead of continuous space-time which makes space-time computable via information processing, thus the Virtual Reality Model is not refuted.

Wow, you really missed the mark on that one. How did you manage you write an entire paragraph, in response to my post, that has nothing to do with what I posted.

I said "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory What rock have you been hiding under?" in response to "Hence VR theory is falsifiable as one could disprove it by showing some incomputable physics." ie. I'm saying no physics is incomputable. I was pointing out the field that studies that fun part of reality and you somehow took it as a bell signaling it was time to pull out the lotion and tissue paper because the mental masturbation train was about to leave the station.

Kudos to you and your pursuit for the continual mental masturbation, regardless of the outlet.

Casparov

Quote from: Icarus on May 26, 2014, 11:24:17 PM
I'm saying no physics is incomputable.

sorry I was unable to read your mind and deduce such a specific conclusion from the mere posting of link to a wikipedia page about an entire field of study.

Chaos theory studies the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions.
Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.

I would ask you where in the link you provided you expected me to conclude that you were saying that no physics is incomputable, and then I'd point out that you are basically agreeing with me that Virtual Reality is a viable theory, but honestly I have absolutely zero interested in having further interaction with you. I feel like you are attacking me because I don't have the same beliefs you do. Your belief system is threatened so you must defend it by attacking me, and I don't know why, but such an exchange simply does not interest me. No more than being attacked by Muslims who attack those who don't believe what they do, or Christians who attack those who don't believe what they do. You are no different.

It is the mark of an intelligent man who can have a civilized conversation with someone whom he vehemently disagrees with in an open and respectful way. The way you are choosing to conduct yourself says more about your own insecurity and intellectual honesty than it does about whether or not your world view is true.

This is my last response to anything you post.
Peace & Love
“The Fanatical Atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures whoâ€"in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"â€"cannot hear the music of other spheres.” - Albert Einstein

Icarus

#158
Quote from: Casparov on May 27, 2014, 01:32:20 AM
sorry I was unable to read your mind and deduce such a specific conclusion from the mere posting of link to a wikipedia page about an entire field of study.

Chaos theory studies the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions.
Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.

I would ask you where in the link you provided you expected me to conclude that you were saying that no physics is incomputable, and then I'd point out that you are basically agreeing with me that Virtual Reality is a viable theory, but honestly I have absolutely zero interested in having further interaction with you. I feel like you are attacking me because I don't have the same beliefs you do. Your belief system is threatened so you must defend it by attacking me, and I don't know why, but such an exchange simply does not interest me. No more than being attacked by Muslims who attack those who don't believe what they do, or Christians who attack those who don't believe what they do. You are no different.

It is the mark of an intelligent man who can have a civilized conversation with someone whom he vehemently disagrees with in an open and respectful way. The way you are choosing to conduct yourself says more about your own insecurity and intellectual honesty than it does about whether or not your world view is true.

This is my last response to anything you post.
Peace & Love

Translation:


I guess your need to publicly masturbate and me being "terrified" of the universe around us makes us incomparable.

josephpalazzo

#159
Quote from: Casparov on May 26, 2014, 07:24:06 PM
There are several ways we could test the assumption, "all is materialism". For instance, if one material object can effect another material object without physical or material interaction, this would violate the Principle of Locality, and thus we would have good reason that something beyond Materialism is the deeper reality.

Also, if we could prove that material objects transform into a mathematical superposition of all of it's possibilities while unobserved and only transform into a single global physical object while observed, this would be an indication that "all is materialism" is a faulty assumption and poor explanation of the data. Material objects should be observation independently and there is no explanation for why they should behave otherwise.

Also, if we could somehow prove that our decision to observe a material object in the present affects the past of the material object which lead to what we observe, such a discovery would necessitate a violation of the Principle of Causality, and thus we would have good reason that something other than Materialism is the deeper reality.

If Materialism is true, there are certain things that just cannot happen. If we observe things things happening, we have good reason to believe that Materialism isn't true. If we observe that Material objects do not behave like material objects, we have good reason to believe that they are not actual material objects.

Thanks for proving my point that materialism IS falsifiable.

QuoteA theoretical test just like this test proposed to do just that: http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1847

If the universe is not calculable it cannot use calculating in its operations, and if it cannot operate by calculating it cannot be a calculated reality. Hence VR theory is falsifiable as one could disprove it by showing some incomputable physics.

Virtual reality does not depend on reality being completely calculable. The fact is that we can build virtual reality even though we don't know if reality is completely calculable. There is no test to falsify VR. In that paper there are trying to build a model of the universe. Trying to prove a model is "right or wrong" is different than proving a model is "falsifiable or not". I hope you understand the difference.

Shol'va

#160
Quote from: Casparov on May 26, 2014, 07:24:06 PM
There are several ways we could test the assumption, "all is materialism".
Again, you are putting the word "assumption" and materialism in the same sentence and that is a big problem.
If you look into the definition of what an assumption is, that is a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.
And therefore by making that statement, it makes your position highly suspect.
You are already starting with a bold assertion and a logical failure.
Materialism is not an assumption.

Quote from: Casparov on May 26, 2014, 07:24:06 PM
if one material object can effect another material object without physical or material interaction, this would violate the Principle of Locality, and thus we would have good reason that something beyond Materialism is the deeper reality.
No. Absolutely not. That would give us good reason to expect that there is a physical phenomenon, a force, that we do not currently posess the means to measure. This is easy to support by looking back in time and realizing that materialism has consistently been the answer. Nowhere in the history of science and humanity has immaterialism ever been a reliable explanatory power for anything whatsoever, other than argument from ignorance.
Is it possible immaterial is the explanation? Sure! Anything is possible?
Is it probable? Very very very unlikely.
The reasonable assumption is still materialism in that situation, until evidence to the contrary.

stromboli

#161
So from the beginning it is simply that the material can be measured and quantified, and therefore assumed to be reality, versus the immaterial which can't be reliably measured and quantified because the agreed upon methods of measure are material in nature. Bit of a quandry, that.


Casparov

Quote from: Shol'va on May 27, 2014, 03:17:44 PM
Materialism is not an assumption.

Interesting. I have been having this conversation with philosophers and scientists and laymen for years now and you the first to slam your foot down and say, "Materialism is not an assumption."

Well go on, explain yourself. How is Materialism not an assumption? I am curious.....

QuoteNo. Absolutely not. That would give us good reason to expect that there is a physical phenomenon, a force, that we do not currently posess the means to measure.

Well yes this the entire point of the EPR paper and Bell's Theorem. They are tests for all possible "physical phenomenon... that we do not currently posess the means to measure." These are called "Hidden Variables". And lo and behold, all possible hidden variable theories which would show that there is indeed an undetectable physical phenomenon which explains these effects have been conclusively ruled out.

QuoteBell’s celebrated theorem(1) states that, in a situation like that considered by Einstein et al.,(2) which involves the correlation of measurements on two spatially separated systems which have interacted in the past, no local hidden-variable theory (or more generally, no objective local theory) can predict experimental results identical to those given by standard quantum mechanics. Over the past thirty years a very large number of experiments have been conducted with the aim of testing the predictions of quantum mechanics against those of local hidden-variable theories, and while to the best of my knowledge no single existing experiment has simultaneously blocked all of the so-called ‘‘loopholes’’ (detector efficiency, random choice of setting, etc.), each one of those loopholes has been blocked in at least one experiment (cf., e.g., Weihs et al.(3)). Thus, to maintain a local hidden- variable theory in the face of the existing experiments would appear to require belief in a very peculiar conspiracy of nature. http://people.isy.liu.se/icg/jalar/kurser/QF/assignments/Leggett2003.pdf

QuoteAccording to Bell’s theorem, any theory that is based on the joint assumption of realism and locality (meaning that local events cannot be affected by actions in space- like separated regions) is at variance with certain quantum predictions. Experiments with entangled pairs of particles have amply confirmed these quantum predictions, thus rendering local realistic theories untenable. Maintaining realism as a fundamental concept would therefore necessitate the introduction of ’spooky’ actions that defy locality. http://arxiv.org/pdf/0704.2529.pdf

QuoteBell’s theorem [8] proves that all hidden-variable theories based on the joint assumption of locality and realism are at variance with the predictions of quantum physics. Locality prohibits any influences between events in space-like separated regions, while realism claims that all measurement outcomes depend on pre-existing properties of objects that are independent of the measurement..... Since the first successful Bell experiment by Freedman and Clauser [13], later implementations have continuously converged to closing both the locality loophole [15, 16, 19, 20] on the one hand and the detection loophole [17, 21] on the other hand. Therefore it is reasonable to consider the violation of local realism a well established fact. http://arxiv.org/pdf/0704.2529.pdf

“The Fanatical Atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures whoâ€"in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"â€"cannot hear the music of other spheres.” - Albert Einstein

Shol'va

#163
Casparov, you are desperately trying to set up the argument that materialism is an unsupported assertion at worst, assumption at best.
Again, both attempt to establish that I am just literally pulling it out of the air, coming up with this without basis.

Materialism is axiomatic as far as our existence is concerned. We would both look at, say, a garden, and see the same thing. And here you are positing there are fairies at the bottom of it too (well, not literally, but in concept pretty much the same, transcendental crap), and that we might in fact be deceived by our senses. Until you offer up anything in ways of compelling substantive, objective, measurable, testable, observable, verifiable, explanatory, coherent, framework as to why fairies exist, how they exist, and more importantly how you know they exist and why, you have nothing to go on.

Like I said in another thread, your doubting that materialism is axiomatic is ultimately completely meaningless and void of either aim, or outcome. Because you go right back to living your life as if this material existence is in fact all there is. If this existence is in fact simulated, then, Neo, why aren't you trying to wake up, bend the rules OR jump between very far buildings. Or why aren't you, Leonardo DiCaprio, attempting to wake yourself up by putting your head on a railway line?
And your attempts at subverting what science actually says notwithstanding, you don't have anything to go by, so as any reasonable and prudent person, don't leap to the attempts I suggest. At least I hope not.

The inescapable fact is that at the end of the day, you have neither choice, nor alternative but to live out your life like the rest of us.

Shol'va

Almost forgot!

Quote from: Casparov on May 27, 2014, 07:12:37 PM
Interesting. I have been having this conversation with philosophers and scientists [...] for years
I don't believe you. Name five of each, with references to these discussions.