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

Casparov

#165
Quote from: Shol'va on May 27, 2014, 07:25:32 PM
Materialism is axiomatic as far as our existence is concerned.

You take Materialism as axiomatic, as if it is undoubtable, unquestionable Truth with a capital T. However to take Materialism as an axiom is a personal choice, not a universal unquestionable Truth. It would only be axiomatic if it were undoubtable, but as Philosophical Skepticism shows, Materialism is easily doubtable and is therefore not axiomatic.

The statement "I exist" is axiomatic, because you cannot doubt your own existence. Materialism on the other hand requires an assumption without proof, but if you are willing to look past that or ignore it or deny it, you can choose to and take Materialism as your personal axiom. You can take Materialism as your personal axiom if you choose, but you cannot enforce this onto any others because others may well recognize that Materialism is doubtable and lacks any empirical proof, and therefore may well refuse to accept it as an axiom. Materialism is not a conclusion arrived at via any experiment or scientific evidence, there is no way to prove that Materialism is true, and it is only an axiom if you choose to make it one in your personal world view, but that does not change the fact that Materialism is ultimately an assumption.

Your statement should have been, "I take Materialism as axiomatic as far as our existence is concerned."

QuoteWe would both look at, say, a garden, and see the same thing.

Doesn’t common sense deny that the world which appears so real to us is a virtual reality? Philosophers like Plato have long recognized that the reality of reality is not provable. Bishop Berkeley’s solipsism argued that a tree falling in a wood will make no sound if no-one is there to hear it. Dr Johnson is said to have reacted to that idea the world is created by the mind by stubbing his toe on a stone and saying “I disprove it thus”. However VR theory does not claim that the world is unreal to its inhabitants, only that it is not objectively real.

To clarify the difference, suppose information processing in one world creates a second virtual world. To an observer in the first world, events within the virtual world are “unreal”, but to an observer within the virtual world, virtual events are as real as it gets. If a virtual gun wounds a virtual man, to that virtual man the pain is “real”. That a world is calculated does not mean it has no “reality”, merely that its reality is local to itself. Even in a virtual reality, stubbed toes will still hurt and falling trees will still make sounds when no-one is around. Reality is relative to the observer, so by analogy, a table is “solid” because our hands are made of the same atoms as the table. To a neutrino, the table is just a ghostly insubstantiality through which it flies, as is the entire earth. Things constituted the same way are substantial to each other, so likewise what is “real” depends upon the world it is measured from. To say a world is a virtual doesn’t imply it is unreal to its inhabitants, only that its reality is “local” to that world, i.e. not an objective reality.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0801.0337.pdf

QuoteThe 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.

In both scenarios this is true, so your statement is pointless and proves exactly nothing.
“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

Casparov

Quote from: josephpalazzo on May 27, 2014, 10:22:54 AM
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.

Go through the slides if you are truly interested: http://www.phys.washington.edu/users/savage/Simulation/Universe/
“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

josephpalazzo

Quote from: Casparov on May 28, 2014, 05:30:18 AM
Go through the slides if you are truly interested: http://www.phys.washington.edu/users/savage/Simulation/Universe/

Notes:

1) In their simulation, brains are simulated just like planets. The underlying assumption is that brains are made of the same stuff as any other objects in this universe.

2) Any simulation aims for the prediction  of the final state of a system and the fundamental laws according to which the system must evolve.

3) They use the principle of least action to determine when a system evolved from state A to state B - this is quantum field theory.

4) They are basing their simulation on the Standard Model as we know so far.

5) They are using similar techniques as in QFT such as Wilson Loops, discretizing space-time on a lattice.

6) they use the Monte Carlo as an approximation method.

Nothing in these methods, which I am very familiar with, will give a ready-made proof that the universe is some virtual reality. In fact, at the end, if you read this carefully, the authors have a stern warning not to interpret their work as virtual reality. I'm quoting directly from that website: "The simulation presented in this work by no means implies the illusion of reality (e.g the Matrix) or the existence of a machine's user (e.g God (s)), who are directly influencing our lives and our perception of reality." Their basic aim is to have a set of initial conditions that would yield the basic laws of the universe that we already know.


Shol'va

#168
Quote from: Casparov on May 27, 2014, 08:24:28 PM
You take Materialism as axiomatic, as if it is undoubtable, unquestionable Truth with a capital T.
No I don't, and the time spent making assertions would be better spent asking me for clarification.
The definition of an axiom is: a statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true.
My position is that our existence in a material universe is established, accepted, self-evidently true for obvious reasons. Something being axiomatic is not dogmatic, nor is it a view of any absolute position of "Truth" as you call it.
I take materialism as being axiomatic in the sense that it is self evident and the best we have. You wanna come up with something else to refute it? Fine, but you better bring something extremely compelling to the table.

QuoteMaterialism on the other hand requires an assumption without proof
No, it doesn't require an assumption without proof. Materialism is simply a label, a description that we have chosen to identify and describe our shared state of existence. I reach out and touch and feel everything around me. I have to come up with some sort of linguistic descriptor to define the reality in which I exist.

Quotebut you cannot enforce this onto any others because others may well recognize that Materialism is doubtable and lacks any empirical proof
Materialism only lacks empirical proof in the mind of madmen and philosophical mental masturbators.
I am not enforcing anything on anybody else. YOU came to ME with assertions and I am telling you that you've got nothing compelling.

The rest of your post is a string of assertions and appeal to Plato et al, and proves nothing.
Please don't ignore this part of my reply and offer a rebuttal, if you have one:
Quoteyour 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.

I am still waiting for 5 philosophers and 5 scientists you've discussed with over the years, along with links to those conversations. What are their names?

Casparov

#169
Quote from: Shol'va on May 28, 2014, 02:14:21 PM
My position is that our existence in a material universe is established, accepted, self-evidently true for obvious reasons.

Right, so you take Materialism as an axiom in your personal world view. This does not change the fact that Materialism is an assumption. If it is not an assumption, please provide proof that Materialism is true. Concrete evidence that would prove that we do live in an objective material universe and that would not be consistent and equally explained via the Virtual Reality Model of reality. If Materialism is an axiom that is "self-evidently true", then it should be easy to prove. There should exist concrete empirical evidence which anybody could look at and say, "Oh, well in light of this evidence, Materialism is conclusively true and VR and all other theories cannot explain this evidence."

QuoteNo, it doesn't require an assumption without proof.
Materialism only lacks empirical proof in the mind of madmen and philosophical mental masturbators.

You've made alot of bold claims, now put up or shut up.

QuotePlease don't ignore this part of my reply and offer a rebuttal, if you have one:

Whether materialism is true or virtual reality is true, I will still live my life according to the constraints and rules of the reality I exist in. Therefore, your statements about this fact prove exactly nothing one way or the other.

To clarify the difference, suppose information processing in one world creates a second virtual world. To an observer in the first world, events within the virtual world are “unreal”, but to an observer within the virtual world, virtual events are as real as it gets. If a virtual gun wounds a virtual man, to that virtual man the pain is “real”. That a world is calculated does not mean it has no “reality”, merely that its reality is local to itself. Even in a virtual reality, stubbed toes will still hurt and falling trees will still make sounds when no-one is around. Reality is relative to the observer, so by analogy, a table is “solid” because our hands are made of the same atoms as the table. To a neutrino, the table is just a ghostly insubstantiality through which it flies, as is the entire earth. Things constituted the same way are substantial to each other, so likewise what is “real” depends upon the world it is measured from. To say a world is a virtual doesn’t imply it is unreal to its inhabitants, only that its reality is “local” to that world, i.e. not an objective reality.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0801.0337.pdf

QuoteI am still waiting for 5 philosophers and 5 scientists you've discussed with over the years, along with links to those conversations. What are their names?

Oh how bout you kiss my ass instead?
“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

Quote from: Casparov on May 28, 2014, 07:42:26 PM
Right, so you take Materialism as an axiom in your personal world view. This does not change the fact that Materialism is an assumption.
Once again, you do not understand. It is not an assumption. It is a conclusion on the available evidence.

QuoteIf Materialism is an axiom that is "self-evidently true", then it should be easy to prove. There should exist concrete empirical evidence which anybody could look at and say, "Oh, well in light of this evidence, Materialism is conclusively true and VR and all other theories cannot explain this evidence."
Once again, that is a you problem.

QuoteWhether materialism is true or virtual reality is true, I will still live my life according to the constraints and rules of the reality I exist in.
So your doubting the shared state of existence is neither necessary, nor conclusive to any extent whatsoever.
Therefore, the entire discussion is, as I have stated, nothing more than mental masturbation.

QuoteOh how bout you kiss my ass instead?
The lack of evidence that you have in fact been talking to philosophers and scientists for years makes you a liar.

Shol'va

One last thing
Quote from: Casparov on May 28, 2014, 07:42:26 PM
Virtual Reality Model
A nice definition of scientific modeling
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_modelling

There is no such thing as a Virtual Reality Model as how you propose it. I am finding absolutely no scientific references specifically to a virtual reality model, so with no references, the conclusion is you made that term up.
I've brought this to your attention before and it seems you completely ignored it.

Casparov

Quote from: Shol'va on May 29, 2014, 03:11:00 PM
Once again, you do not understand. It is not an assumption. It is a conclusion on the available evidence.

You are making a positive assertion and I am taking the negative position. I am skeptical of this claim you are making. The Burden of Proof lies with the one making the positive claim, therefore, if you wish to make this claim, positive proof is YOUR problem. Provide the evidence or admit it is an assumption. Very simple.
“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

Solitary

Physical reality is true because it doesn't go away. Can you say the same for your mind? Is your mind still there when you are unconscious? 
QuoteAtheist: What is mind? Casparov: No matter. Atheist: What is matter? Casparov: Never mind.
:rotflmao: Solitary
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

Shol'va

#174
Quote from: Casparov on May 29, 2014, 11:11:18 PM
You are making a positive assertion
Nope! I'm not. I'm not making any assertions. I am accepting the reality in which I exist.
Quoteand I am taking the negative position.
No you are not. You are making a fundamental positive assertion about the nature of our shared existence.
QuoteI am skeptical of this claim
You are skeptical of materialism, I get it. What you don't understand is that's a you problem.

You are not merely skeptical. If you were merely skeptical and came up to me and said "I don't believe you that we live in a material universe" I would say "okay, thanks for letting me know, have a nice day!"

But you go one step further. You are rejecting our reality as being axiomatic and making positive assertions of truth as to what reality is NOT. And you don't even stop there. You go on and make up your own "virtual reality model" and as a clueless layman come to the complete wrong conclusions about a scientific field you fail to grasp. Your assertions have already been refuted and you persist in them.

Then, to give some sort of credence to your cause, you then go on and LIE about having talked for years with scientists and philosophers about this topic, which in the end doesn't even demonstrate anything other than the fact that, you lied about it since you cannot produce anything of substance when challenged to prove it. And you further demonstrate you were caught by responding with an insult.


But, let's set all of this aside and let's assume that you and I ran into each other on the street and you said that materialism is false and VR is true. I already asked you "so what", and you essentially responded with "well, nothing". You simply don't have a case. Your assertions simply have zero utilitary value and therefore are unnecessary and devoid of anything of value. Even if I said "I believe you", nothing would change. Therefore this demonstrates that you need a reason to feel smug about yourself and look down on others, in the perceived notion that you know something the rest of us don't.

You're at the prime age when your imagination is running wild. I think you need to set drugs and World of Warcraft aside and focus on things that actually have an impact on your life.

Casparov

#175
Quote from: Shol'va on May 30, 2014, 02:35:29 PM
Nope! I'm not. I'm not making any assertions. I am accepting the reality in which I exist.

You are asserting that "the reality in which I exist" is an external objective material universe. You are claiming that this is the reality that exists, and instead of offering any proof or evidence or even justification to support your claim, you are simply saying, "Nope! I'm not making any assertions."

Just want to make clear to you what you are doing. If you are stating that Materialism is true, prove it using reason, not just blind and shockingly bold assertions that it's just true because it's true. That is no more convincing than a creationist saying, "I'm not making any assertions, God just exists and I'm accepting the reality in which I exist."

QuoteNo you are not. You are making a fundamental positive assertion about the nature of our shared existence.You are skeptical of materialism, I get it. What you don't understand is that's a you problem.

I see, you are arguing that, "The one making the positive claim doesn't have to please the skeptics, if they don't believe, that's their problem."

QuoteYou are not merely skeptical. If you were merely skeptical and came up to me and said "I don't believe you that we live in a material universe" I would say "okay, thanks for letting me know, have a nice day!"

Kinda like if an Atheist walks up to a Theist and says, "I don't believe you that God exists."

QuoteBut, let's set all of this aside and let's assume that you and I ran into each other on the street and you said that materialism is false and VR is true. I already asked you "so what", and you essentially responded with "well, nothing". You simply don't have a case. Your assertions simply have zero utilitary value and therefore are unnecessary and devoid of anything of value. Even if I said "I believe you", nothing would change. Therefore this demonstrates that you need a reason to feel smug about yourself and look down on others, in the perceived notion that you know something the rest of us don't.

It's kinda like the difference between believing that only our galaxy exists and believing that millions and millions of galaxies exist. What if you believed that only our galaxy exists and I walk up to you and say that millions and millions of galaxies exist, and you reply, "so what?" and I reply, "well, nothing... accept that it's knowledge of what is true..." Even if you said, "i believe you" nothing would change in the way you lived your daily life. Therefore this obviously demonstrates that I just needed a reason to feel smug about myself and look down on others in the perceived notion that I knew something that you didn't. You'd probably just deny that millions and millions of galaxies exist to resist having to admit you were wrong in favor of insisting that I am the one that is wrong. Only our galaxy exists! Better to remain in the delusion of being right then give me the satisfaction and confirmation that I'm on to something even if I truly am right, right? (cuz then you'd have to admit you were wrong)

It's like you walking up to someone in the Matrix and telling them that they are in the Matrix, would it be a good argument if they responded, "nothing will change if you are right, therefore you are wrong and this is a material objective universe!" ??

It's like you walking up to a Christian and saying god does not exist, would it be a good argument if they responded, " I already don't go to church or read the bible, I just believe god exists and jesus is my savior, even if you are right nothing will change, therefore you are wrong and God exists!"???

Rather than deciding what to believe based on what would change if you believed it, devote yourself to seeking the actual truth. According to your logic, "believing in god makes me happy," is a good argument for the existence of god because believing it produces a positive change. The positive and negative benefits of holding a belief have absolutely NOTHING to do with whether or not it is true.

QuoteYou're at the prime age when your imagination is running wild. I think you need to set drugs and World of Warcraft aside and focus on things that actually have an impact on your life.

Your arguments are:

1) Materialism is just true because. Period.
2) Plus even if I believed you I wouldn't get anything out of it anyway.

These are the most juvanile arguments I have encountered on this forum by far. The first deserves a legitimate response no more than "God just exists and you can't do anything about it nana nana boo boo," and the second is premised on the idea that the pros and cons of believing in something are an accurate judge of their truth value.

Now excuse me, I need to reload my bong before this raid starts. Good day sir.
“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

josephpalazzo

Quote from: Solitary on May 30, 2014, 12:27:47 AM
Physical reality is true because it doesn't go away. Can you say the same for your mind? Is your mind still there when you are unconscious?     :rotflmao: Solitary

QuoteAtheist: What is mind? Casparov: No matter. Atheist: What is matter? Casparov: Never mind.

It's no longer, "mind over matter" for Casparov but "I've lost my mind, does it matter?"

Solitary

Casparov, is it an assertion if I pick up a ball bearing and say it is hard and solid to the touch, has weight, is made of physical particles, that it has concentrating energy called mass, and has enough force if all the mass was converted to energy (which is also a particle) it would make an explosion great enough to crack your thick head and destroy your mind?   :wall: I think I'm done here. Solitary
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

Casparov

Quote from: Solitary on May 31, 2014, 01:23:40 PM
Casparov, is it an assertion if I pick up a ball bearing and say it is hard and solid to the touch, has weight, is made of physical particles, that it has concentrating energy called mass, and has enough force if all the mass was converted to energy (which is also a particle) it would make an explosion great enough to crack your thick head and destroy your mind?   :wall: I think I'm done here. Solitary

Solitary, is it an assertion if I pick up a sword in World of Warcraft and say that it is hard and solid, has weight, is made of physical material, and if I swing it at others it will damage them, and if I continue to do so it will damage them until they are dead and essentially destroyed? If I drop the sword, is it an assumption to say it will fall to the ground?

It would be an assumption to claim that the "World of Warcraft" is an objective material reality, not that it's rules of physics apply consistently to everything within it. It is also an assumption to claim that we (definitely without a doubt) exist in an objective material reality, not that the rules of physics in our reality apply consistently to everything within it. This assumption about which many claim such certainty, requires proof to substantiate it.

Quote....to an observer within the virtual world, virtual events are as real as it gets. If a virtual gun wounds a virtual man, to that virtual man the pain is “real”. That a world is calculated does not mean it has no “reality”, merely that its reality is local to itself. Even in a virtual reality, stubbed toes will still hurt and falling trees will still make sounds when no-one is around. Reality is relative to the observer, so by analogy, a table is “solid” because our hands are made of the same atoms as the table. To a neutrino, the table is just a ghostly insubstantiality through which it flies, as is the entire earth. Things constituted the same way are substantial to each other, so likewise what is “real” depends upon the world it is measured from. To say a world is a virtual doesn’t imply it is unreal to its inhabitants, only that its reality is “local” to that world, i.e. not an objective reality. http://arxiv.org/pdf/0801.0337.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

josephpalazzo

Quote from: Casparov on June 01, 2014, 12:22:46 AM
Solitary, is it an assertion if I pick up a fictional sword in World of Warcraft and say that it is fictional hard and fictional solid, has fictional weight, is made of fictional material, and if I  fictionally swing it at others it will fictionally damage them, and if I continue to do so it will fictionally damage them until they are fictionally dead and essentially fictionally destroyed? If I fictionally drop the sword, is it an assumption to say it will fictionally fall to the ground?



FIFY