The Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[Archbio]

Inconsistent observations! The idea has been part of my "necessary assumption" since the first time I wrote it. Go ahead, look it up.

I'm pretty sure I took the exact wording from one of your posts.

Of course, Sithdarth would say that we would measure it and find that it's inconsistent, but no dice there. You look at something, see that it appears wrong (one meter where the should be eight, for instance), then you measure. Except when you measure it, it looks to you as if it is one meter. With this idea, observations only have to make sense when you can objectively prove that they don't. No need to even bamboozle the machines!

No, Sithdarth would be right.

Because then there is no distinction between krylo's confusing tangent and what I've been saying the whole time. Go ahead and replace "reality" with "everything which we can sense" in that context.

I don't think that's a good reason. It would be a good reason for me to bow out of this tangent, however, because I'm not really able to local the exact disagreement anymore and Krylo's not the one confusing me.

[ZAKtheGeek]

Archbio:

I'm pretty sure I took the exact wording from one of your posts.

This is a concept that only recently came to me. It's been sitting there, really, I just never invoked it.

No, Sithdarth would be right.

I do hope you don't think I'll accept this without argument.

...I'm not really able to local the exact disagreement anymore...

That's almost a good thing, possibly.

Sith:
Note that my previous post is edited.

[Elminster_Amaur]

Hmm...let's see if I can get this thread at least close to "on track". Whatever that means.

[Attempt to turn the conversation away from the past 10 pages of repetition]

God doesn't want us to kill babies! Let's kill abortionists!*

[/Attempt to turn the conversation, etc, etc.]

*EVERY EFFORT HAS BEEN MADE TO ACCURATELY REPRESENT THIS PRODUCT AND IT'S POTENTIAL. EVEN THOUGH THIS INDUSTRY IS ONE OF THE FEW WHERE ONE CAN WRITE THEIR OWN CHECK IN TERMS OF EARNINGS, THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THAT YOU WILL EARN ANY MONEY USING THE TECHNIQUES AND IDEAS IN THESE MATERIALS. EXAMPLES IN THESE MATERIALS ARE NOT TO BE INTERPRETED AS A PROMISE OR GUARANTEE OF EARNINGS. EARNING POTENTIAL IS ENTIRELY DEPENDENT ON THE PERSON USING OUR PRODUCT, IDEAS AND TECHNIQUES. WE DO NOT PURPORT THIS AS A "GET RICH SCHEME".

ANY CLAIMS MADE OF ACTUAL EARNINGS OR EXAMPLES OF ACTUAL RESULTS CAN BE VERIFIED UPON REQUEST. YOUR LEVEL OF SUCCESS IN ATTAINING THE RESULTS CLAIMED IN OUR MATERIALS DEPENDS ON THE TIME YOU DEVOTE TO THE PROGRAM, IDEAS AND TECHNIQUES MENTIONED, YOUR FINANCES, KNOWLEDGE AND VARIOUS SKILLS. SINCE THESE FACTORS DIFFER ACCORDING TO INDIVIDUALS, WE CANNOT GUARANTEE YOUR SUCCESS OR INCOME LEVEL. NOR ARE WE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY OF YOUR ACTIONS.

MATERIALS IN OUR PRODUCT AND OUR WEBSITE MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT INCLUDES OR IS BASED UPON FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SECURITIES LITIGATION REFORM ACT OF 1995. FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS GIVE OUR EXPECTATIONS OR FORECASTS OF FUTURE EVENTS. YOU CAN IDENTIFY THESE STATEMENTS BY THE FACT THAT THEY DO NOT RELATE STRICTLY TO HISTORICAL OR CURRENT FACTS. THEY USE WORDS SUCH AS "ANTICIPATE," "ESTIMATE," "EXPECT," "PROJECT," "INTEND," "PLAN," "BELIEVE," AND OTHER WORDS AND TERMS OF SIMILAR MEANING IN CONNECTION WITH A DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL EARNINGS OR FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE.

ANY AND ALL FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS HERE OR ON ANY OF OUR SALES MATERIAL ARE INTENDED TO EXPRESS OUR OPINION OF EARNINGS POTENTIAL. MANY FACTORS WILL BE IMPORTANT IN DETERMINING YOUR ACTUAL RESULTS AND NO GUARANTEES ARE MADE THAT YOU WILL ACHIEVE RESULTS SIMILAR TO OURS OR ANYBODY ELSE'S, IN FACT NO GUARANTEES ARE MADE THAT YOU WILL ACHIEVE ANY RESULTS FROM OUR IDEAS AND TECHNIQUES IN OUR MATERIAL.

This disclaimer came from one of Joshua Shafran's website, and was not an attempt to steal. It was an attempt at humour, even if ill-thought out. If Joshua Shafran and his people notice this, please note that I'm seriously considering purchasing a product, and that this was the first disclaimer I could find to use in this joking manner. To anyone else who is reading this, you are probably hurting your eyes because of the size of the font and the fact that it is on a computer screen. Go read a book, play outside, or respond to this thread, just stop reading this disclaimer. It goes on for quite some time about how you should stop reading it, but apparently you aren't paying attention. When your eyes are poked out by your petty "gods" for reading this for so long, you won't find me sympathetic.

Edit: Please don't kill me.

[ZAKtheGeek]

Sorry to be a drag, but I'm... about to be a drag. Again.

Sith:
Okay, another general idea I thought of, that makes my life so Hades-damn much easier. Let's just say that your idea about the chains ending short proves true in all cases. The string of misperceptions doesn't run as long as it has to in order to fully cover all the "errors" that leak through from reality. Still, it can be a very long chain. Consider what it would take to discover that we're living a lie: you'd have to take all the dozens (?) of pieces of necessary data at the right time with respect to the right variable of the right observation. It could theoretically happen that we find there's an issue, but it's highly implausible that we ever would.

So, uh... how do we handle this? I've got a "filter argument" now; the thing we've been arguing over for a while now becomes irrelevant if you have nothing to say about what I've written about. It would make sense to approach this one first and save ourselves a whole lot of effort arguing something that might turn out irrelevant, but on the other hand we're liable to forget quite what we were talking about if this new argument turns out lengthy and in your favor...

[Archbio]

I do hope you don't think I'll accept this without argument.

Well, on the one hand there's Sithdath's explanations, and on the other there's your argument, which I'm not sure I can even make sense of as an argument. I really don't feel compelled.

In the same line of thought, I'm not sure how Sithdarth could feel compelled to supply proof against a claim that you yourself admitted is utter bullshit. The burden just isn't there.

The impossible proof/demonstration being nearly demanded in a flippant way ("So hop to it") just doesn't help. But I wouldn't want to talk for Sithdarth.

[Sithdarth]

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

Every single misperception possible will always chain back to a death? I find that preposterous, and I wish you good luck in proving it. And don't try to turn this around and make me prove that all those misperceptions are actually happening; all my position requires is that I cast doubt. You, however, seem intent on showing that observations are definitely consistent. So hop to it.

All casual chains are infinite. Things that are infinite never end and contain every possibility. Death is a possibility therefore death has to occur in every casual chain.

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

I'm not convinced of this. At least in the example we've been working on, with the lights, you end up relying on some properties that you basically have no way to measure a difference in but through measuring machines. In that case, it is not the units that have to be misperceived but your perception of the machine itself. At the same time, there are probably some cases where the entire chain could be vaguely observed without the need for mechanical aid. Once again, you are gaining ground. Not done yet, of course, but good job.

I never went with a machine that is designed for measuring. I went with a machine that produces an effect on the environment that is independent of any human observer.

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

First of all, no it doesn't. The inconsistency you seem to be referring to is the test itself, and there's no reason that the test has to make sense. Just because it does make sense in our current system doesn't mean it must be that way under a different assumption.

No the inconsistency I'm referring to is this:
If we assume it possible the some information our senses feed us is false then all of it is meaningless. Therefore, reality is meaningless and you can't create meaning from nothing.

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

Second, and much more importantly, I'm not making the assumption that we receive false information. At all. I'm simply presenting the possibility of it as undeniable. I'm not saying we are, I'm saying we could be. In fact, in the end it's to advocate the we must do the opposite of what you think I want; I'm advocating the assumption that our senses don't give false information. Haven't you picked this up by now?

I know. I'm saying there is no possibility because any possibility at all precludes reality being real. If your senses were capable of lying instead of just being limited then reality would cease to be real.

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

Forget the example! The point is, you're using your own rules for logic and not the existing ones.

No I'm using the rule of elimination which is a rule of logic. I could refer again to Holmes here but I won't. Suffice it to say if you first find all possibilities and then eliminate all but one then one left is truth. Your gremlin example is flawed because gremlin or nothing are not the only options.

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

Another abuse of logic. A nonfunctional system implies false premises; fine. But your argument is the logical inverse of that: a working system implies true premises. The two are not necessarily logical equivalents.

A working system does imply true premises. True premises, when formed into a properly constructed argument, (and there are well defined improper structures) always lead to a true conclusion that is what deductive logic is. When you start with false premises it is impossible to come up with a logically consistent valid conclusion. You can accidentally come to a valid conclusion but only through illogic. Further, any attempts to expand on that base will eventually become contradictory.

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

Another abuse of logic. A nonfunctional system implies false premises; fine. But your argument is the logical inverse of that: a working system implies true premises. The two are not necessarily logical equivalents.

No that's just your interpretation. Probably because I stated my argument backwards because sometimes I do that. Basically the main point is that: Its not an assumption to say our senses are limited but do not lie because the alternative is logically inconsistent. We see one aspect of the inconsistency when we examine the statement under the assumption our senses lie:

We know deductive reasoning works because it has never failed. All properly constructed deductive arguments using premises that are indisputable facts have been right. Therefore we can use deductive reasoning. Therefore, you must know what is truly real and thus know facts.

Which only works when our senses are limited but do not lie.

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

You're polarizing my position. Your statement only makes sense if I were to claim that everything we sense was false. I'm saying some of it can be false. There's no reason we can't sense one thing right and another thing wrong.

That's because this is the one issue where there is no gray area. Either are senses are able to lie and so lie all the time or they are just limited and can't lie. There is no middle ground.

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

Fine, but I'm not done pressing this. Now I actually do need to know what's meant by "reality is real," if it's anything other than what I've been saying all along (as in, reality = observations).

Reality is real means cause and effect happen independent of human observation. We know this is true because of the falling tree. We also know this is true because the universe got along just fine without us for billions upon billions of years.

edit:

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

Second, and much more importantly, I'm not making the assumption that we receive false information. At all. I'm simply presenting the possibility of it as undeniable. I'm not saying we are, I'm saying we could be. In fact, in the end it's to advocate the we must do the opposite of what you think I want; I'm advocating the assumption that our senses don't give false information. Haven't you picked this up by now?

I know this. My entire point from the beginning has been its not an assumption because there are only two option and one is provably false the other is absolutely true. Therefore, no assumption.

Edit2:

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

Second, and much more importantly, I'm not making the assumption that we receive false information. At all. I'm simply presenting the possibility of it as undeniable. I'm not saying we are, I'm saying we could be. In fact, in the end it's to advocate the we must do the opposite of what you think I want; I'm advocating the assumption that our senses don't give false information. Haven't you picked this up by now?

Because scientists have made billions if not trillions upon trillions of measurements to date and will make an ungodly larger number more in the future. We even have the technology to make really fine measurements down to weighing two atoms. If these leaks existed we'd have seen them by now. Plus the possibility senses capable of lying change reality from independent and objective into dependent and subjective thus subjecting us to a matrix like world were people can alter reality through force of will.

[Azisien]

Hey, no harm no foul I suppose. I wouldn't mind this tangent so much if I knew what the HELL was going on, or as I think I do, wouldn't mind getting to the meat (conclusion) of it since it doesn't seem very forthcoming. Just a lot of "I didn't say that" and "here's what I said originally, again, with the same words."

Originally Posted by Sithdarth

The problem is there is still at least a third possibility of why the sun is yellow. Because it emits mainly yellow light. We don't have that with reality is real v reality isn't real.

Correct me on this now, but there is no third possibility in his example, other possibilies are kind of "concealed" but not explicitly mentioned in the negation of the gremlins. A v >A, right? It's the same premises you'd use for "Either God exists or God doesn't exist."

Now Zak, is a consequence of your point that, supposing your gremlin scenario, we were to use our senses and instruments to determine why the sun emitted yellow light. We could conclude through our observation that it emits yellow light of blah blah wavelength because blah blah fusion reaction emits blah blah wavelength. But that, this observation is actually inherently flawed, and the gremlins actually did it, without us being able to know at all?

Isn't that the same (irrelevant) logic behind some defenses of the existence of God?

Just, you know, trying to tie it all together if I can...

[Demetrius]

I wish to once more turn everyone's attention back to the ending of Time Bandits, watch it then come argue... This will be more fun that way.

[ZAKtheGeek]

Sith:

All casual chains are infinite. Things that are infinite never end and contain every possibility. Death is a possibility therefore death has to occur in every casual chain.

I don't see why it can't be an infinite repetition of the same couple of elements. Also, have you considered the possibility of a loop? Note that this would not be the same as a causal loop, because this would not be a case of one event explicitly causing another, but instead influencing a variable. So, with the light example. One effect of the room being lit is that it would be warmer. It would also be activating a photoelectric cell, which would be sending electricity down a wire and back to some load, maybe, and friction would be caused by this, also raising the temperature of the room. So you'd need only one misperceived measurement to explain two different phenomena, possibly in such a way that they actually loop back onto each other. It's actually a pretty terrible example I gave, but I hope you see what I'm getting at.

I never went with a machine that is designed for measuring. I went with a machine that produces an effect on the environment that is independent of any human observer.

And how are you ever going to know what effect it had? By having a human observe it.

No the inconsistency I'm referring to is this:
If we assume it possible the some information our senses feed us is false then all of it is meaningless. Therefore, reality is meaningless and you can't create meaning from nothing.

Okay, so reality is meaningless. I see no contradiction, just an undesirable state of affairs, which is precisely why we assume the opposite. And you CAN get meaning from out of "nothing" (meaninglessness, to keep proper to the terms); see below when I go into logical rules again.

No I'm using the rule of elimination which is a rule of logic. I could refer again to Holmes here but I won't. Suffice it to say if you first find all possibilities and then eliminate all but one then one left is truth. Your gremlin example is flawed because gremlin or nothing are not the only options.

That's not the argument you used, though. You haven't disproven the possibility of our senses being liars yet; that's why we're still arguing. The reasoning you used was that since we are getting back true implications, we must be using true premises. Which simply has no logical backing to it.

A working system does imply true premises. True premises, when formed into a properly constructed argument, (and there are well defined improper structures) always lead to a true conclusion that is what deductive logic is.

But that's not what you're saying! You're saying the logical converse: that true conclusions lead to true premises. Where premises are P and implication is I, P -> I is the deductive logic we've used. What this notation means is that if P is true then I is true. That's it. That is the only rule of conditionals: that truth implies only truth; and therefore that truth does not imply falsehood. Falsehood, however, can freely imply either truth or more falsehood, as shown by my gremlin example. What you're saying, however, is that since we know I is true, then P must be true. You are saying I -> P, which is the converse of the statement and therefore is not necessarily its logical equivalent.

When you start with false premises it is impossible to come up with a logically consistent valid conclusion. You can accidentally come to a valid conclusion but only through illogic. Further, any attempts to expand on that base will eventually become contradictory.

No, that's just not how logic works. See above. Falsehood can imply either truth or falsehood.

No that's just your interpretation.

Dude, I'm not making this up. This is how logic works. These are the rules.

Probably because I stated my argument backwards because sometimes I do that.

Well, do be careful. As you can see, it leads to fallacies. That means you fool yourself and frustrate everyone else.

Basically the main point is that: Its not an assumption to say our senses are limited but do not lie because the alternative is logically inconsistent. We see one aspect of the inconsistency when we examine the statement under the assumption our senses lie:

We know deductive reasoning works because it has never failed. All properly constructed deductive arguments using premises that are indisputable facts have been right. Therefore we can use deductive reasoning. Therefore, you must know what is truly real and thus know facts.

Which only works when our senses are limited but do not lie.

Well, your reasoning is still backwards. Addressed above. The truth of the implication does not imply the truth of the premises.

That's because this is the one issue where there is no gray area. Either are senses are able to lie and so lie all the time or they are just limited and can't lie. There is no middle ground.

Of course there's a middle ground. The middle ground, as I said, is when they lie some of the time and are accurate for the rest of the time. Why do you keep insisting that this is impossible?

Reality is real means cause and effect happen independent of human observation. We know this is true because of the falling tree. We also know this is true because the universe got along just fine without us for billions upon billions of years.

So the alternative, I take it, is that reality (all things that happen; cause and effect) is 100% in our heads, all made up? Your examples hardly disprove that. Indeed, I think it's an unfalsifiable position (krylo said so too, I think...). You don't know that the universe has gotten along or even been there for billions of years, because you might never have observed it at all; maybe it's all in your head. Anything could be all in your head, tree included. Damn, this is like a slightly easier version of my original argument. I guess this is what krylo was getting at...

Because scientists have made billions if not trillions upon trillions of measurements to date and will make an ungodly larger number more in the future. We even have the technology to make really fine measurements down to weighing two atoms. If these leaks existed we'd have seen them by now.

Trillions of measurements and observations account for jack squat if they're in the wrong place at the wrong time. The fact is, observations this meticulous have probably never been necessary. I mean, it's unlikely that they would have been, but if you have an example of where they would be that, would be real helpful.

Plus the possibility senses capable of lying change reality from independent and objective into dependent and subjective thus subjecting us to a matrix like world were people can alter reality through force of will.

Not necessarily. Our observations could just be fed into us one-way, without us having any control going in the other direction.

Also, your Matrix analogy is not particularly cogent, since the Matrix was still a system applied consistently to all its members. Some could tamper with it because it was artificial and dynamic, controllable by anyone with the right access method. [/geek]

Asizien:

Now Zak, is a consequence of your point that, supposing your gremlin scenario, we were to use our senses and instruments to determine why the sun emitted yellow light. We could conclude through our observation that it emits yellow light of blah blah wavelength because blah blah fusion reaction emits blah blah wavelength. But that, this observation is actually inherently flawed, and the gremlins actually did it, without us being able to know at all?

Isn't that the same (irrelevant) logic behind some defenses of the existence of God?

I'm not sure I know what you're saying, but... Maybe people argue for God that way, I don't know. Really weak stance, since the whole reason I'm using that logic is to show that it's fallacious...

Archbio:

In the same line of thought, I'm not sure how Sithdarth could feel compelled to supply proof against a claim that you yourself admitted is utter bullshit. The burden just isn't there.

But it is. My position is that the assumption is necessary. We agree that we have to arrive at this conclusion in some way, and those ways are two: assume it or prove it. My position is the first so naturally Sithdarth takes to the second. The way I go about showing that it can't be proven is by giving examples of possible situations where our senses lie but none of the methods Sithdarth provides for proving it work. The examples I give don't have to be in the least plausible; only possible, which is enough to create the doubt, the missing case, which would invalidate the proof.

[Archbio]

But it is. My position is that the assumption is necessary. We agree that we have to arrive at this conclusion in some way, and those ways are two: assume it or prove it.

I didn't mean that the burden was on Sithdarth to prove that he can prove that whatever bullshit you can come up isn't true. I was saying that there's no burden of proof on proving these things to be impossible. It's impossible to do so, these things are insignificant on their face or they lead to an utter dead end of nihilism.

So yes, I agree that the assumption is necessary.

What I still understand is why do you think that the fact that this assumption is necessary is significant, because you seem to put a lot of emphasis on it, which is what might be misleading Sithdarth.