That doesn't mean everything is random. Anyone with common sense that see that action leads to action, that causation does exist, and that to a point there is a predictable pattern to the universe.
Prove Reason Wrong!
- Thread starter Narz
- Start date
That doesn't mean everything is random. Anyone with common sense that see that action leads to action, that causation does exist, and that to a point there is a predictable pattern to the universe.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Of course causation exists on our scale.. but when you look at the Universe at a very small scale, none which makes sense to us (causation, etc.) applies. YOu have to think about it in an entirely new way, if you really want to understand reality.. not that I think anyone actually does, but...
punkbass2000
Des An artiste
Any measure of "superiority" is going to be defined by the criteria of the evaluation. Who has won the most wars? Men. Who has killed the most people? Men.
Perfection
The Great Head.
Yeah, but 95%+ of the poopyheaded dumbasses of world history have been men too.
aneeshm
Deity
Which proves that they're superior even in being "poopyheaded dumbasses".
Prince_Imrahil
King
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2006
- Messages
- 820
No aneeshm, again, just like with love, a simple answer proves your claim at something unreasonable is very much reasonable. Men in fact are superior to women - in one regard only, Physical Strength. This explains EVERYTHING about why we dominate society, because we're strong enough to ensure its run the wy we want it to run. From this stems us being the 'superior' everything else, as you like to claim. So no, women are not inherently 'inferior' in any way except their physical build.
Swedishguy
Deity
Reason is unreasonable because there are no direct guidelines over what is reasonable. Am I cool or what? 
BasketCase
Username sez it all
A long while back, the Earth was "known" to be flat; people didn't merely believe it. They were as sure of it as we are that President Bush is an idiot (well, not ALL of us, but you get the idea, and since CFC leans to the left, that example will get the idea across very effectively 
). The Earth WAS flat according to all the observations and the best science available at the time.
Satan was "known" to be real, it was "known" that cutting a hole in an insane person's skull would cure them, etc etc etc.
Keep this in mind. What we believe to be reason today may very possibly turn out to be wrong.........
). The Earth WAS flat according to all the observations and the best science available at the time.Satan was "known" to be real, it was "known" that cutting a hole in an insane person's skull would cure them, etc etc etc.
Keep this in mind. What we believe to be reason today may very possibly turn out to be wrong.........
Swedishguy
Deity
So Bush might cease being an idiot?A long while back, the Earth was "known" to be flat; people didn't merely believe it. They were as sure of it as we are that President Bush is an idiot (well, not ALL of us, but you get the idea, and since CFC leans to the left, that example will get the idea across very effectively
Satan was "known" to be real, it was "known" that cutting a hole in an insane person's skull would cure them, etc etc etc.
Keep this in mind. What we believe to be reason today may very possibly turn out to be wrong.........
BasketCase
Username sez it all
Not exactly. But if proof turned up that Saddam DID have WMD.....well, a lot of people in here would suddenly look pretty damn stupid.
This is exactly what happened to the Flat Earth idea. It was fact. The Earth Was Flat. Then proof to the contrary was discovered. It was unbelievable (at the time)--but it was true.
This is exactly what happened to the Flat Earth idea. It was fact. The Earth Was Flat. Then proof to the contrary was discovered. It was unbelievable (at the time)--but it was true.
A long while back, the Earth was "known" to be flat; people didn't merely believe it. They were as sure of it as we are that President Bush is an idiot (well, not ALL of us, but you get the idea, and since CFC leans to the left, that example will get the idea across very effectively
The earth was not thought to be flat since the first century. That it was thought to be as such later is a myth.
As well, assuming a flat earth is an extremely good approximation at small scales. Do you really want to have to account for the fact that angles of traced triangles on earth don't add up to 180 degrees in a small scale? Do you really need to have a non-flat map at small areas of the world? No, you don't.
At the same time, the scientific method did not exist at the time, so it's not even really appropriate to call it "the best science available at the time!"
As well, science inherintly accounts for the fact that it may be incorrect - but that does not mean that the process of reasoning itself, or science, is wrong. As well, it's important to know that "proof" doesn't really exist in science, with the possible exception in Phoenix Wright - only evidence.
While there is a small chance that everything we know may be wrong, it's still stupidly small to the point where it doesn't need to be accounted for, considering the evidence for the stuff we have. So, this isn't "proving reason wrong" unless you resort to nihilism like what fifty did earlier in his genius post summing the falliciousness of the basis behind the thread.
Bozo Erectus
Master Baker
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Messages
- 22,389
How so? Our science and logic are based in the physical laws and properties of this universe. How could they help us understand whats beyond the universe? A strong current could carry a fish all over, under and across an ocean, but it wont help him on land.
Why not?
It has to, because science and logic and reason only came into existence with the universe. The first part of the creation story takes place before there was a universe...
Youre taking the position here that because in one corner of theoretical physics, under certain circumstances, causality as we understand it seems to be suspended, that means that cause and effect in all of science and logic, and even our reason (which in day to day life tells that things dont pop out of nowhere, everything we eat, wear, use observe and otherwise interact with all come from other things) have now been thrown out the window?
Thats not just completely false, thats totally false
Ecofarm
Deity
'Reason' is a rather broad term and can include emotions, etc, but I can disprove the eminince of 'logic'. That one is easy:
Star Trek
Kirk > Spock
Star Trek
Kirk > Spock
Logic is independent of the reality of the universe. 2 + 2 = 4 is still 2 + 2 = 4 whether or not gravity goes up, down, or doesn't exist at all; the emprical is necessarily seperate from the nonempirical. Science is not even remotely the same thing as logic.
As well, there is nothing which says that the laws of our universe as it currently is may be the only valid form. The fine structure constant could have be a different value, for example; currently nothing outside of the anthropic principle which makes the fundamental constants the values they are. More importantly, the laws of physics could be drastically different at different extremes. Entire fundamental forces merge at high energies, for example.
He was talking about the fact that the universe is nondeterministic, not that it there is no causality. As well, as an inherint property of the universe, yes, it does - it means that what is intuitive is not what the universe is, but only is such at large scales.
Even though reality is ultimately nondeterministic, though, science is still predictive. Probabilities, whether or not one can find out why a certain probability is the way it is, are still predictive.
It's only a broad term to people who don't know what it means.
Bozo Erectus
Master Baker
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Messages
- 22,389
When did Mathematics stop being a science?
I have no argument with that. But I fail to see what relevance it has to with my point.
Can you clarify what you mean by 'nondeterministic'?
How is reality nondeterministic?
Because it never was one. Mathematics is deductive, not inductive. By the very definition of science, a scientific topic needs to deal with empirical matters. Math is intimately related to science, but it is not science in itself - much like philosophy.
My point was that science isn't necessarily based on the properties of the universe - it has the potential to have predictive power over currently invalid laws of physics which are only invalid because they arn't our laws.
Determinism is the philosophical proposition that every event is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences. Nondeterminism is just the opposite.
By the fact that quantum mechanics is the fundamental nature of reality. Quantum mechanics is inherintly nondeterministic; the only way it could be deterministic is if there were a hidden variable theory behind it, but hidden variable theories have been pretty much shown to be invalid through experimental verification of [wiki]Bell's theorem[/wiki]. Generalizations of QM into theories of everything still have this inherintly nondeterministic character.
Bozo Erectus
Master Baker
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Messages
- 22,389
Really. Well as someone who gets a headache from long division, Im certainly the wrong one to argue the point. But damn, Math isnt science...news to me
Are you saying that its a tool of science, but not a science in and of itself?My understanding is that for something to be classified as real science, it has to be in some way provable or demonstrable. IYO is that true or false? (Im sorry I spilled coffee all over my Bill3000 to Bozo Dictionary)
Ok, that much I got. So in other words, you believe something like a universe can come into existence from nothing. All of a sudden, out of nowhere, not caused or influenced in any way by anything at all: BOOM theres an expanding universe.
Isnt it true that at the Quantum level, cause and effect breakdown, precisely because at that level, for all intents and purposes, you are no longer in this universe?
Fifty
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@Bozo: A general answer is that by definition, terms like "beyond the universe" or "before the universe" are nonsensical utterances, like "married bachelor". Time did not exist before the universe (by definition), and "beyond the universe" suggests there is something in which the universe subsists, which is again simply contradictory given the manner in which we define the universe.
I also still do not understand this business about how the existence of forms of causation that do not fit our everyday notion of causation constitute a violation of science or logic. I just don't see where "normal" causation is a necessary part of science/reason/logic. Could you maybe elaborate more on why you (apparently) think it is?
PS: Sorry if that doesn't make grammatical sense or something, I'm deeply sleep-deprived right now and I fear my ability to reason is failing
PPS: I'll have to get back to you later today because I REALLY need to do this revision before class.
I also still do not understand this business about how the existence of forms of causation that do not fit our everyday notion of causation constitute a violation of science or logic. I just don't see where "normal" causation is a necessary part of science/reason/logic. Could you maybe elaborate more on why you (apparently) think it is?
PS: Sorry if that doesn't make grammatical sense or something, I'm deeply sleep-deprived right now and I fear my ability to reason is failing
PPS: I'll have to get back to you later today because I REALLY need to do this revision before class.
Bozo Erectus
Master Baker
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Messages
- 22,389
Well I agree that in a very real sense, it does kind of become meaningless to talk about 'beyond' or 'before', and I think that exactly proves my point. We simply arent equipped to think meaningfully outside the box/universe. We live in a lawful, orderly, ultimately predictable and completely understandable universe. But that tidy universe popped out of something, somewhere, somehow, someway. To say that it just popped out of nothingness, randomly, is the same as saying it sprang from the head of Zeus.
In our day to day lives, things dont pop into existence out of nowhere, from nothing. Everything in the universe, including our bodies, is made from other things, has been other things, will be yet other things in the future. The only thing that cant be said of is the universe. Whatever caused the universe to spring into being is completely closed to us, because it didnt begin in this universe, so we cant comprehend, or even conceive of it. But here we are, and the universe is here. The universe is unreasonable, and yet, there it is
edit: To make a long story short: Reason tells us everything comes from something else. The existence of the universe proves Reason wrong.
CartesianFart
Deity
That is only the case since the premise that consist of the word 'reason' only denote that there is a cause of everything from something in a particular logical sense.This sentence that you have provided can be applicable to anything whether it be true science or a pseudo one because it is "over-generalizing" to be vague.
This is misleading because now you have subjected 'reason' into an entirely different context that is not synonomous to 'cause' but something like 'neccessity'.
