tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post1834043510130313079..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: Rationally Speaking cartoon: MetaphysicsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-33646072265502383552014-01-16T12:41:16.694-05:002014-01-16T12:41:16.694-05:00Thanks for that summary, DH.
Alastair and I have ...Thanks for that summary, DH.<br /><br />Alastair and I have clashed before, which might go a long way towards explaining my interest in your response to him - particularly if one recognizes human cognition as saturated with emotion, as I do. <br /><br />Yet, as a self-identified agnostic on all matters metaphysical (God is only the tip of the iceberg), as well as a fan of embodied cognition/philosophy (in the Lakoff-Johnson genre), I may very well fall somewhere in the middle between your two positions...not that I'm prepared to say much more than that, here and now. After all, I see the blog-comment format as more of a soapbox than as an academic forum or court room.<br /><br />So much for "rationally speaking", right? :-)mufihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01818949854678769391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-67441765807974538602014-01-16T11:40:38.960-05:002014-01-16T11:40:38.960-05:00Hi Mufi,
I don't blame you if you're lost...Hi Mufi,<br /><br />I don't blame you if you're lost. This started as a very long exchange on Massimo's post on Max Tegmark's Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (MUH) a couple of weeks ago.<br /><br />The exchange started out as a debate on whether Massimo was wrong about two things:<br /><br />1) Whether wave/particle duality and the probability functions of quantum mechanics is enough to show that reality is in some respects not physical (Massimo and I think it is not a good argument, Alastair thinks it is)<br />2) Whether the MUH (and I guess String Theory) ought to be called pseudoscience (Massimo and I think no, Alastair thinks yes).<br /><br />The conversation broadened to include a debate on several other topics.<br /><br />1) Whether Alastair's concept of God is coherent (and in particular whether the concept of an infinitely great being is any more coherent than the concept of a greatest integer)<br />2) Whether the MUH accounts for causality<br />3) Whether Godel's incompleteness theorem shows that intelligence cannot be computational, as argued by Lucas and Penrose.<br /><br />I'm bringing up the argument again because Alastair bailed on it. I'm using it to demonstrate how unreasonable he is being in claiming victory over Massimo simply because Massimo got tired of responding to him. It doesn't necessarily have a whole lot to do with this comic strip.Disagreeable Mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258557849869963650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-19858254188337057532014-01-16T10:39:14.505-05:002014-01-16T10:39:14.505-05:00DM & Alastair:
Your side conversation has at...DM & Alastair: <br /><br />Your side conversation has attracted my attention, yet I'm not even sure what you're talking about or how it's relevant to the topic of metaphysics and string theory. <br /><br />As Spock might say: My behavior is illogical.mufihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01818949854678769391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-3943537430405700552014-01-16T10:21:19.850-05:002014-01-16T10:21:19.850-05:00Hi Alastair,
I don't think Massimo has made a...Hi Alastair,<br /><br />I don't think Massimo has made a mistake in this case, and I'm sure he doesn't think so either.<br /><br />Whoever is right or wrong, it shouldn't take too much imagination for you to put yourself in Massimo's shoes and realise this. From his perspective, you keep repeating an argument which makes no sense and demand that he acknowledges his mistake. This gets tiresome eventually, so he stops responding. This is not intellectual dishonesty.<br /><br />From the perspective of some others on this blog, you appear to be just as "intellectual dishonest". It really does appear to me as if I have destroyed some of your arguments, particularly on Godel, and you have refused to acknowledge this.<br /><br />I could have done what you are doing, and accused you of intellectual dishonesty. Instead, I just assume that you didn't buy my argument, (either because you don't understand it or because I have made some mistake), and you have tired of the apparently futile discussion.<br /><br />I could also accuse you of intellectual dishonesty for resorting to accusations that I have "moved the goalposts" when I have done no such thing. What I described either accounts for causality or demonstrates that no causality is needed - it depends what is meant by causality. But because I don't intuitively know precisely what you mean by "causality", the flexibility of my interpretation of the term as I attempt to grasp your position is termed "moving the goalposts" and you abandon the conversation just when it could have been put on a fresh footing with a discussion of Conway's Game of Life as a model universe.<br /><br />My point is that you may think you have established intellectual dishonesty but you haven't. Everyone has a point of view, and what looks dishonest from your perspective may not be from the perspective of your interlocutor. It's poor form to start crowing prematurely that you have won the argument simply because the other party has grown tired of you.Disagreeable Mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258557849869963650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-81091485286011015382014-01-16T07:57:45.438-05:002014-01-16T07:57:45.438-05:00Hi Alastair,
>Self-referential Gödelian statem...Hi Alastair,<br /><br />>Self-referential Gödelian statements in formal systems are examples of "strange loops" - paradoxical circularities called "tangled hierarchies"<<br /><br />This is incorrect. They may be strange loops, in Douglas Hofstadter's sense, but they are not paradoxes. Godelian statements are statements expressed in terms of a formal system X equivalent to "This statement cannot be proven true in the formal system X". This is not a a paradox, because we can logically analyse it and prove that it is true by using tools beyond formal system X. This is unlike the sentence "This sentence is a lie", which genuinely does defy logical analysis.<br /><br />Godel's theorems are applied to computers by the correct observation that computers are formal systems. The problem is that it is difficult to produce Godelian sentences. Only if you have the means of making such a sentence do you have the means of proving it to be true. Godel's theorems only show that a computer program cannot make its own Godelian sentence, but they do not show that a computer program could not make a Godelian sentence for another (presumably simpler) computer program. As such, Godel does not show that computer programs cannot perform precisely the same trick that humans do.<br /><br />And it is also not true to suppose that Godel shows that humans can always perform the trick on a computer program. As I said, making these sentences is difficult, and it may be entirely impossible for any human to develop a Godel sentence for a complex computer program. Any computer program which has the same intelligence as a human being is certainly of this level. Since there is no reason to believe that a human could produce a Godel sentence for their own brain, humans are just as vulnerable to the Godel trick as computer programs, and the Lucas/Penrose argument fails.Disagreeable Mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258557849869963650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-90829882625274792042014-01-16T01:11:06.543-05:002014-01-16T01:11:06.543-05:00@ Disagreeable Me
> But moving the goalposts w...@ Disagreeable Me<br /><br />> But moving the goalposts was nothing to do with Lucas/Penrose. As far as I can see I tore your argument to pieces and you disappeared. <<br /><br />You're deluding yourself.<br /><br />Self-referential Gödelian statements in formal systems are examples of "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_loops" rel="nofollow">strange loops</a>" - <i>paradoxical</i> circularities called "tangled hierarchies" (in which the causal levels are infinitely intertwined). Something that is paradoxical cannot be resolved logically. And something that cannot be resolved logically is noncomputable. Moreover, something that involves infinite causal levels cannot be computable because it would require an infinite amount of time to process. <br /> .<br />I have often asked the following question to proponents of <i>strong</i> AI: "<i>What exactly to do you expect a <b>sentient</b> information-processing system to accomplish that an <b>insentient</b> infromation-processing system cannot?</i>"<br /><br />It would appear that they believe a sentient information-processing system can execute a logic-defying strange loop. But if it is "logic-defying," then it is noncomputable. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07422653606947285608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-50453783545011129552014-01-15T14:21:21.031-05:002014-01-15T14:21:21.031-05:00Sorry for all the spelling/grammar errors (even wo...Sorry for all the spelling/grammar errors (even worse than usual). Comes from trying to comment quickly trying to get back to my work.Seth_bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14562316879162720028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-89617011562678177732014-01-15T12:36:08.326-05:002014-01-15T12:36:08.326-05:00@ michael fugate
> I still can't quite und...@ michael fugate<br /><br />> I still can't quite understand why this bothers you so much. <<br /><br />I consider <i>intellectual honesty</i> to be a serious matter. Apparently you don't.<br /><br />> In this case there is really no evidence that anyone is mistaken - there seems to be genuine disagreement over the status of string theory.. <<br /><br />There's definitely evidence for intellectual dishonesty here. If you truly believe that an alleged scientific theory (e.g. string theory) is actually a metaphysical theory, then you are intellectually obligated (by the virtue of honesty) to acknowledge that such a theory qualifies as a pseudoscientific theory (by definition). Failure to do so on your part reveals a basic character flaw - namely, that you lack intellectual honesty. (Either that, or you lack the intellectual capacity to make the connection.) The evidence becomes especially damning when you are in the business of labeling other scientists and their theories as pseudoscientific.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07422653606947285608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-46597770983559681752014-01-15T12:23:44.600-05:002014-01-15T12:23:44.600-05:00The Edge website was down yesterday so I was reply...The Edge website was down yesterday so I was reply from the excerpt on his blog. I have now read his piece. I still feels to me like it falls his view is biased to keeping the fringes of theorhetical physics on the science side of the science/philosophy line. He replaces falsifiable with 'definite ' & 'empirical'. Definite just means clear and unambiguous. Empirical is defined pretty loosely however so that string theory & many worlds hypotheses fit under his usage. Yes there is an interplay between theory & data, but when the theory can take a near infinite number forms (like string theory) how does that that effect the demarcation. I think Sean believes that 'in principal' string theory and many worlds interpretations are supported by the data. My view is that what we believe 'in principle' falls under philosophy.Seth_bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14562316879162720028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-25116666423099638462014-01-15T10:59:53.231-05:002014-01-15T10:59:53.231-05:00I still can't quite understand why this bother...I still can't quite understand why this bothers you so much. Are you keeping score? Is it a game to see how many philosophers you can get to concede they have made a mistake? In this case there is really no evidence that anyone is mistaken - there seems to be genuine disagreement over the status of string theory..michael fugatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01762576964110603209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-30642513137665819442014-01-15T09:30:48.491-05:002014-01-15T09:30:48.491-05:00All this talk about moving the goalposts is precis...All this talk about moving the goalposts is precisely why I invited you to start the conversation afresh with Conway's Game of Life as a model universe, to clarify what we were discussing.<br /><br />But moving the goalposts was nothing to do with Lucas/Penrose. As far as I can see I tore your argument to pieces and you disappeared.Disagreeable Mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258557849869963650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-64516309447843764792014-01-15T07:57:54.431-05:002014-01-15T07:57:54.431-05:00I'd suggest actually reading what he says. He ...I'd suggest actually reading what he says. He seems to respect philosophers, and recognises the history and the role of falisification in the history of science. He is mostly arguing that it's a blunt criterion and that the problem is more subtle than many scientists or amateur philosophers are willing to accept.<br /><br />On his blog, he introduces the argument with the following paragraph:<br /><br />"My answer was “Falsifiability.” More of a philosophical idea than a scientific one, but an idea that is bandied about by lazy scientists far more than it is invoked by careful philosophers. Thinking sensibly about the demarcation problem between science and non-science, especially these days, requires a bit more nuance than that."<br /><br />His response in detail is here:<br /><br />http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25322Disagreeable Mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258557849869963650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-60519338504745059152014-01-15T07:28:19.752-05:002014-01-15T07:28:19.752-05:00Hi Alastair,
I'm not sure Massimo is going to...Hi Alastair,<br /><br />I'm not sure Massimo is going to answer you.<br /><br />I would suggest, and I think that Massimo would agree, that the MUH is scientifically informed metaphysics and String Theory is a mathematical theory searching for some falsifiable physical predictions - a proto-hypothesis. I think he would disagree with both of your suggestions.<br /><br />We would also both disagree with you that either constitute pseudoscience. If you think the definition from Shermer can qualify either as pseudoscience then Massimo and I simply disagree with the definition, or at least your interpretation of it.<br /><br />There, that should be pretty clear. Can we drop this line of discussion now?Disagreeable Mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258557849869963650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-32473160859592746502014-01-15T04:38:12.123-05:002014-01-15T04:38:12.123-05:00I read through some of the responses from the (176...I read through some of the responses from the (176 !) edgy contributors to answering <br /><br /><a href="http://edge.org/contributors/what-scientific-idea-is-ready-for-retirement" rel="nofollow">WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT?</a><br /><br />Like "The idea that geometry is the description of physical space is engrained in us, and might sound hard to get rid of it, but it is unavoidable; it is just a matter of time. Better get rid of it soon." (Carlo Rovelli, Theoretical Physicist)<br /><br />I haven't read through all of them, but I didn't find anything there that was particularly novel or surprising.<br />Philip Thrifthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03021615111948806998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-71382938982296568942014-01-15T01:44:20.779-05:002014-01-15T01:44:20.779-05:00@ Disagreeable Me
> I take it that since you d...@ Disagreeable Me<br /><br />> I take it that since you didn't reply to my last comment of January 5th on the MUH that you concede the argument and agree that the MUH is perfectly plausible, while the Lucas/Penrose argument is bunk. <<br /><br />The only thing I concede is that it is not possible to have an honest and fair debate with individuals like yourself who are always "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts" rel="nofollow">moving the goal posts</a>" by redefining terms in a desperate attempt to score a pointAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07422653606947285608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-35362319725281057802014-01-14T23:44:37.841-05:002014-01-14T23:44:37.841-05:00" Does he realize that falsificationism is a ..." Does he realize that falsificationism is a philosophical, not a scientific idea?"<br /><br />yes - from his blog :<br /><br />"My answer was “Falsifiability.” More of a philosophical idea than a scientific one, but an idea that is bandied about by lazy scientists far more than it is invoked by careful philosophers."<br /><br />from his Edge opinion :<br />"String theory and other approaches to quantum gravity involve phenomena that are likely to manifest themselves only at energies enormously higher than anything we have access to here on Earth. The cosmological multiverse and the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics posit other realms that are impossible for us to access directly. Some scientists, leaning on Popper, have suggested that these theories are non-scientific because they are not falsifiable."<br /> <br />"The truth is the opposite. Whether or not we can observe them directly, the entities involved in these theories are either real or they are not. Refusing to contemplate their possible existence on the grounds of some a priori principle, even though they might play a crucial role in how the world works, is as non-scientific as it gets."<br /><br />I don't think asking that a scientific theory be potentialy testable is the same thing as refusing to 'contemplate' the idea behind the proposed theory.Seth_bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14562316879162720028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-8415855867469938722014-01-14T22:57:43.921-05:002014-01-14T22:57:43.921-05:00Seriously? Oh crap. Does he realize that falsifica...Seriously? Oh crap. Does he realize that falsificationism is a philosophical, not a scientific idea? And that philosophers have gone beyond it, like decades ago??Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-57473644985060418312014-01-14T22:30:58.767-05:002014-01-14T22:30:58.767-05:00Okay. Let's summarize.
The "mathematical...Okay. Let's summarize.<br /><br />The "mathematical universe hypothesis" is "<i>metaphysically informed science</i>" while "string theory" is "<i>scientifically informed metaphysics</i>."<br /><br />Does that sound about right...Professor? Or, are you going to censor my comment? Declaring it too offensive because it exposes your contradictory argumentation on this subject matter? (Is that how it works?)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07422653606947285608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-65707840058976264192014-01-14T20:04:17.123-05:002014-01-14T20:04:17.123-05:00On this topic,
Sean Carrol has an opinion on the ...On this topic,<br /><br />Sean Carrol has an opinion on the 'Edge Annual Question' that I find hard to believe.<br /><br />The question is “What scientific idea is ready for retirement?”, and Carrol picks falsifiablility. Wow! is all I can say to that one.Seth_bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14562316879162720028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-37428117378329397432014-01-14T19:24:05.099-05:002014-01-14T19:24:05.099-05:00@ michael fugate
> And so what if he has to ea...@ michael fugate<br /><br />> And so what if he has to eat crow? You've never been mistaken in anything? <<br /><br />That's the problem. He can't acknowledge his mistakes.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07422653606947285608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-67983218574105313312014-01-14T16:32:25.150-05:002014-01-14T16:32:25.150-05:00And so what if he has to eat crow? You've neve...And so what if he has to eat crow? You've never been mistaken in anything? michael fugatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01762576964110603209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-39189233949009585432014-01-14T16:02:36.715-05:002014-01-14T16:02:36.715-05:00To Alastair,
I'm not censoring you, my friend...To Alastair,<br /><br />I'm not censoring you, my friend. I am simply rejecting comments that contain insults rather than constructive points. It ought to be clear by now that I have a high degree of tolerance for your sarcasm, but that tolerance isn't unlimited.<br /><br />Try to reformulate your thoughts using proper language and I'll be happy to let the posts through. Although I'm done responding to the same question you keep asking almost every post, I'm sure others will keep trying. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-42454416551133371212014-01-14T14:50:50.880-05:002014-01-14T14:50:50.880-05:00By the way, Alastair:
I take it that since you di...By the way, Alastair:<br /><br />I take it that since you didn't reply to my last comment of January 5th on the MUH that you concede the argument and agree that the MUH is perfectly plausible, while the Lucas/Penrose argument is bunk.Disagreeable Mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258557849869963650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-56379986575678365872014-01-14T14:48:00.263-05:002014-01-14T14:48:00.263-05:00@Alastair
Massimo will not have to eat crow.
Phl...@Alastair<br /><br />Massimo will not have to eat crow.<br /><br />Phlogiston theory is wrong, but its its initial proposers were not pseudoscientists.<br /><br />String theory is not pseudoscience as practiced in 2014. It may be pseudoscience as practiced in 2064. Sciences can morph into pseudoscience if their adherents do not adapt to new evidence or abandon falsified ideas.Disagreeable Mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258557849869963650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-63333962610508996902014-01-14T14:04:59.663-05:002014-01-14T14:04:59.663-05:00@ michael fugate
> And so what if string theor...@ michael fugate<br /><br />> And so what if string theory turns out to be a pseudoscience? <<br /><br />Then Massimo will have to eat crow.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07422653606947285608noreply@blogger.com