agree.
surfer
Science, Meta-physics and Trading
- Thread starter WDGann
- Start date
agree.
surfer
"but the only 'science' that can be taken as absolute fact is arrived at through falsification, which general relativity theory was not."
Nonsense. The essence of mathematics is proof. Once simple, 'self-evident' axioms are accepted, the very foundational purpose of mathematics is then to prove that a relationship asserted to exist between certain objects does in fact exist; and having done so, it becomes "absolute fact".
Contrary to your more or less nonsensical statement, falsification does absolutely nothing to provide us with "absolute fact"; it can only demolish ('falsify') what was being alleged to be fact, or what had until then [until the falsification] had been accepted as 'true'. ('true' not necessarily being equal to 'absolute fact'.)
Whether what the "crackpots" were saying was "true" all along is completely immaterial. It seems as though as long as the assertion made is difficult enough to disprove (or impossible to), and vague enough to have multiple meanings, some people are willing to read "great wisdom" into it until some verified piece of knowledge is determined, at which point the "there's more to life than meets the eye" crowd can conveniently shreek, "look, here's the connection between [Ancient Guru's] "wisdom" and modern science. Hallelujah!".
Magister, you are totally confusing Knowledge and Belief. It is completely illogical to claim to 'know' something without having 'verified' that you actually 'know' it. Your favorite ancient wizards can make all the claims they want, however, without verification that what they say is true, it is outright ludicrous to claim that they have TRUTH. Completely idiotic.
You can, however, Believe, based on inconclusive, yet persuasive, evidence that something is likely to be true, or has the possibility of being true. That is a completely different story. It is an unavoidable aspect of being human that me must form beliefs and make decisions based on imperfect and incomplete information. But to call such beliefs TRUE without verifying them is, as I said, moronic.
"now I ask you, if these ancient sages devised methods to travel up and down the MANY rungs on the ladder of consciousness, then why is it so hard to accept that they were able to arrive at these truths by other means than 'sceintific method'?"
Because dude, you don't arrive at TRUTH by travelling up and down rungs of consciousness. All that can achieve is to bring forth an idea. If you want to claim that idea as being TRUTH, then obviously you have to substantiate such a claim. Or, let me ask you, do you just go around accepting anything anyone says simply because they CLAIM it as true? In that case, I'm sure you'll be glad to know that it is true that I have hot, steamy sex with Victoria's Secret models every night. Don't believe me? Why on Earth not? The way those chicks make me cum takes me up several rungs of concsiousness! Can't argue with that!
It wouldn't be good for us to know absolutely everything, to have an answer for every WHY? question. Same goes with predictability. The answers are not that important as the whole process/fun of finding them. There will be always something to discover... We will die, and the kids from the next generation will have to learn all this high science from the beginning. Ok there's some progress, nobody will tell them that Earth is flat or they can go to hell
Alfonso, it is only accepted as absolute fact as it relates to the confines of the system in which the proof is stated and derived from, it cannot be accepted outside the realms of mathematics as absolute fact in nature, only accepted as a theory that accurately describes and is consistent with the particular area of objective reality it is setting out to describe. The map is not the territory. Mathematics is imposed upon reality through the realm of thought, it is not reality itself... Right angles are absolute fact in Euclid geometry, but they are not intrinsicly inherent in nature itself, only the system we are using to describe nature; for if Einstein's Relativity Theory is indeed correct then how the hell can a right angle exist in a space that is curved?
Wrong... All swans are white cannot be proven, but the observation of just one black swan is enough to refute the claim and prove as absolute fact that a black swan does indeed exist...
I refer you to Popper and Hume...
I will reply to the rest of your post afterhours...
I said that IF certain, simple axioms are accepted THEN the purpose of mathematics is to establish 'absolute fact'. I used the inverted commas because you yourself first used the term 'asbolute fact'. This obviously refers to what HUMANS can logically accept as absolute facts; hell, for the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't even have to be 'absolute'; just 'fact' will do.
For example, once it is accepted that you can have a Unit of something, then simple observation will alert you if there is More Than one Unit of something. More Than one black swan [the unit], for example. Mathematics is then used to Prove that one black swan and one more black swan is equal to Two black swans; in other words, Math will Prove that 1 + 1 = 2.
Notice how the above is A Lot different to some ancient guru simply claiming that something is true? Get it? One is a mere, unverified claim, the other -- on acceptance of universally acceptable (and, I would imagine, accepted) axioms -- a Fact of reality (of 'reality' as humans understand it).
One is ambiguous and doesn't really say anything, the other's meaning is crystal clear. Those are Big differences.
"Wrong... All swans are white cannot be proven, but the observation of just one black swan is enough to refute the claim and prove as absolute fact that a black swan does indeed exist...
I refer you to Popper* and Hume..."
So? That was My point to You. It was You that suggested the process of falsification was the only way to "absolute fact".
In your own words, " ... the only 'science' that can be taken as absolute fact is arrived at through falsification..."
Can you see that falsification does NOT lead us to arrive at absolute facts, it only leads AWAY from them. Mathematics not only CAN prove that mathematical relationships between objects exist, its objective IS to PROVE that they do. This is really very basic stuff, I'm hardly claiming anything that isn't taught in college Math 101.
*Note: "All swans are white" CAN be proven; you simply need to make being "white" a defining characteristic of being a "swan".
You are pretty dense Alfonso...
With the swans you did arrive at an absolute fact by falsifying the claim that 'all swans are white' because you now know undeniably that at least one black swan has existed...
As for the 1+1, it is fact in principia de mathematica, but when is the last time mother nature took the time to count how many swans exist? Mathematics is a language, it does not bring us to absolute facts about reality, only absolute facts within the confines of the system and helps us to communicat theories / descriptions about nature. Space and Time being absolute/independent was regarded as absolute fact for centuries and was indeed FACT inside the confines of Newton's Classical Mechanics, BUT it was obviously not FACT when dealing with all levels of nature, just the macro-level Issac was setting out to describe...
The only difference between Budha stating "time and space are illusions brought about by our mode of consciousness; they are relative and inseperable" and Einstein stating "E=Mcsquared" is the language the theory/idea is being expressed; niether can be regarded as an absolute truth about nature, because they are brought about by the mode of consciousness that divides, categorizes, etc. and nature is an interconnected whole -- it defies the left sides of our brains by its very nature...
As Einstein would have said, you can build as many theories as youd like about the mechanisms inside the watch, but you will never be able to open it and see how close your theories are!
With the swans you did arrive at an absolute fact by falsifying the claim that 'all swans are white' because you now know undeniably that at least one black swan has existed...
As for the 1+1, it is fact in principia de mathematica, but when is the last time mother nature took the time to count how many swans exist? Mathematics is a language, it does not bring us to absolute facts about reality, only absolute facts within the confines of the system and helps us to communicat theories / descriptions about nature. Space and Time being absolute/independent was regarded as absolute fact for centuries and was indeed FACT inside the confines of Newton's Classical Mechanics, BUT it was obviously not FACT when dealing with all levels of nature, just the macro-level Issac was setting out to describe...
The only difference between Budha stating "time and space are illusions brought about by our mode of consciousness; they are relative and inseperable" and Einstein stating "E=Mcsquared" is the language the theory/idea is being expressed; niether can be regarded as an absolute truth about nature, because they are brought about by the mode of consciousness that divides, categorizes, etc. and nature is an interconnected whole -- it defies the left sides of our brains by its very nature...
As Einstein would have said, you can build as many theories as youd like about the mechanisms inside the watch, but you will never be able to open it and see how close your theories are!
Oh yeah dude. Those wonderfully helpful negative facts. Woohoo. Nice footwork. I'll give you that one. The point still stands that we require MORE than falsfication to arrive at facts. A simple admission on your part will do nicely here.
Dude, it is taken as a given that we can only know facts within the confines of a system. I agreed to that from the get go. I don't why keep repeating yourself, you're certainly not impressing anybody.
That 'facts' are fallible is hardly a slight on the scientific method employed in establishing them.
If the "only" difference you can see between Buddah and Einstein is "the language" then God help you. Again, one is a mumbling, UNSUBSTANTIATED, ambiguity, the other is a clear, concise formulation that leaves no doubt as to its meaning. Which do you think is going to be more helpful? (Well, I can imagine YOU think
)LOL, Buddah meant to say E = MC^2 all along right, he just couldn't find the right words? lmao.
Well, I don't know about you, but I think I might fire up a bong or two. I feel like coming across some new facts.
people bring up the swans thing because they heard about it from the Nassim Taleb book. They are parroting popular reading, not thinking and not understanding.
Dotlash,
Are you serious with this? I read Popper's "Philosophy of science" 4 years ago, before Talibs book was published -- he lead me to Hume where it started, so please man...
Where do you think Nassim got it from? If anybody was recycling something it was he, Hume stated blackswan theory in "treatise on human nature" like 150 yrs ago...
and why not just say magister is a babbling idiot that does not understand black swan and is just using it because he read it in Talebs book? why be such a puss - this is an anonymous message board!
I am officialy retired from this thread...