V8 said:

Yes. If a philosophy professor pulls this shit on you, tell him you want to set fire to his house while no one is looking.

Since no one is perceiving it, his property won't really be harmed.



Exactly. It's just a variation on the tree in the forest. It places man at the center of the universe, and little else.

Logical fallacy.

. said:

. said:

. said:

mr the horse said:

In the sense that it gives the right answers, sure. But taking it to be literally true is absurd.

So, how much more of science is not "literally true"?

According to science, there was a big, fiery explosion. And, somehow, life sprang from dead rocks that were floating in space.

I'm still waiting for them to re-create that in a lab setting.

You are out of your element, son. The adults are talking.

Beam us up, Scotty! Some guy with a life just entered the room!
\

. said:

. said:

. said:

. said:

mr the horse said:

In the sense that it gives the right answers, sure. But taking it to be literally true is absurd.

So, how much more of science is not "literally true"?

According to science, there was a big, fiery explosion. And, somehow, life sprang from dead rocks that were floating in space.

I'm still waiting for them to re-create that in a lab setting.

You are out of your element, son. The adults are talking.

If there are an infinite number of universes covering an infinite number of outcomes, can I just skip over to that one in which I kill you?

. said:

. said:

. said:

. said:

. said:

mr the horse said:

In the sense that it gives the right answers, sure. But taking it to be literally true is absurd.

So, how much more of science is not "literally true"?

According to science, there was a big, fiery explosion. And, somehow, life sprang from dead rocks that were floating in space.

I'm still waiting for them to re-create that in a lab setting.

You are out of your element, son. The adults are talking.

If there are an infinite number of universes covering an infinite number of outcomes, can I just skip over to that one in which I kill you?

Reply to your own posts all you want, moron. You still have no idea what you are talking about.

. said:

So, how much more of science is not "literally true"?

V8 said:

I think partly the reason this caught on (as well as "counter-intuitive" faddism in science) is the strong anti-epistemological energy coming from the humanities, which posits that all knowledge is subjective, that science is a construct, and objectivity is a rationale for authoritarianism.

This has some truth value, but is an overstatement - to make a political point about vested interests, male hegemony, human error and the hubris of physics.

Moreover, the absurdism of the alleged paradox appeals to the jaded modern psyche which believes there is nothing new in the world, therefore absurdism is inviting.

It is also a way of keeping physics afloat when it is not producing anything new, despite years and years of CERN particle smashing .

mr the horse said:

. said:

So, how much more of science is not "literally true"?

Lots of physics.

V8 said:

If that were true, life could not exist. We are biochemistry. We know this. Physics has degenerated into sophistry which wants to make out that levels of reality somehow exist independently of each other, when they clearly do not.

Bio-chemistry is as co-dependent as it possibly can be.

It's just physics and philosophy jerking each other off because they are so irrelevant and unproductive.

V8 said:

If that were true, life could not exist. We are biochemistry. We know this. Physics has degenerated into sophistry which wants to make out that levels of reality somehow exist independently of each other, when they clearly do not.

Bio-chemistry is as co-dependent as it possibly can be.

It's just physics and philosophy jerking each other off because they are so irrelevant and unproductive.

V8 said:

It's also an upshot of the fetish of indeterminism, which Darwin rightly named "chance" but which was translated as "randomness" by statistical analysis of Fisher et al, which became probability theory, and lost all connection to empiricism. It was then pumped up by Heisenberg, more pumping by Dawkins - all on the specious basis of [i]randomness[/i} as the underlying fabric. Which was not what Darwin said at all.

It is only the presumption of randomness (and atomism) which allows this theory to exist.

. said:

Do you place a lot of weight on the distinction between observables and unobservables?

. said:

How can answers be right if they're not true?

V8 said:

Again, you are confusing subjective epistemic randomness (based on degrees of ignorance) with objective quantum randomness.

The casually-speaking "randomness" of Darwin and Dawkins (or games of chance) is completely irrelevant to physics.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

You are forgetting that Schrodinger's Cat is a [i]thought[/i} experiment.


"Thought" Good one.

. said:

. said:

How can answers be right if they're not true?

Incompleteness theorem, much?

. said:

"Schrodinger's Cat" is just a device for vividly communicating the utter weirdness of the quantum world to a mass audience.

The weirdness itself is not a "thought experiment". It is an experimental reality.

V8 said:

. said:

"Schrodinger's Cat" is just a device for vividly communicating the utter weirdness of the quantum world to a mass audience.

The weirdness itself is not a "thought experiment". It is an experimental reality.

I already posted about the reverse wave. I posted it years ago here too. Makes sense to me.