Intelligent Design

KF on Proof

Spread the love

KF’s comment to a prior post deserves its own OP. If only people understood the simple, yet profound, point KF is making. KF writes:

Proof is a term too often used more for rhetorical impact than for humble acknowledgement of the achievements and limitations of human reasoning and deduction especially. As such, we must bear Godel in mind, truth and proof are very different, and axiomatic systems for complicated areas face incompleteness and/or possible incoherence. Even mathematics is not an absolutely certain discipline. Science cannot prove beyond such and such has so far passed certain empirical tests and may be taken as so far reliable, when it is at its best. Too often it is not and becomes a lab coat that gives unwarranted credibility to ideology. So, we end up at pisteis, rhetorical proof, where we seek to provide reasonable warrant for beliefs or opinions etc, and must reckon with the issues lurking behind pathos, ethos, logos. We are in the end, faith-driven reasoners, the issue is which faith, which set of first plausibles, why and why in light of comparative difficulties. But to get that far we must first make sure that we do not undermine the basic credibility of responsible reason through sawing off the branch on which we all must sit, the error of hyperskepticism. 

88 Replies to “KF on Proof

  1. 1
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    There is none in this world that doesn’t built his worldview on a type of FAITH . All people(theists, atheists, agnostics,etc) can be called religious in the sense of believing in something that IT’S IMPOSSIBLE to be proven. The test is to chose the most reasonable belief no matter what you FEEL toward that belief(if a certain belief would require to change your life entirely it’s possible to ignore it deliberately because…laziness) . Unfortunatelly avoiding conscious what we know it’s true will ultimatelly weaken/destroy our capacity to chose the truth next time. Next time will be harder.

  2. 2

    I think I know what’s going on here. KF doesn’t really have any validation of subjectivity.

    So then he has to put subjectivity inside of objectivity, in order to have an emotional life.

    So then he puts faith in on the basis of objectivity.

    Otherwise, it is obviously ridiculous to not focus on the logical definition of fact, and focus instead on the deficiencies in getting perfect facts.

    These deficiencies is what allows him faith, allows him to have an emotional life.

    If science were perfect with perfect facts, then apparently KF would have no faith. And all the time that science is improving, KF’s faith is reduced.

    I on the other hand as a creationist, acknowledge seperate domains, spiritual and material. Validating both subjectivity and objectivity, each in their own right.

    So then obviously I emphasize the logical definition of fact, perfect facts. And no matter if science was completely finished with perfect factual knowledge, I would still have faith, because I acknowledge a separate spirtual domain.

  3. 3
    kairosfocus says:

    MNY, we are agents so subjects, responsible, rational, significantly free and freedom is a component of being rational not just a computational substrate. However we are also finite, fallible, morally struggling, too often ill willed or even stubborn in error. This brings up aspects of prudence, here proof. In looking at proof I took time to clarify its strengths and limits. Especially in a post Godel incompleteness age. To highlight the need to do due diligence to truth, right reason, warrant and more is not to disrespect or sideline agency. To examine what proof is and its limits is not to disrespect agency etc. There is a need to address overclaiming proof and that I took time to do. KF

  4. 4

    I pointed out several times some theory that Godel’s incompleteness theorem could be avoided. In respect to Peter Rowlands, Bernard Diaz nilpotent theory. Ordering mathematics in efficent steps of mathematical structures awaw from 0, and deriving mathematics including the mathematical operators in a logical way. You have dis-incentivized refuting Godel’s incompleteness theorem.

    From my creationist point of view where I use a logical definition of fact, and a logical definition of opinion, obviously it makes no sense, what you are doing. As ignorance about the logic of fact, and the logic of opinion is widespread, why on earth would you then want to weaken that logic further?

    If you know the logic of fact, then it is quite obvious that our current knowledge has deficiencies.

    One would NOT notice deficiencies in our current knowledge if one confuses feelings of certitude commonly associated to facts, for what facts are. If one is clueless about the logic of fact, and then feels very certain something is true.

  5. 5
    William J Murray says:

    Mr. Arrington said:

    We are in the end, faith-driven reasoners, the issue is which faith, which set of first plausibles, why and why in light of comparative difficulties.

    Of course, I disagree. At least, I think I do, from my understanding of what is meant here.

    There are fundamental statements about our existence that do not require faith to know for certain, such as “I exist” and “I experience.” I may not know what I exist as, or what experience means or refers to, but that doesn’t change the inescapable certainty of those statements.

    The fundamental principles of logic do not require any faith because they are inescapably applicable to all possible sentient thought. There are other inescapable conditions of conscious, sentient experience that I listed in another thread at another time. These things do not require faith, only recognition of what they are, either as existential necessities or as unavoidables.

    One of the innate, perhaps necessary qualities of a sentient, conscious mind is pattern recognition; we recognize patterns in our experience. Some patterns are predictable with mathematical precision and some are more statistical in nature. The successful modeling of patterns does not necessarily require faith, but some are more easily accessible given a faith that such predictable models can be discovered or worked out.

    Where does faith actually enter the picture, or become the “faith base” of a person’s perspective and reasoning efforts? I assume we’re talking about “faith” in a more substantial form than just a conditional expectation of patterns of experience playing out the way we think is likely. I think we’re talking about faith in something that (1) cannot be proved, and (2) is not an existential inescapable or an existential necessity (for all possible conscious, sentient experiences.)

    Since it is an existential inescapable that all experience occurs in mind, it seems to me that one of the first entries of faith is the belief that something exists external of mind that causes a certain category of mental experiences. There no way to even support that model via evidence, even in principle. This is a first level faith commitment. I think there are other such first-level faith commitments, but let’s look at this one in particular.

    What do I mean by a “first-level” faith commitment? The idea that something exists external of mind marks the beginning of a particular category of ontological/epistemological systems that go beyond recognizing existential necessities and unavoidables. It frames existence and knowledge in a particular way. It fundamentally frames the patterns we experience in a particular way. It is the beginning of various materialist, physicalist, dualist, religious, atheistic, and spiritual ontological/epistemological models. It sorts experiences categorically and provides the very meaning of the terms we use in those categorizations. By faith, I assume that we don’t mean we are taking that O/E perspective as a conditional expectation that may or may not be true; rather, we have committed to it as “what is real” and “how knowledge is acquired” and what knowledge refers to.

    IOW, faith enters the picture at the first level of a particular ontology/epistemology that goes beyond existential necessities and unavoidables.

    However, there are other ways of thinking about these things that do not require anything other than conditional expectation. They do not require putting one’s faith in anything as “reality” because one is not asserting or “having faith in” (beyond conditional expectation) something beyond what is unavoidable and necessary in all O/E perspectives, in all possible sentient experience. IOW, faith (beyond conditional expectation) in the unprovable is not necessary.

    One might call this faithless perspective as philosophical pragmatism; not investing in any particular O/E model as true, but rather using patterns in our experiences to form conditional expectations in acquiring the experiences we desire and avoiding those we wish to avoid as best we can. The pragmatist can use various models or invent new ones to find experiential success because they are not faithfully committed to any particular model as “the truth” about what their experiences represent.

  6. 6
    jerry says:

    Which Faith?

    It must be a faith that one is willing to die for. Otherwise, it will lose to such a faith.

    It is assumed that large numbers will die to promote such a faith. However, today we have such massive instruments of death, some may believe they are safe and will not die while they can kill others. But if they don’t, then that still remains a restraint on them killing others.

    There is also the strategy of taking a small bit at a time because this assumes others will not be willing to die for something small. But small bits accumulate.

    I once heard a discussion of the battle for Pork Chop Hill in the Korean War. It was a meaningless piece of terrain but it represented a clash of wills snd faiths over something meaningless. Would we fight a Pork Chop Hill today?

  7. 7
    kairosfocus says:

    WJM, I find it amusing to see that as the man who promotes a view that undermines the credibility of minds required to recognise first principles and facts, you now seek to speak as though such first facts and principles are so certain that they do not require faith. No, we have first plausibles that are antecedents of proof, which must be taken as self evident before we can get to proofs. And if one undermines such, s/he saws off the branch on which we all must sit. That said, onward, SETs cannot amount to enough to frame a worldview, we need other points we hold plausible which are not provable and are not self evident, for example we need to acknowledge the general reliability of memory, even though it may err in details. So, too, reliability of sound record, which cannot be established to utter certainty. That includes record in Science and indeed mathematics. At practical level, we are forced to accept major bodies of knowledge on faith, as we cannot each reproduce the world of knowledge from first principles, and more. KF

    PS: BA was actually citing at that point, as he noted.

  8. 8
    kairosfocus says:

    Jerry, you are right, unless a civilisation can hold loyalty willing to be paid for in blood, it cannot endure. Elites that undermine the basic confidence of a civilisation betray their privilege. Privilege entails duty. KF

  9. 9
    William J Murray says:

    KF said:

    WJM, I find it amusing to see that as the man who promotes a view that undermines the credibility of minds

    I’ve never promoted any such thing, and I’ve corrected you enough times for you to know better. Further, you’re making statements about a view that you have repeatedly demonstrated you do not understand, and have made no attempt to understand. It’s starting to look to me like you’re deliberately lying, or at the least, not talking to me in good faith.

  10. 10
    William J Murray says:

    KF,
    Until you decide to make a good faith attempt at understanding the conceptual framework of IRT on its own terms, like my good faith attempt to understand your concept of “first duties” and BA77’s argument for geocentrism, you are not entering the debate in good faith. Until then, you have no basis by which to make any valid criticisms.

  11. 11
    AnimatedDust says:

    WJM @10: Is there a thread where you’ve summarized IRT? I have seen much that you’ve written about it, but don’t recall a thread where you’ve comprehensively laid it out. I’d appreciate a link if you have one. Trying to really understand it.

    Much obliged.

  12. 12

    KF, it is basically heresy the way you talk about faith in first principles.

    Faith is relying on God, who is Himself entirely spiritual, and therefore entirely subjective.

  13. 13
    AnimatedDust says:

    M @12. That’s ridiculous. God is not entirely subjective when we are talking about his objective existence to all of us.

  14. 14

    Oh, God is objective like some material thing huh? That’s atheism, materialism, and heresy.

    You just hate subjectivity, like all fact obsessed atheists do. If you appreciate subjectivity, then you would have no problem with God being spiritual and subjective.

  15. 15
    AnimatedDust says:

    I am a Christian. Is God real for everyone? Or just us individually? That is what you seem to be implying. And I don’t have a problem with God being spiritual and subjective. You throw the heresy word around as if you know God’s mind as well as you think you do.

  16. 16
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    AnimatedDust
    M @12. That’s ridiculous. God is not entirely subjective when we are talking about his objective existence to all of us.

    :)) He doesn’t know what means to be subjective/ objective .He relates subjective to subject(being) and objective to an object..

  17. 17

    Ok, let’s talk in detail about this, because I know for a fact, so not subjective, that I am right about this.

    Basically the way you talk about subjectivity, is that you don’t regard subjectivity as referring to an independent reality.

    1. Creator / chooses / subjective / spiritual / opinion
    2. Creation / chsoen / objective / material / fact

    So then obviously God is classified in category number 1, together with emotions, personal character, the soul. God makes choices, and choices are made out of personal character and emotions, therefore God, emotions, and personal character belong in category 1. The substance of God is called spiritual, and God is subjective, meaning he can only be identified with a chosen opinion.

    Subjective doesn’t mean only for me. I can choose the opinion God is real, you can choose the opinion God is real, same God.

    Much the same logic as to say someone is a kind person. You feel this person is kind, I feel this person is kind, same kindness.

    Now someone may disagree, and say the person is unkind. It is a logically valid opinion. Regardless of what opinion is chosen, this person who is said to be kind / unkind is still making their choices.

    So then, choices are made in the universe, someone feels God made those choices, others say it was not God, regardless the choices are still made. It is still an independent reality that makes the choices, regardless of whether this independent reality is identified as God or not.

    And it is totally obvious that you are in line with fact obsessed atheists, by asserting God is objective.

  18. 18
    AnimatedDust says:

    LCD @16 You know, I think you’re right. Especially after his reply at 18.

    M, is English your first language?

    I’ve seen you post that 1. and 2. several times before. You don’t seem to know what I mean between subjective and objective.

    Objective = facts
    Subjective = feelings

  19. 19

    It’s logic, it’s the exactsame in any language whatsoever. The difference between matters of opinion and matters of fact is the exactsame in all languages.

    And you are obviously just as rotten and corrupt as any atheist. Good luck praying to your objective golden calf god or whatever. What a coincedence eh, the golden calf was objective, and your god is also objective.

  20. 20
    kairosfocus says:

    MNY, God is objectively real, indeed the root of reality, author of all worlds and creatures. Objective means, his existence is not a matter of the questionable perception or opinion or will of an error-prone, finite, morally struggling creature but is instead manifest on sound warrant. As for accepting first plausibles not subject to proof and in some cases as start point for proofs, that is a matter of core worldview commitments. It is possible to believe or even to know that God is, without believing in God; having repentant trust in God and right relationship. The devils believe, and shudder as they contemplate their ultimate judgement. We are speaking of faith but at utterly different levels. It is a matter of fact that we experience consciousness and yet that is antecedent to proofs. Likewise, first principles of reasoning are already implicit in attempted proofs, we cannot prove them, but we must recognise them to be rational. KF

  21. 21
    Jack says:

    Kf: “Objective means, his existence is not a matter of the questionable perception or opinion or will of an error-prone, finite, morally struggling creature but is instead manifest on sound warrant”

    Humans have a lot of different views and feelings about what the creator is. A lot of people believe that there is no creator at all.

    I find it fascinating that the god you believe in sometimes commands his followers to murder children.

    This says a lot about you

  22. 22
    ET says:

    Jack, I find it fascinating that you think that your ignorance is an argument.

    If the people who believe there is no creator at all can present a scientific explanation for our existence the world would love to hear it.

  23. 23
    Jack says:

    ET,

    Get a girlfriend

    P.S. I’m not an atheist.

    (Gawd, you people are stupid.)

  24. 24
    Jack says:

    P.S.

    1. Girlfriend
    2. Fun
    3. More fun
    4. Led Zeppelin
    5. Girlfriend

    Get a life, losers

    And stop jacking off to porn, losers.

    (ET knows who he is.)

    (Just trying to help you idiots.)

    You can lead a horse to water…

  25. 25

    Jack@24: I see that you are still here wasting time communicating with “stupid” people. Since you are here again to entertain us, please describe what kind of non-atheist you are. Enlighten us with your profound wisdom.

  26. 26
    kairosfocus says:

    Jack,

    I see you are going cross-thread with a string of village atheist accusations, which is ill-advised.

    When you did so in the string theory thread, I posed a challenge at 42 which has not been answered for some days; which, especially deals with our alleged stupidity (but also speaks to our alleged ignorance, or insanity or wickedness . . . and yes that is Dawkins):

    >> . . . I will be direct:

    1: Kindly provide a single actually observed case where blind chance and/or mechanical necessity have caused functionally specific configuration based function beyond 500 – 1,000 bits of complexity: __________

    2: I confidently assert that you cannot do so, nor can any objector to the design inference, you will know that such were tried for years and failed consistently.

    3: I further assert Newton’s rule, if we cannot directly observe a causal factor and can only observe traces, then we have a right to insist that candidate causes be shown to have ability to generate the effects in question, in our observation.

    4: Observe that cell based life has in it D/RNA technology, exhibiting digital code [4-state, GCAT/U], expressing complex algorithms, a technology central to life.

    5: This is language, and algorithms. These have precisely one known and plausible cause, design. That is intelligently directed configuration.

    6: We confidently infer, life, based on core technologies involved, is designed.

    7: Needless distractions are utterly irrelevant and indeed trying to stir up distractive toxic quarrels simply shows that there is intent to evade and suppress a core point that is most inconvenient to a preferred agenda.>>

    Whether or no you are personally atheistical, you have taken up a line of accusations and projections that goes nowhere.

    You full well know that such matters are far afield of UD’s remit and you and others have been pointed to those who have addressed such village atheist talking points at responsible length, such as Paul Copan and W L Craig at Reasonable Faith. There is a 101 on the general issue of the sins and blessings of Christendom here.

    Neither this thread nor UD in general are proper fora for addressing such accusations and your attempt at moral preening by projecting accusations to others likely speaks to serious cognitive dissonance challenges.

    Further ill-tempered irresponsible rhetoric such as you indulged above in an obvious derailment attempt and/or projection of a distraction from a focal issue, is not advisable.

    That you seek to distract or derail, suggests rather that the flak implies the point in the OP highlighted by BA is on target and is by that accuracy is highly relevant to onward urgently needed reforms for our civilisation.

    KF

  27. 27

    The name God is defined in terms of that He makes choices. Like the decision by which the universe was created, or the decisions at the final judgement.

    All what is defined in terms of making choices, can only be identified with a chosen opinion.

    For the exactsame reason that fear, love, kindness, are subjective, God is also subjective. Because choices are made out of emotions and personal character, therefore emotions and personal character are subjective.

    It is a total heresy to define God as being objective.

    What is obvious, is true. To define God as objective, means to define God as being an objective material creation. As all creations are regarded as objective and material.

  28. 28
    kairosfocus says:

    MNY, God is real, apart from our imagination and this is accessible to our ability to warrant claims as credibly true and reasonable. That is what the objectivity of God is about. That has nothing to do with your erroneous projection that to refer to God as objectively real, is to assign him to be a creation (of our imagination?) rather than the root of reality and creator of worlds. The provision of adequate warrant for the reality of God is what proof, rightly understood, is about. And yes, that takes dead aim at notions such as unless you can prove God’s reality on premises the most stringent hyperskeptics will accept, then we can act as though God’s reality is dubious and a matter of blind faith. Nope, hyperskeptics indulge premises that are self-referentially absurd, sawing off the branch on which we all must sit, through creating plato’s cave style grand delusions. KF

  29. 29
    William J Murray says:

    AD @11:

    Here is a variety of articles I wrote here on the subject: https://uncommondescent.com/author/william-j-murray-2/

    Here is one where I gave a basic, overall outline: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/outlining-a-functional-mental-reality-theory/

    I have since changed some of the terminology I use as I’ve refined the theory and how I describe it, such as, now I call it Idealism Reality Theory in order to better situate it, initially, against solipsistic interpretations, and I refer to the “data” now as informational potential to move it away from the idea that I’m describing some sort of computer simulation.

  30. 30
    ET says:

    Jack Off (nice last name BTW), Buy a vowel. I never said that you are an atheist. I said that you are ignorant. Thank you for proving that point. And I said that the people who don’t believe in a Creator don’t have a scientific explanation for our existence. That happens to be a fact.

    IOW I was responding to what YOU posted. You are an embarrassment to humans.

  31. 31
    AnimatedDust says:

    WJM @29: greatly appreciated.

    M: you didn’t answer my question. Is English your first language? You are assigning a different meaning to subjective and objective than is done by nearly all. That’s why I ask. Therefore, you are accusing me of something I’m not doing.

  32. 32

    @animated dust, That you consider subjectivity and objectivity to be a matter of English language culture, and not logic, shows your position is a shambles.

  33. 33
    AnimatedDust says:

    Why won’t you just answer my question? You don’t even properly understand my position, much less logically pass judgment on it. Comprehension precedes accurate logical conclusion.

  34. 34
    kairosfocus says:

    ET, please don’t encourage a spiral into the gutter, that is part of trollishness. KF

  35. 35

    KF, subjectivity is not the same as fantasy. To state a painting is beautiful is subjectivity, it is not fantasy.

    Subjective statements express what exists in the spiritual domain, the domain that contains all what makes choices.

    To say a painting is beautiful, claims the existence of a love for the way the painting looks.

    You previously altready threw out the logic of fact. It is only fitting that now you also throw out the logic of opinion.

    What you do is total heresy, and you’ve got no logic.

    You can have all the feelings of absolute certainty that God is real that you would like, with the subjective and correct idea of God. However, in no way can you be forced to conclude God exists. Forced by some philosophical trick of axioms or whatever. The belief in God must be chosen, or it is wrong. Basically your belief in God is the same as someone who is forced to state as objective fact that a painting is beautiful. It is not a valid belief.

  36. 36
    kairosfocus says:

    WJM, for record, I note the opening sentence of your article and highlight points where it becomes agenda-loaded and question-begging:

    By accepting the fundamental, unequivocal logical fact that our experiential existence is necessarily, entirely mental in nature, and accepting the unambiguous scientific evidence that supports this view, we can move on to the task of developing a functioning and useful theory of mental reality.

    We are conscious, minded, self- and world- aware creatures and experience is mediated through that consciousness. That is worlds apart from the assertion that “our experiential existence is necessarily, entirely mental in nature.” A first fact of our experience is that we are embodied in a world with many other bodies some similar to our own (other living people), others quite different, e.g. the island I am on, with a volcano some miles south, etc.

    It is question-begging to assert logical necessity and entirety. Experience can embrace the reality of the distinct other even as it is a conscious process. The assertions you make directly entail that the experience of otherness is delusional and that embodiment where mind and body can be in key part distinguished is likewise delusional as opposed to your asserted logical necessity and entirety.

    Given tendency to see word disputes I am using words in normal senses readily seen in dictionaries.

    As for claimed scientific support, that is not accurate summary. For example I have long noted on the Smith model cybernetic framework and the two tier controller. Grey’s Anatomy is a grand study of embodiment familiar from medicine. And while there is a London Force, molecular and atomic substructure to solids, liquids and gases etc, that does not invalidate the realities of solid bodies, liquid ones or gaseous ones or even complexes such as our bodies.

    Atoms in turn have sub sub structure and many particles.

    All of this is part of a world which is studied as beyond and independent of our mental states, perceptions, opinions etc.

    I note for record, so it can be clear precisely why I have expressed concerns regarding plato’s cave, shadow show grand delusions.

    KF

  37. 37
    kairosfocus says:

    MNY, our subjectivity is error-prone. That imposes all sorts of challenges requiring warrant. When a claim is warranted, reliable, credible, we recognise it as objective. Even beauty follows objective principles so it is not merely a perception, there is a reason for informed consensus of judgement regarding beauty. KF

  38. 38
    AnimatedDust says:

    I can see why WJM asserts that you’re still not getting it, KF. Everything you just asserted as to his position, you got, necessarily, entirely from your mental experience. Full stop.

    Apparently, that’s why you’re still jammed up. I don’t begin to claim that I understand all of its ramifications, but I do know that my sensory apparatus is set up to give me an experience that is, before anything else, subjectively mental.

  39. 39

    KF, you cannot make a 1 to 1 corresponding model of what is on the side of what makes a choice. You cannot make a 1 to 1 corresponding model of emotions, personal character, or God.

    You can make a 1 to 1 corresponding model of all chosen things, creations.

    And that is the real meaning objective, to make a 1 to 1 corresponding model of a creation, forced by the evidence of it.

    If we follow your horriffc ideas, than the police will not make 1 to 1 corresponding reconstructions of what occurred anymore. Then instead the police determine as objective fact the evil or goodness of a suspect. It’s just total rubbish, a complete outrage.

  40. 40
    William J Murray says:

    AD @38,
    Thank you. Well said.

    KF is, once again, translating what I said into what it would mean in his “external physical world” paradigm, then criticizing it from that perspective. Apparently, he is incapable or unwilling to actually understand IRT on its own terms, which I have said is a difficult thing to do. I just don’t think he is capable of stepping outside of his own paradigm at all, even arguendo, it is so deeply rooted and such an intrinsic aspect of his self-identity.

  41. 41
    AnimatedDust says:

    M @39, you are speaking gibberish now. Please stop. You’re not an outrage, but a pretty complete annoyance.

  42. 42
    AnimatedDust says:

    WJM, have you postulated the cause/effect of IRT as to origin of it in entirety? Clearly can’t be material, but do you postulate a designer of unknown identity, at least?

    Thanks for your kind words. IRT as to how we experience “the world” came to me pretty easily in terms of getting what you’re arguing.

  43. 43

    @animated dust

    If it is gibberish, then make a 1 to 1 corresponding model of what fear consists of for example. Or make a 1 to 1 corresponding model of God. Put up or shut up.

    You can only make 1 to 1 corresponding models of creations.

  44. 44
    William J Murray says:

    An example of how to conduct a good faith discussion can be found in how I interacted with BA77 about geocentrism theory, and in how I interacted with KF about his concept of “first duties.” For weeks I asked questions, came at it from different angles, restated what they said and asked if that was a correct interpretation or assessment – not in an attempt to “defeat” their perspective, but to understand it.

    I understand this can be a long, often exasperating process for those trying to explain themselves to someone else. Communication is difficult even about normal, every-day things, much more difficult when we’re dealing with concepts and difficult to understand evidence.

    However, my conversation with BA77 ended with me finally understanding the evidence and agreeing with his position that the actual, current evidence better supported geocentrism than non-geocentric models. With KF, it ended up with me saying that KF must be experiencing something that I do not experience, or that I’m incapable of understanding what he means when he talks about “first duties.” I wasn’t trying to defeat it because it made no difference to me, and my personal beliefs, if he was right or not. I was trying to understand it, and I failed. Honestly, I couldn’t make any sense out of it whatsoever; but I chalk that up to us just having very different perspectives.

    However, KF makes no effort whatsoever in attempting to understand IRT; he doesn’t ever ask “do I understand you correctly?” or “what do you mean when you say X?” or “How is this arrangement not indicative of a delusion?”

    He instead insist that I mean what he says I mean, even when I try to correct him. He claims sovereign rights over words, definitions, uses and meaning. He insists his interpretations are the only possible ones, and that anyone that differs is either being deficient or deceptive.

    That’s not how a good faith discussion operates. I mean, if he’s just not interested in understanding IRT, that’s fine, but to arrogantly pass judgement on something you’ve been told over and over you are mischaracterizing and misinterpreting, is just not what I consider a productive interaction.

    I would LOVE for someone to come to some level of understanding of IRT and raise valid valid questions and criticisms. Mike did that for a while in one of the prior threads about it, the one that has “Checkmate” in the title. A few others have.

    But, again, I understand that it’s not really worth the time and effort it takes to gain understanding in the eyes of most people, and that’s also fine. There are other places I discuss this with people who do understand it to a large degree.

  45. 45
    William J Murray says:

    AD,

    There is no “cause” for it. The uncaused cause is consciousness, and the only thing “other” than that which fundamentally exists is infinite informational potential which, as a logical necessity, must exist. We understand cause and effect from a linear time perspective; under IRT, time is understood as something else: individual or group sequences of experience. There is no universal linearity to it.

    Ultimately, the only “cause” under IRT is consciousness.

  46. 46
    AnimatedDust says:

    I find that your description of KF’s argumentation is accurate. I have never once heard him ask for clarification, or ANY questions of anyone here, ever. Not once. It’s all pronouncements. Period.

  47. 47
    AnimatedDust says:

    M @43, I am going to shut up wrt you. Bye.

  48. 48

    @animated dust

    That’s intellectual fraudulence. Obviously you cannot argue the logic of objectivity, because for you that is just a cultural issue of the English language.

  49. 49
    kairosfocus says:

    AD, mental — strictly, conscious, self-aware — experience is first, foremost OF embodiment in the world. If that first experience is opened to across the board doubt or dismissal, then all other experiences carried by that are themselves under the same doubt. Think chains and links, with the first link weak. KF

  50. 50
    AnimatedDust says:

    Saying goodbye is intellectual fraudulence. Check. And a non-native English speaker lectures me on the meaning of English words. I just had to point that out.

    Ok, this time I mean it. G O O D B Y E. It means also, so long, fare well, auf wiedersehen, adieu. It does NOT MEAN intellectual fraudulence. 🙂

    The Irony! 🙂

  51. 51

    @animated dust, spoken like a smart alecky total atheist. You are an intellectual fraud because you throw out logic. What is to be expected from someone who’se god is objective like a brick is objective.

  52. 52
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Jack
    1. Girlfriend
    2. Fun
    3. More fun
    4. Led Zeppelin
    5. Girlfriend
    Get a life, losers

    :)))) Looks like your own advice doesn’t work very well for yourself because you are a very unhappy and wretched person. Maybe you should change your worldview ?

    @Mohammadnursyamsu:
    You should go to school first then becoming a teacher.

  53. 53

    @lcd Enough with all the meaningless and snide remarks. You all have got nothing but a big mess on offer. The creationist conceptual scheme perfectly explains the difference between subjectivity and objectivity. And there is no way God is properly classified in the creation, chosen, material, objective and fact category.

  54. 54
    Seversky says:

    Kairosfocus/43

    AD, mental — strictly, conscious, self-aware — experience is first, foremost OF embodiment in the world. If that first experience is opened to across the board doubt or dismissal, then all other experiences carried by that are themselves under the same doubt. Think chains and links, with the first link weak. KF

    I agree with WJM that our conscious experience is at root all we have. The existence of an objective reality that is not me and does not depend on my observation of it in order for it to exist is an interpretation of that experience – and one to which I generally subscribe.

    My interpretation is that we create a mental model of what is beyond us based on data acquired through our senses. That model is very detailed but nonetheless still a model, meaning it is incomplete, a partial representation as there is a lot we cannot perceive through our senses Yes, we can build devices and instruments which can detect what our senses cannot but the data they collect still has to be rendered in a form our senses can accept. Think of those wonderful astronomical images of deep-space phenomena radiating in the ultraviolet or x-ray spectra. We can only see them at all when they are converted to colors our eyes can detect, so it’s still an interpretation.

    What is becoming apparent from the likes of quantum theory, however, is that while our classical physical experience is unchanged, our understanding of the nature of that experience has changed quite radically and is continuing to change. Like Dr Johnson, I can kick a stone and it will hurt my toe but if both stone and toe are made of something which is not substance nor even something that has definite form then what is actually happening? Why do I have that experience at all?

    I don’t have any good answer to those questions as yet although I should say I feel I am beginning to move towards WJM’s position. Classical materialism is plainly dead so I am properly a physicalist where physicalism refers to the nature of reality as revealed to us through the physical sciences. The problem is that our understanding of that nature is not static but changing over time. I am loathe to call it information because I think that word now has so many meanings – is so prone to ambiguity that it is almost meaningless – but I don’t really have a better one.

    There is a YouTube video by Arvin Ash on quantum entanglement in which he speculates that something like a vast web of entangled particles may be an underlying layer of reality. It is just speculation but I am leaning towards the view that there is something like that ‘down there’ which could even be a common ground between WJM’s position and those of us who believe in an objective as well as a subjective reality.

  55. 55
    Viola Lee says:

    That is an excellent post, Sev. I also think, with the same disclaimers about the whole thing as you offer, that the “entangled reality down there” might also be the common ground and source for both the experience of a physical world that we have and our consciousness by which we have those experiences.

  56. 56
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Seversky

    My interpretation is that we create a mental model of what is beyond us based on data acquired through our senses. That model is very detailed but nonetheless still a model, meaning it is incomplete, a partial representation as there is a lot we cannot perceive through our senses

    This is the classical understanding of knowledge and reality. We take in data from our senses and then interpret it. We have knowledge of causes – so, our experiences are caused by something and we recognize the causes as something outside of ourselves. We also recognize the existence of other minds that think the same way that we do, and which also receive information that we send, and are affected by what we offer.

    I agree with WJM that our conscious experience is at root all we have.

    I think this conflicts with your other statement however. In the other case, you affirmed that our experience is informed by data that we take in. WJM’s view, however, is that there is no external data and everything is generated by our own mind. Or maybe you were saying that you lean towards WJM’s view and actually occupy a middle ground (which seems reasonable to me).
    In either case, I agree with VL that you did a good job describing the issues at stake in this.

  57. 57
    Silver Asiatic says:

    I left here some months back when people were saying that “they have no duty to the truth”.
    The “first duties” that KF refers to are in this context. That a person has a responsibility towards the truth because that’s a basic measure of integrity in the person, and the fundamental, necessary foundation for rational thought, much more for rational conversation with other people.
    A person who denies having a moral responsibility towards the truth is just making it impossible for anyone to have a rational conversation with that person.
    We have to affirm as a “first duty” that we hold ourselves morally responsible (as a duty to fulfill) that we will seek and affirm the truth when we find it, speak the truth, and oppose falsehood.
    When there was a debate about this and rejection of those concepts, I realized, just as I said – it’s impossible to have a rational conversation. Offering falsehoods, deceptions, dishonesty – have the same moral value as having a first duty to the truth, and therefore it’s impossible to even understand what a person is saying.

  58. 58
    kairosfocus says:

    Sev, no one disputes that our self-aware consciousness is the heart of our experience. The point is, the first facts of that experience are OF being embodied and in a wider world. For example contemplate consequences of not breathing for an hour, such suffices to show realities of embodiment and life in the world we inhabit. That we have senses AND what they deliver are part of that immediate awareness. Were such reduced to grand, Plato’s cave style doubts, dismissals and delusions, the taint immediately discredits our rationality across the board. Sawing off the branch on which we all sit, the error of hyperskepticism. To hold that we construct a mental model of the world — being vs appearance, with open invitation to the Kantian ugly gulch — is to hold that at least that perception is reliable but in fact it is immediately open to level 2 doubt or delusion. And so to infinity. Far more sensible is to acknowledge our rationality and the common sense principle that though our senses and reasoning etc may err in details and have limitations, to entertain hyperskeptical grand delusion is absurd and can be set aside safely. That averts the chaos of a cascade of grand delusions and doubts, and opens the way to reasonable, responsible knowledge and confidence in finding out about our world and ourselves. KF

    PS: Bradley, long ago, saw off the ugly gulch:

    We may agree, perhaps, to understand by metaphysics an attempt to know reality as against mere appearance, or the study of first principles or ultimate truths, or again the effort to comprehend the universe, not simply piecemeal or by fragments, but somehow as a whole [–> i.e. the focus of Metaphysics is critical studies of worldviews] . . . .

    The man who is ready to prove that metaphysical knowledge is wholly impossible . . . himself has, perhaps unknowingly, entered the arena . . . To say the reality is such that our knowledge cannot reach it, is a claim to know reality ; to urge that our knowledge is of a kind which must fail to transcend appearance, itself implies that transcendence. [–> this is the “ugly gulch” of the Kantians] For, if we had no idea of a beyond, we should assuredly not know how to talk about failure or success. And the test, by which we distinguish them, must obviously be some acquaintance with the nature of the goal. Nay, the would-be sceptic, who presses on us the contradictions of our thoughts, himself asserts dogmatically. For these contradictions might be ultimate and absolute truth, if the nature of the reality were not known to be otherwise . . . [such] objections . . . are themselves, however unwillingly, metaphysical views, and . . . a little acquaintance with the subject commonly serves to dispel [them]. [Appearance and Reality, 2nd Edn, 1897 (1916 printing), pp. 1 – 2; INTRODUCTION. At Web Archive.]

  59. 59
    kairosfocus says:

    PPS: Our understanding of the microscopic substructure of the world does not undermine its soundness. As I have noted ever so many times (including above) a solid body, retains shape and volume up to elastic deformations, a liquid is unable to resist internal shear and flows but holds volume, a gas has neither defined volume nor shape. The ground or floor underfoot is solid, the air about is gaseous, the seas are liquid. We can explore London forces, molecules, atoms and particles, fields etc and such do not change the reality of the macro-scale as described.

  60. 60
    William J Murray says:

    SA said:

    I think this conflicts with your other statement however. In the other case, you affirmed that our experience is informed by data that we take in. WJM’s view, however, is that there is no external data and everything is generated by our own mind.

    To try to clear this up: Nothing is actually “external” of any of us, in my IRT – we, and all potential information, are internal of each other, all aspects of the same single “universal” mind/consciousness, all with internal access to all potential. Now, if one can properly understand that, one can understand that even though someone else is internal of me, they are also external of my own self-identity. Infinite informational potential is within, but external of that subset which is being processed into my experience.

    This can be difficult to understand, but to try to make it more clear: even when I look out into the world with my eyes; even under the old paradigm; I am having that entire experience within, not “out there.” That experience occurs entirely in my mind, where all experience occurs. Yet, it looks and feels and sounds like it is “out there.”

    It doesn’t matter if that information is coming from “out there;” the experience itself occurs within and is built with abstract information; everything you experience is occurring within you regardless. MRT just does away with a entire order of existence that doesn’t add anything significant to the equation.

    A certain set of information and the way it is being processed into experience can be what many people are experiencing; so what we call the objective, physical world, with these other people represented in it, is a uniform, reliable physical experience we’re all having internally, even though our consciousness is representing it to as an external landscape – it’s actually an internal landscape.

  61. 61
    William J Murray says:

    The evidence is clear: consciousness acting on information (as potential) causes our reality experience, including the experience of space-time orientation. Regardless of whether or not we can visualize what all this means, it seems to me to be more important to consider: what does this mean in a practical sense?

  62. 62
    William J Murray says:

    From: https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/new-hypothesis-argues-the-universe-simulates-itself-into-existence?rebelltitem=4#rebelltitem4

    Under this proposal, the entire simulation of everything in existence is just one “grand thought.” How would the simulation itself be originated? It was always there, say the researchers, explaining the concept of “timeless emergentism.” According to this idea, time isn’t there at all. Instead, the all-encompassing thought that is our reality offers a nested semblance of a hierarchical order, full of “sub-thoughts”

    In correspondence with Big Think, physicist David Chester elaborated: “While many scientists presume materialism to be true, we believe that quantum mechanics may provide hints that our reality is a mental construct. Recent advances in quantum gravity, such as seeing spacetime emergent via a hologram, also is a hint that spacetime is not fundamental. This is also compatible with ancient Hermetic and Indian philosophy. In a sense, the mental construct of reality creates spacetime to efficiently understand itself by creating a network of subconscious entities that can interact and explore the totality of possibilities.”

    Although they use the word “simulation,” what they are talking about is “what reality is,” and just using the word “simulation” as an analogous referrant. Our minds aren’t creating a simulation of a “reaL” version that resides elsewhere; the “simulation” is all there is, so it is reality.

  63. 63
    William J Murray says:

    The paper being accessed by these articles: https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/2/247/htm

    The website of group that is researching and developing this “meta-reality” theory: https://quantumgravityresearch.org/

    From the paper:

    “Which is the real universe?” is resolved because all information that is thought of is real and there is nothing outside of thought or consciousness. In the simulation hypothesis, the simulations are a fake reality. In the self-simulation hypothesis, they are real.

  64. 64
    William J Murray says:

    More from that paper:

    We claim above that materialism, panpsychism, and information theoretic ontologies do not explain the origin of the fundamental stuff and that the self-simulation hypothesis does. Those three ontologies do not try to explain the origin of the fundamental things. Similar to most religions, all three are creationist insofar as saying there is one fundamental thing that creates all others but which itself has no creator. The self-simulation hypothesis recognizes that: (1) thoughts called choices of what to think; and (2) thoughts called the experience of those chosen thoughts are fundamental and that one explains the other via the self-simulation creative process of self-actualization. Materialism does not say that fundamental physical stuff created itself. Digital physics does not say fundamental information created itself. Panpsychism typically does not say that the universal consciousness created itself. They say that fundamental things “just are” with no explanation. In this paper, we build a logical thesis that does not contradict the parts of these other three ontologies that claim the fundamentality of “physical = materialism”, “information = digital physics”, and “consciousness = panpsychism”. For us, all three things, physicality, information, and consciousness, are fundamental. We show how they are equivalent and discuss a categorization and origin scheme that simply goes further into the process of relating and explaining than those more limited ontologies that stop at “it just is”. Instead, using code theory, we provide theoretical structure suggesting how reality self-simulates. We provide various forms of evidence-based rationale.

  65. 65
    kairosfocus says:

    WJM, “Nothing is actually “external” of any of us, in my IRT” already directly implies that the embodiment and external world we experience is a Plato’s Cave style shadow show, i.e. though you will likely refuse to acknowledge, this is level 1 in a grand delusion cascade. Next, “we, and all potential information, are internal of each other, all aspects of the same single “universal” mind/consciousness,” implies that individuality is a grand delusion; that is, the responsible rational freedom required for credible thought evaporates. The point is, once we substitute a grand delusion-inviting frame and put it in the place of common sense, we are looking at self-referential discredit of the mind and general absurdity. The incoherence of trying to restructure the world of thought on a broken foundation is manifest. And of course with pervasive error as the implicit perspective, views are essentially arbitrary, ill founded constructs, where mere novelty is substituted for soundness. Such utterly self-destructs. KF

  66. 66
    William J Murray says:

    KF,
    You have no idea what you’re talking about when it comes to IRT. Please stop acting like you do.

  67. 67
    William J Murray says:

    So, what I’ve linked to above is a whole scientific research team that is developing a meta-reality theory that says the same exact thing I’ve been working on for decades and have been writing about here for what, over a year now?

    Doesn’t seem quite so crazy now, eh? hehehe

  68. 68
    kairosfocus says:

    WJM, on the contrary, I have for cause noted the self-referential incoherence of what is a form of panpsychism or pantheism/panentheism. Once the first facts of consciousness are turned into a morass of doubts and delusions, this discredits mindedness and rationality. Such views manifest grand delusion cascades and fail. It is not for nothing that I have pointed, from Reid, Moore, Plantinga, Bradley and others, that we need to start from taking common sense seriously. S/he who infers that we cannot know external independent-of-ourselves reality is already implying a knowledge claim about such, that it is closed to knowledge, inviting the sort of it isn’t there theme. Experience of the in common world is downgraded into its a dream, individual only by being a local vortex in the grand scheme or better dreamscape. This directly implies precisely the self-referential discredit of conscious rational life long since pointed out. Tracing the ideas history in a nutshell, once the door is opened to global hyperskeptical doubts and/or grand, Plato’s Cave style delusions. The result is an endless cascade of delusion and doubt; which, is both self-referential and incoherent. KF

  69. 69
    William J Murray says:

    KF,
    None of what you said above applies to actual IRT; it only applies to your straw man, ERT interpretation of it. You have no idea what you are talking about.

  70. 70
    kairosfocus says:

    PS: SEP on Panpsychism:

    Panpsychism is the view that mentality is fundamental and ubiquitous in the natural world. The view has a long and venerable history in philosophical traditions of both East and West, and has recently enjoyed a revival in analytic philosophy. For its proponents panpsychism offers an attractive middle way between physicalism on the one hand and dualism on the other. The worry with dualism—the view that mind and matter are fundamentally different kinds of thing—is that it leaves us with a radically disunified picture of nature, and the deep difficulty of understanding how mind and brain interact. And whilst physicalism offers a simple and unified vision of the world, this is arguably at the cost of being unable to give a satisfactory account of the emergence of human and animal consciousness. Panpsychism, strange as it may sound on first hearing, promises a satisfying account of the human mind within a unified conception of nature.

    Adapt, to rendering physical things dubious, peripheral or delusional so that say our embodiment evaporates into a perception. We’re there. We can call this, simulationism with a network of local nodes. It may not be how WJM arrived at his views, but it effectively captures its substance.

    Now, this falls apart for the very reason already shown. Grand delusion cascade. If our experience OF conscious, self-aware embodiment as a creature in a world is dubious or delusion, there is no remaining credibility for the mindedness to be trusted in perceptions, inferences, deductions, conclusions. Grand delusion is self-defeating and absurd. This leaves common sense on the table. Yes error prone but correct-able.

    Next, we may freely exert the principle that the only worldviews that are viable are those that take first facts seriously as point of departure. Facts of self-aware rational responsible freedom and embodiment. That makes a two-tier controller cdybernetic loop model a viable one.

    More generally, onward, any species of monism fails to adequately resolve the problem of the one and the many as does platonic style dualism. Monism of mind fails just as badly as monism of matter/physicalism. Simulationism, too.

    Instead, let us take GIGO-limited computational substrates seriously. They are inherently non-rational, being driven by organisation of units and processing of signals based on dynamic-stochastic physical processes. Such are not free to reason, despite a world of literature on autonomous self aware computers, such are fantasies.

    We need to recognise a type of reality that exhibits freedom and serves as oracle to the sort of Smith model cybernetic loop discussed. This is at level of experience.

    Onward, we may think our way to root of reality adequate to account for such, especially given that rationality is morally governed starting with first duties that routinely manifest in our conversations and quarrels etc. That is worldviews analysis turning on comparative difficulties.

    However, common sense recognition of first principles, first duties and first facts comes first. Without that, we don’t have a leg to stand on.

    And yes, at base level, there is not an infinite variety of basic worldviews. That is not focal for logic and first principles but it is worth noting.

  71. 71

    With all this talk of a duty to truth, apparently this duty does not yet involve formulating the logic of objectivity and fact, and formulating the logic of subjectivity and opinion.

    Objectivity:
    A fact is obtained by evidence of a creation, forcing to produce a 1 to 1 corresponding model of it, in the mind.

    Example: To measure the circumference of the moon, what it consists of, the craters on it’s surface etc., all these facts together provide a 1 to 1 corresponding model of the moon, in the mind, forced by the evidence of it.

    Subjectivity:
    A personal opinion is chosen, and expresses what it is that makes a choice.

    Example: To say a painting is beautiful. The opinion is formed by spontaneous expression of emotion with free will, thus chosen. The opinion expresses a love for the way the painting looks.

    Subjectivity and objectivity in one coherent conceptual scheme:
    1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
    2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact

    So now then, do your duty to the truth, and evaluate the truth of the creationist conceptual scheme.

  72. 72
    William J Murray says:

    KF said:

    Now, this falls apart for the very reason already shown. Grand delusion cascade. If our experience OF conscious, self-aware embodiment as a creature in a world is dubious or delusion, there is no remaining credibility for the mindedness to be trusted in perceptions, inferences, deductions, conclusions. Grand delusion is self-defeating and absurd. This leaves common sense on the table. Yes error prone but correct-able.

    I want to examine this for the benefit of people other than KF, because I realize KF is immune to this explanation.

    First, IRT does not cast embodiment or our experience of physicality into doubt, even if KF want to insist on his specific interpretation of what those terms mean (under his worldview.) What IRT does is provide a different interpretation of the experience of embodiment and physicality and what that experience represents, which is completely supported and verified by @100 years of experimental results, while KF’s interpretation has been effectively disproved by those repeated, verified results.

    Second, this doesn’t mean “there is no remaining credibility for the mindedness to be trusted in perceptions, inferences, deductions, conclusions.” It just means that KF’s interpretive worldview no longer has credibility. KF is confusing “mindedness” for his interpretation because he cannot, apparently, see beyond his particular interpretation, or even see it as an interpretation. Indeed, he has insisted his worldview arrangement is not an interpretation, but is itself “manifestly” present in the experience itself.

    However, dream-world experiences of embodiment and a physical world show us that these experience are open to interpretation; he interprets one set of experiences as “manifestly” that of an independent-of-mind material/physical world, and the other as and internal experience generated by mental thought/information. This example clearly demonstrates that both are categorical interpretations of the experience of embodiment and physicality.

    The idea that the category of mental experiences we used to call the independent material world is is just that – a category of mental experiences, without the unnecessary baggage of there being an actual independent material world that also must be explained – in no way diminishes or undermines the absolute nature of logic or math in those experiences; in fact, the theory holds logic and math as being that which undergirds and regulates all sentient experience. It is that which processes information into the experience of embodiment and physicality.

    KF’s responses come from his vague concept of “mindedness” as if all of mind is one kind of mental protoplasm. We are internally aware of entirely different categories of mental experience. Compare logic and math to imagination. These are categorically different and nobody here mistakes one for the other, or finds that because we also have imagination, or experience hallucinations or have perceptual errors, this also means the credibility of logic and math is undermined. That’s nonsense.

    So, reinterpreting embodiment and the “waking physical world” as also 100% mental experience simply makes it another category of mental experience. It doesn’t mean it produces self-referential delusion any more than admitting that because logic and math are internal, mental experiences they lead to self-referential delusion. That’s absurd.

    In much the same manner that we realize, with math and logic, that we are sharing an entirely internal, mental experience among all observers (experiencers,) we can posit that what we call a shared, physical world is a similarly shared set of processed mental information. We can and do obviously share abstract, mental information in the form of logic and math; there is no reason why that would be the only mental information we have shared, group experience of.

    Generally, in non-quantum science, we are examining this shared experiential world, one category of mental experience. With quantum and information theory science, we are examining the nature of the pre-experiential information itself, which can only be characterized as informational potential, not as “matter” or “energy,” which are themselves experiential expressions of the informational potential.

    So, there is no indicated “grand delusion.” Logic and reason are not undermined in the slightest. The only thing here that is undermined is KF’s particular interpretation, what his entire ontological/epistemological worldview depends on.

  73. 73

    WJM you need to find out what the logic is that is used in ordinary common discourse, which is the creationist conceptual scheme, and then precisely explain the difference between that, and your IRT theory. Build a bridge from common discourse understanding to IRT understanding.

    You yourself use ordinary common discourse in daily life, like we all do. So then you say one thing is true with the logic used in ordinary common discourse, and then you say something else is true, with the logic of IRT theory.

    That is ofcourse duplicity, lying, if you say different things are true simultaneously. That is why you must build a bridge of understanding between common discourse and IRT theory.

  74. 74
    kairosfocus says:

    WJM:

    First, IRT does not cast embodiment or our experience of physicality into doubt

    Yes it does, that is regrettably plain from your own words. This begins to look like equivocation, similar to your attempt to idiosyncratically redefine what it means to be embodied. Where, no you do not get to personalise standard usage as though it were the dubious suggestion of the other you disagree with.

    You have already been adequately answered that first your scheme undercuts validity of any observations and reasoning, much less scientific ones. Further, I find it almost amusing but then sad to see the way things like quantum theory are seized upon to try to deny that solidity, liquidity, gaseousness and associated physical entities and interactions somehow go poof. Drawing out microstructure does not change how a solid body retains volume and shape up to elastic deformation, etc.

    Nor is it a typical view of modern or contemporary physics that the physical world is not independent of our particular perceptions etc.

    And more.

    KF

  75. 75

    I want to complain again about the lack of acknowledgement of subjectivity, in all of this.

    It is all just about objectivity. While atheists have an excellent acceptance of objectivity, with the scientific method. To a very high level of technological achievement.

    There is basically no problem at all with objectivity.

    Subjectivity on the other hand is getting totally destroyed by atheists.

    People are having very severe problems with subjectivity, as shown by the very high level of mental illness among college students. And just the all round bad subjective judgements of students.

  76. 76
    AnimatedDust says:

    I found this helpful, based on a link you gave, WJM.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0ztlIAYTCU

    KF, you need to watch this, and then explain how it’s wrong. Show your work. WJM, have you seen this? Seems to be the 101 of IRT.

  77. 77
    AnimatedDust says:

    They obviously think that this is emergent, without a necessary creator. I think it quite vindicates BA77 and Jesus Christ as the theory of everything. This screams primary designer and that it all just happened accidentally is to contort away from the obvious.

  78. 78
    kairosfocus says:

    AD, pardon, but there is not much there there, given that we are dealing with two widely divergent issues. Your linked video starts with crystallography, which discipline takes the independent, observable physical world and contents including atoms, ions, crystals and amorphous solids seriously, also taking the testimony of our senses and first facts seriously.* Despite projections of strawman caricatures, it is clear enough that WJM has advocated in effect a modified, networked panpsychism, which starts by exploiting the fact that our experience is self-aware to suggest or invite that our first facts of experience, of being embodied in a wider world independent of our particular perceptions and views, are dubious or delusional. Notice, his reaction to the standard meaning of the term, embodiment; he cannot concede that the general prevailing common sense understanding of our race, embedded in the standard meaning of relevant words — for cause — is that we are living self-aware, rational, communicative creatures of bodily form who experience a common world, starting with the first facts of our conscious self- and world- awareness. On either case, his view is self-referential and inviting of plato’s cave style grand delusions in a cascade. Such views are self-referential and self-discrediting as one’s own perceptions are caught up in the web too. KF

    *PS: Yes, the narrator goes on to talk about a research group’s speculations on “all of reality” as a case of 8 –> 4 –> 3 + t projection, but instantly all of reality is another monism, physicalism which is self-referentially discrediting by implicitly reducing free responsible reason to GIGO-limited computation on a dynamic-stochastic substrate. Yes they talk of consciousness as a new element but in fact it is an old one, the world and underlying reality must be such that free responsible rational physicists who are morally governed creatures can exist. That precludes physicalism, for reasons as outlined. More can be said but this should be enough for practical purposes.

  79. 79
    kairosfocus says:

    PPS: BTW, since C19, there has been a well known framework for the value of c, starting with the wave equation for electromagnetic waves, the dielectric constant and magnetic permittivity of free space. That is, light was found to be a form of electromagnetic waves which — per the mathematics of waves in a medium — propagates at a speed set by basic properties of space itself. And yes space itself is a physical entity with definite properties. Further to such, Wiki can be called as witness to the current state of affairs:

    The speed of light in vacuum, commonly denoted c, is a universal physical constant important in many areas of physics. Its exact value is defined as 299792458 metres per second (approximately 300000 km/s, or 186000 mi/s [–> more useful, 300 m/microsecond]).[Note 3] It is exact because, by international agreement, a metre is defined as the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1 / 299792458 second.[Note 4][3] According to special relativity, c is the upper limit for the speed at which conventional matter, energy or any signal carrying information can travel through space.

    Though this speed is most commonly associated with light, it is also the speed at which all massless particles and field perturbations travel in vacuum, including electromagnetic radiation (of which light is a small range in the frequency spectrum) and gravitational waves. Such particles and waves travel at c regardless of the motion of the source or the inertial reference frame of the observer. Particles with nonzero rest mass can approach c, but can never actually reach it, regardless of the frame of reference in which their speed is measured. In the special and general theories of relativity, c interrelates space and time, and also appears in the famous equation of mass–energy equivalence, E = mc^2.[4] In some cases objects or waves may appear to travel faster than light (e.g. phase velocities of waves, the appearance of certain high-speed astronomical objects, and particular quantum effects). The expansion of the universe is understood to exceed the speed of light beyond a certain boundary.

    The vid’s remarks on the speed of light are a bit of a clanger given something as accessible as this. As for wider suggestions on theories of everything, pardon my wait-see attitude.

  80. 80
    William J Murray says:

    AD @76,

    Yes, I’ve seen that video. The video is a good way of seeing how difficult coming to an understanding of these concepts is, and how difficult it is to even use common language in trying to describe these things.

  81. 81
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: On reality is made of information, it would be a fairer summary that it is framed mathematically. Where, mathematics — cf here [this came up earlier in the L&FP series] — has two poles: the substance of structure and quantity, and the study of such. A core of that structure is built into any possible world, starting with distinct identity, giving math utter universality tied to logic of being for any possible world. Other aspects specify a given world, in effect its particular framework, and in our case reflect fine tuning in many ways. Much of this will be quantitative and structural, often as intelligible laws such as those of thermodynamics. Where energy is the currency of time, events occur as constrained by energy flow dynamics, tied to causal-temporal patterns. This framework points to design of our world in ways that enable terrestrial planet, C-chem, aqueous medium cell based life starting with element abundance with H He C O topping the list and N nearby. H is root, He is gateway to the periodic table through stellar fusion etc, O gives us water, C gives us organic chem, N gives us proteins. These being highly information rich molecules. KF

    PS: Functionally specific information can also be found in special configurations.

    PPS: That we find a lawful cosmos with fine tuning points to design, it does not require or promote a simulation-world. Note, energy and mass are interchangeable and energy flow is at the heart of time. Indeed, the type of cosmos we see points away from what would be the likeliest sim world on a multiverse type model, a Boltzmann brain fluctuation.

    PPPS: Energy can be associated with ordering or organisation but also with disorder and chaos, indeed the 2nd law is about a trend to dissipate concentrations of energy. Energy has distinct characteristics from information, in short, and a rhetoric pivoting on staged mini debates lost by modern Simplicios does not hack it as a serious discussion.

  82. 82
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: we can readily observe that the basic point on proofs and their limits clearly stands.

  83. 83
    kairosfocus says:

    WJM, framing physics in a worldviews context is hardly relevant to the matter of first steps in reasoning informed by first truths, first facts, first principles and duties. One, however must creep before one walks much less runs and flies. Considerable knowledge base at civilisation level has to be developed to get to the point where physics is a possible discipline. And, such is not done at serious level by ordinary people with equivalent of high school diplomas. You have compared creeping with space flight and rocket science. KF

  84. 84
    William J Murray says:

    One of the interesting aspects of the video AD referred to was in their explanation of what information is: information is meaning. What is meaning? All meaning is derived from comparison and contrast. This goes back to the fundamental principles of logic: identity, excluded middle and non-contradiction. There is no comparison, thus no meaning, without those principles at the root of it.

    Also, meaning only exists in a conscious mind. It is observed and experienced by individuals who live in a logical “world” (fundamental principles) where comparisons and contrasts can be drawn. It also requires what is experienced a consistent sequence of experiences, which is developed in another set of mental phenomenal we call “memory.” These comparative and contrasting sequences of experience might be said to provide meaning to the conscious mind, but, under the theory, this is not what is actually going on. Meaning, in its broadest sense (from basic logical principles) is an essential commodity for the very existence of consciousness.

    From a non-temporal perspective, consciousness, meaning and the reality that must exist to support that meaning can be said to be eternally coexistent. From the theory, which corresponds to my IRT, all possible meanings are being simultaneously experienced in “universal” consciousness.

    Exploring this a bit further, particular meanings require both a particular “character” and corresponding context providing the necessary comparisons and contrasts. This might be best expressed in literary terms with various kinds of conscious characters and contexts that express the meaning of that character’s life, so to speak. The lover, the sage, the caregiver, the rebel, the everyman, etc, and various mixtures of these general character archetypes.

    According to the implications of this theory, the realities we experience are not only the physical “manifestation” of this meaning, but it also accounts for much of emotional and psychological reactions and a many of our own thoughts: they are the expressions of this mixture of meaning, of your internal, usually subconscious, idea of who, what and where you are, and what you are doing and why.

    It’s kind of interesting to interact with people and assess what kind of character traits they have from this perspective – how they see things, organize them, their reactions, etc.

  85. 85
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Kairosfocus
    WJM, framing physics in a worldviews context is hardly relevant to the matter of first steps in reasoning informed by first truths, first facts, first principles and duties.

    🙂 Imagine a child playing a computer game and by chance has touched few keys and appeared a line of code and is very proud of him and tell everyone what he discovered that the game is not a game …

  86. 86
    kairosfocus says:

    WJM, meaning comes from mind but readily finds expression in functional manipulation of things in the world, e.g. when we talk we manipulate vibrations to transmit meaningful sounds. Similarly, we create tools, buildings and many artifacts including those of information technology. Such, we are using to interact over a global information structure, the Internet. In this case such involves typing — use of our hands and equipment that expresses information using a keyboard — and coded alphanumeric signals. The living cell has in it coded alphanumeric algorithmic information, in D/RNA. And so, meaning may be expressed in the physical world, acquiring a degree of independence of us. KF

  87. 87

    All besides the point argumentation. The problem area is subjectvity, not objectivity.

    The logic used in common discourse with subjective opinions, like to say that something is beautiful, is that a subjective opinion is chosen, and that the opinion expresses what it is that makes a choice.

    Which means the spirit makes choices, and is identified with a chosen opinion.

    From this derives the creationist conceptual scheme:
    1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
    2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact

    So we obtain the fundamentals of reasoning, the concepts of opinion and fact, from the creationist conceptual scheme.

    The creationist conceptual scheme, engrained as it is in common discourse understanding of things, should be recognized as the default.

    It is very obvious that the people who throw out subjectivity and emotions, predominantly atheists, but including many religious, are the people that are causing the systemic problems.

    The people who argue God is a neccessary objective being, betray their wrong philosophy by that they do not acknowledge human emotions, on a properly subjective basis.

    It betrays that their argument for God as a neccessary objective being, is an argument against subjectivity in general, and not just an argument against subjectivity in regards to God.

    And because of this philosophy, atheists get a free pass in their largescale destruction of subjectivity, because they are not opposed for it by the religious.

    It then makes perfect sense that an ideology like nazism could have taken hold, in a country where the vast majority was educated in Christianity, because the religious did nothing much to teach that personal character is a subjective issue, and not a matter of biological fact.

    The evidence clearly shows that lack of acceptance of subjectivity is what causes societal catastrophy, and not this lack of acceptance of objectivity, proof.

  88. 88
    kairosfocus says:

    MNY, topsy-turvy. KF

Leave a Reply