One of the reasons I didn't like the article you linked to was how poorly I thought it described the issues you are talking about above. I guess the point it was trying to make was that there are, after all, good reasons why a deterministic system might be unpredictable. That brings me back to my previous statements

It feels intuitively to me that in some, many, most? cases unraveling cause is not possible even in theory. It's not just a case of being ignorant. Part of that feeling is a conviction that sufficiently complex systems, even those that are theoretically "caused," could not be unraveled with the fastest supercomputer operating for the life of the universe. There is a point, isn't there, where "completely outside the scope of human possibility" turns into "not possible even in theory." Seems to me there is. — T Clark

If something is completely unpredictable, does it still make sense to say it is caused. Isn't cause inextricably tied up with prediction? — T Clark

I just don't see how it makes any sense to say something is deterministic if it can't be used to determine, i.e. predict, something. A quick survey of the web on this issue shows that a lot of other philosophers have felt the way I do, although the majority seem to disagree with my position.

In another thread, @Wayfarer recommended the following book - Baggott, Jim. Farewell to Reality: How Modern Physics Has Betrayed the Search for Scientific Truth (p. 8). Pegasus Books.

It was really helpful. It is broken into two parts - the authorized story and the realm where Baggot thinks physics has gone off the tracks. The part I liked best was the first. His explanations of the Standard Model, the Higgs field and boson, symmetry breaking, and the evidence for the Big Bang and Dark Matter answered questions that have bothered me for a long time.

His writing is clear and simple but not too simple. He shows enthusiasm for science without any Gee Whiz.

In the past I've said that epistemology belongs as part of metaphysics along with ontology. Actually, at heart, when I say that there's no difference between determinism and predictability maybe I'm taking the first step in arguing that there's no difference between ontology and epistemology. — T Clark

I get the feeling I've stepped off a cliff with this statement. On the forum, unlike in roadrunner cartoons, I have time to step back before I fall. I'll say it differently - just throwing out the words "ontology" and "epistemology" doesn't really respond to my posts. It doesn't really say anything. How about a bit more in depth response.

Are you familiar with this guy? — frank

To a certain extent. Actually, his name comes up a lot when you type "determinism vs. predictability" on the web. How is he specifically relevant?

Probability is a way of expressing prediction, but it doesn't apply to unique events. Trying to squash the concept to fit leads to the conclusion that the outcome of any particular event had a 100% chance of happening. — frank

We're talking about predictability, not probability. Again, how is this relevant to the issue as I've laid it out?

"Determinism" is easily ambiguous, because it can be used in both an ontological and an epistemological sense.

"Predictability" is only used in an epistemological sense.

If we're using "determinism" in the epistemological sense, it makes to see it as synonymous with predictability.

If we're using "determinism" in the ontological sense, it's definitely different than predictability. — Terrapin Station

In the past I've said that epistemology belongs as part of metaphysics along with ontology. Actually, at heart, when I say that there's no difference between determinism and predictability maybe I'm taking the first step in arguing that there's no difference between ontology and epistemology.

Not ready for that in this discussion.

OP Part 2

First, some definitions. Here are some definitions of “determinism” from various places:

• This is from the article Wittgenstein linked to - “A system is deterministic just in case the state of the system at one time fixes the state of the system at all future times. A system is indeterministic just in case it is not deterministic.”
• Causal determinism is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature.
• Determinism is the understanding that all events, including moral choices, are completely determined by previously existing causes.

I want to be clear that I am talking about a strong determinism - protons bouncing off of each other, not the kind of determinism that comes from people being affected by their genetics and environment.

Here is a definition of predictability from the Wikipedia – “Predictability is the degree to which a correct prediction or forecast of a system's state can be made either qualitatively or quantitatively.”

OK, down to business. Here is what the linked article says:

It has often been believed that determinism and predictability go together in the sense that deterministic systems are always predictable. Determinism is an ontological thesis. Predictability – that the future states of a system can be predicted – is an epistemological thesis…. However, a closer look reveals that determinism and predictability are very different notions. In particular, in recent decades chaos theory has highlighted that deterministic systems can be unpredictable in various different ways.

The article does talk about Chaos theory a bit and I think it might be helpful to discuss it. I may bring it up later.

Looking on the web, turns out I’m not the first to raise the determinism vs. predictability issue. There’s a lot to look through. Here’s a link to an article I found that had something in particular to say. Its called “Determinism and the Paradox of Predictability.”

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10670-009-9199-1

Here’s what the authors say:

The inference from determinism to predictability, though intuitively plausible, needs to be qualified in an important respect. We need to distinguish between two different kinds of predictability. On the one hand, determinism implies external predictability, that is, the possibility for an external observer, not part of the universe, to predict, in principle, all future states of the universe. Yet, on the other hand, embedded predictability as the possibility for an embedded subsystem in the universe to make such predictions, does not obtain in a deterministic universe.

I didn't read the whole article. I just liked/hated the first sentence so much I wanted to use it. I say “bologna.” Well, no, that’s a bit strong, but, as you can see from the quotes in my first post, I don’t agree.

I liked the article too. I had never heard of Peirce until I watched the Bryan Magee interview on American pragmatists. @jamalrob linked to the Magee interview series last week.

According to Magee, it’s pronounced “Purse.”

I wouldn't be so quick to generalize there. I'd bet plenty believe that the god of different religions isn't any different. They'd think that the differences are relics of the "translations" basically. — Terrapin Station

I think you’re probably right.

i.e.. Nothing 'exists' before it is conceptualized/languaged/ thinged by humans within their socially evolving language. Even the 'thing' we call 'time' only 'exists' relative to human planning purposes, such that 'things existing before human observers' is a useful process we operate NOW, in which we picture a primative world in our mind eye.....This relativistic principle can be applied to any 'thing' conceptualised, from 'rocks' to 'gods', — fresco

I think this a valuable way of looking at things, but most people don’t. I wouldn’t call it “relativistic” though. I think it’s the least relativistic thing possible. As Lao Tzu wrote:

“I don't know who gave birth to [the Tao].
It is older than God.”

Truly, the Christian god is not the same as the Jewish god, and the Muslim god is just yet different from the two. — god must be atheist

That’s what the Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe, but what does God think?

A god which has been in existence forever, must have had some traces of himself or herself before a religion adopted it as its own. — god must be atheist

Some trace, like the world, for example.

Because unlike Gods, the existence of the sun or mount Olympus can be established by their physical presence since they can be seen. — Maureen

Then how about microorganisms. Did Lewenhook bring them into existence?

In other words, before Christianity came about, there may as well have been no Christian God. I will not argue that there could have been a Christian God even before Christianity came about, but unless humans were aware of His presence before the onset of Christianity (which is impossible to determine, but again very unlikely), then no one among us can argue that He existed before then. — Maureen

Christians certainly believe that God existed before their religion did. He created the world. If you don't believe that, you're not really a Christian. If you don't believe in God, or at least a God, your question doesn't make any sense.

Although I don't think this affects the substance of your question, the Old Testament of the Christian Bible was written long before the birth of Christ. Judaism has been around for ~4,000 years.

Also, it would be very helpful if you would put more paragraph breaks in your posts. Without the breaks, they are much harder to read.

Cute and nice. I used to be mean, whereas now... oh, shut the fuck up. — S

This seems really familiar, but wasn't there something about a frog?

I think that the term is meant in a more colloquial sense. He seems to imply that they're necessarily coercive. I don't know that that is the case necessarily, but most political organizations are a little too coercive by my estimation. Granted, I mostly just mill about the Left, but I can't imagine that the Right could at all be better. — thewonder

Hows about you define just exactly what a "racket" is in this context.

Most do not commonly read with "dedicated analysis" — Grre

I was thinking about my statement and I realized that I'd left something out. I do most of my reading on Kindle and the ability to look up words and references on the fly has changed my enjoyment of reading. Many of the writers I really like use very extensive vocabularies. When I follow the links I often find myself taking a journey away from the story. When I read history or historic fiction, I can look up the kings of England and see who is related to whom and who killed whom. It's funny, I was reading a real book a few weeks ago and I found myself pushing on the page to get a definition.

difficult to comprehend book like Heart of Darkness. — Grre

I always thought HoD was a pretty straightforward adventure story. I love it because of the moral depth, and I can imagine lots of people not liking it, but it never struck me as hard to understand.

I personally, try to afford the classics/cannon the analysis they deserve when I read them that is, and that too, prevents me from reading them casually; — Grre

There are so many non-classic, non-canon books that I have loved and that moved me that I've never had that problem.

Is it possible to earn money (enough to live, not a lots of money) being philosopher? Is teaching in class the only way to make money with Philosophy? — John Pingo

Some thoughts, not really answering your question, but I think they're relevant:

The son of a neighbor, whom I've known for 35 years, got a philosophy degree from a small liberal arts college in New England. Now he's a construction project manager working for a very large construction company. He's responsible for $100 million projects. He says that philosophy taught him how to think. It wasn't the philosophy that got him where he is, he's a dynamic, ambitious man who would have been successful wherever he went.

Then let's take me. I am neither dynamic nor ambitious. I dropped out of school after 3 years and worked at several kinds of jobs - warehouse, cabinetmaker. Finally I went back and got my engineering degree. Now, after 30 years as an engineer I'm mostly retired. I can afford to do that because engineering is well paying. I'm really lucky that I'm good at math and science. I was really meant to be an engineer and engineering is a good career. It doesn't necessarily take a lot of initiative, although I'm not a complete slugabed. There are different engineering career paths for different types of people. I was lucky. If I hadn't become an engineer, I think my life would have been much poorer and less secure.

What's the lesson I take from this? If you are a dynamic or talented person who will find a place for yourself no matter what you do, take whatever you want in college if you decide to go. If not, learn something that will allow you to make a decent living in a business that is reasonably secure. Yeah, I know, easier said than done. As I said, I was lucky.

The Wild Hunt and related folklore show up in a lot of fantasy stories. See Jim Butcher's Dresden books and Kevin Hearne's Iron Druid books, which are well written and enjoyable.

but despite the fact all these books are powerful, memorable, complex, and beautifully orchestrated, they are hard. We read Heart of Darkness in my grade 12 english class (I was only in grade 11 at the time) and while after a few dedicated anaylsis, I finally understood its deeper meaning and beauty, 99% of my class did not, most could not even make sense of the first page. That is what I hate most about the literary canon, the fact that unless you are already a highly skilled and dedicated reader, great at abstract thought, comprehension, focus, vocabulary, and critical thinking-then yes, these books are ten times more rewarding than say, picking up a pocket novel romance erotica...but majority of people, especially children in classrooms, are not prepared for the literary master pieces coming their way — Grre

I've never seen it this way. "Les Miserables" in French was hard, but that was a special case. I don't, and never have, read with any kind of "dedicated analysis." I don't worry about symbolism and allegory. If a book doesn't move me without a lot of regurgitation, I won't finish it unless someone makes me. I read what I read and like what I like. "Tom Sawyer" was not hard, but I never loved it. "Crime and Punishment" was terrible, awful, depressing, bleak. I tried to reread it recently but I kept laughing. It was similar when I tried to reread "The Trial." Shakespeare? Sometimes he's fun to read. I like his sonnets. Just the way the words sound and feel can be wonderful.

Bust most of what I read is not classic. I still read a lot of science fiction and fantasy and there are lots of wonderful, meaningful, moving books in those genres - Anne Leckie's Ancillary trillogy, "Titus Groan", Lev Grossman's Magicians trilogy, "The Martian".....

And then there's poetry, and non-fiction....

It was doing what all butterflies do - probing with its proboscis, apparently looking for a meal of sweet nectar. I don't know why this happened but a few thoughts crossed my mind...it was not the right time for a butterfly, night had fallen; my hand was not a flower and so not the right place. The poor butterfly was completely unaware of the futility of its efforts and refused to either stop probing my palm for nectar or even fly away for a better opportunity elsewhere. — TheMadFool

This reminds me of a wonderful poem by Robert Frost - "Design." It even has a bit of the tone of your post. Even a little of the rhythm. A heal-all is a plant.

I found a dimpled spider, fat and white,
On a white heal-all, holding up a moth
Like a white piece of rigid satin cloth--
Assorted characters of death and blight
Mixed ready to begin the morning right,
Like the ingredients of a witches' broth--
A snow-drop spider, a flower like a froth,
And dead wings carried like a paper kite.

What had that flower to do with being white,
The wayside blue and innocent heal-all?
What brought the kindred spider to that height,
Then steered the white moth thither in the night?
What but design of darkness to appall?--
If design govern in a thing so small.

Is the above idea realistic/practical/good or not :wink: — TheMadFool

In English, and all other languages I assume, there are always at least several different ways to say something. Actually, maybe not exactly the same thing. Antonyms rarely have exactly the same meaning. Even if their definitions are the same, there are nuances, implications, moods that differ. That gives language a lot of subtle power.

Beyond that, "not good" is not the same as "bad."

On the other hand, one of my favorite word usages came from Saturday Night Live back in the 1990s.

Hah. That's nothing. Try translating prescribed Latin texts for a Higher qualification. — Amity

I wasn't saying that it was difficult, although it was. My point was that it was an unnatural way for me to read so my impression of Hugo's writing is suspect.

Consider me a T Clark stalker — Amity

Thank you.

'Ausgezeichnet' is a favourite of mine. — Amity

"Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzung" and "faust handschuh."

You're really searching back through the rubbish bin, I mean archives.

There was one author that I did like not of the science fiction etc variety. I do not remember who but someone who knew me, was an avid reader of novels etc, suggested I read Victor Hugo. I gave it a try (The Man Who Laughs) and have since read other novels by him. I know he is a famous novelist, one English LIt graduate said to me one Victor Hugo is worth 10 F Scott Fitzgerald. I have read the Great Gatsby and thought - bla - but not Victor Hugo - he grappled with what I thought were genuine issues. I simply know they are both famous novelists. Is there something about Victor Hugo that sets him apart? — Bill Hobba

Unfortunately, the only Hugo I've read is "Les Miserables," which I read in French in high school. The only Fitzgerald I've read is "The Great Gatsby," which didn't move me. I also read that as a high school assignment, in English this time. Since then, I've read many famous books. Some I liked, some I didn't. A few I loved. One, "Heart of Darkness," I've read four or five times in addition to listening to an audiobook.

Let me put in a plug now for LibriVox, which has free downloadable audiobooks of writing in the public domain read by volunteers, some of whom are wonderful. I also listened to William James' "Pragmatism," which I highly recommend.

As for science fiction, I have read hundreds of books over the years. It's the first thing I started reading for pleasure when I was ten or 11. The first I really remember is "A Wrinkle in Time." I think the one that meant the most to me was the "Foundation" trilogy. I bought "Foundation" for my son for Christmas a few years ago and took the opportunity to read it again. It definitely doesn't hold up after 55 years. Asimov was not a very good writer.

Three rules:

• Read what you like by authors you like.
• Never, never read anything Russian. Actually, I really enjoyed "War and Peace."
• If you want to read famous classics, remember, you get just as much credit for reading short books as you do for long ones. Another good reason to read "Heart of Darkness."

In other words, all these assumptions but it goes back to existential attitudes like the very ones I bring up. — schopenhauer1

I think I know where you come from and you know the same for me. After a few tries, we've found that we're not going to convince each other of our positions. I'm comfortable with that.

I was teasing you. It was intended to be friendly teasing.

Oh @schopenhauer1, you're such a knucklehead. You can't fool us. We know this is just Antinatalism, Take 73.

Ah, but suppose there is something unique to our little sector of the galaxy which makes it the only habitable place for advanced life. In that case, two alien civs bumping into each other wouldn't seem so remote. Is this little patch of the Milky Way we're in that special? — RogueAI

No, you've misunderstood how things work on the forum. Here's the way it's supposed to work - You tell me I'm wrong, and then I make up lame excuses why I'm right after all.

With regards to a complicated system, l have found the following article whose link is below quite useful. From what l have understood partially is that, a deterministic system can be unpredictable because the uncertainty and the error in the initial measurement of the system will cause drastic change in the calculated outcome. — Wittgenstein

Thanks for the link. I downloaded the article and I've read through it quickly. I'll go back now and spend more time with it. It addresses issues I've thought a lot about in different terms than normally use.

My first take is that the idea that determinism and predictability are not the same isn't correct, or at least is not a useful distinction. As I said in an earlier post -

It feels intuitively to me that in some, many, most? cases unraveling cause is not possible even in theory. It's not just a case of being ignorant. Part of that feeling is a conviction that sufficiently complex systems, even those that are theoretically "caused," could not be unraveled with the fastest supercomputer operating for the life of the universe. There is a point, isn't there, where "completely outside the scope of human possibility" turns into "not possible even in theory." Seems to me there is. — T Clark

We can talk more after I've spent more time with the article.

When two alien civs discover each other, each will have to deal with the following disjunctive proposition: "Either there are only two advanced races in the galaxy who happen to find themselves right next to each other OR there are more than two advanced races in the galaxy". They can't both be true, and since the probability "two advanced races in the galaxy happen to find themselves right next to each other" is exceedingly unlikely, the disjunct is therefore exceedingly likely: "there are more than two advanced races in the galaxy". — RogueAI

Makes sense to me. Independently evolved advanced species in close proximity supports a prediction that the population of advanced species in the galaxy is relatively large (relative to a scenario where distances between advanced species is great). With a large population and without evidence that our civilization is more advanced than the norm, it is reasonable to expect other advanced civilizations in the vicinity and that the distance to the nearest civilization more advanced than us is relatively short. — JosephS

You two talked me into it. I think you're right.

Now why did this happen - teachers should never dismiss comments - they might seem wrong or silly, but it should be explained why. These days I am a believer in teaching by a Harkness table where everyone contributes and all ideas are subject to critical analysis. I think that is the key. You must learn to think for yourself with the teacher as a facilitator. — Bill Hobba

I am a reader and was always meant to be one. I believe it was inevitable. I'm just a very verbal person. If no one had ever encouraged me or read to me, I think I still would be the reader I am today. For others, I'm sure it's different. You seem to be evidence for that.

It's always seemed to me that it would make sense to let people read things that are relevant to what they are really interested in. I read "Silas Marner," "Leningen vs. the Ants," "To Start a Fire," "By the Waters of Babylon," and a lot of other stories considered to be significant literarily. I liked some, didn't like others, but it didn't divert me from where I was headed. For people not predestined to be readers as I was, I can see how it would have been discouraging.

In terms of the question you appear to be going for, it does becomes a cultural thing for some. Dressing and presenting up as “feminine” as possible. This kind of culture has the same kind of problem did does amongst cisgender roles. Cis gender roles get in trouble for insisting someone only come in the particular shapes, such roles within trans culture have the some problem of ignoring the existing of women who fall outside those standards. Just like a cis gender role claiming the absurdity that a woman with short hair and pants is not women/less of a woman, the trans version ignores woman come in al shapes and sizes. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I don't have any problem with what you're saying. My comment that you're responding to is this:

Intuitively I would think that a transgender woman would want very much to fit in with societal gender roles. That would sort of be the whole point. Again, I'm talking about something where I don't have much experience. — T Clark

This still seems right to me. If a man is going through all the difficulties it requires to become and be accepted as a women, it just seems to me she would want to be considered a woman as typically defined in society at large. That's my intuition. More than that, it's what I feel when I try to place myself in their shoes. Yes, of course, it is a bit presumptuous for me to think I can do that, but it's disrespectful for me not to try.

I posted a long reply, went to edit it, and the whole thing disappeared. — RogueAI

Yeah, I read your first post but didn't respond right away.

The probability the only two advanced species in the galaxy are near each other is very low. Therefore, it's probable there are more than two advanced species in the galaxy. If you run into a nearby one, you can conclude there are probably a lot, which raises the possibility of one nearby you. — RogueAI

This doesn't make any sense to me.

If the probability "advanced alien life exists" increases to essentially 1, then the probability "alien life more advanced than me exists" also increases. — RogueAI

Ok, but I don't get the rest of your inference.

They're safe assumptions. — RogueAI

I don't think so. They seem more like fantasy to me.

An advanced alien civ is going to be concerned with self-preservation and will have the tech and means to send probes out to nearby interesting planets and keep tabs on any lifeforms there. The art of war won't be any different for aliens, and a first principle is "know your enemy". — RogueAI

I don't know that this is incorrect, but I don't have any reason to believe that it's true. I don't think you know either.

I don't know what will happen if we ever come in contact with an intelligent non-human species. My first take is that, since, as far as we can tell, faster than light travel is not possible, we won't have much to offer each other and probably won't have much reason to be a threat to each other. I'm certainly not sure of that, but it seems more likely than the scenario you have laid out.

1. If an advanced alien civ discovers a nearby advanced civ, the probability there's another nearby advanced civ increases dramatically. — RogueAI

I don't see why this is necessarily so.

2. It follows from (1) that the probability of there being a more powerful nearby alien civ also increases.

Again - I don't see why this is so.

3. Advanced alien civs are likely to be keeping an eye on things in their local neighborhood.

Maybe, but it's based on a couple of assumptions I don't necessarily think are valid.

4. Therefore, advanced alien civs that come in contact with each other have to assume it's very possible a more advanced civ is observing how the interaction plays out. They have to think it's entirely possible they're playing to an unseen audience.

Again, this is based on assumptions I don't necessarily think are valid.

5. Planets are sitting ducks, and it would be trivially easy for a powerful advanced alien civ to accelerate an asteroid/comet/swarm of projectiles to, say, 10% the speed of light, and hit your planet with it. Powerful advanced alien civs, therefore, are potential existential threats.

Ok.

6. Existential threats are to be avoided at all costs.

Yes.

7. Acting aggressively increases the probability that an unseen powerful alien civ would respond negatively to such aggression.

Maybe

8. Non-aggression, therefore, is the best strategy, if continued survival is a high priority.

I think it's true, but I don't see that it follows from the chain of logic.

But... what I have observed (and read) is that women often establish sexual relationships with other women later in life than gay men do with other men. While a "lesbian" identity seems to be very strong for some women, many women in same-sex relationships don't identify strongly as lesbian or homosexual. — Bitter Crank

That seems consistent with how my daughter lives her life.

Partisan politicians get away with the 10% figure because it sufficiently nebulous to disprove. So, 10% it is. (The percentage of people in the US who identify and perform as gays and lesbians is probably below 4%. Transgendered persons constitute less than 1/2 of 1% (based on surveys). — Bitter Crank

My daughter's intimate personal relationships are with women. I found this out about seven years ago when she was 31. I know she had relationships with men when she was younger. I know she didn't wait till she was 31 to tell my wife and me because she was afraid of our reaction. She knew we wouldn't care and she wouldn't let herself care if we did.

Of course I don't think of her as gay. She's my daughter. I call her gay when the subject comes up because I don't want people to think I'm ashamed or avoiding the subject. She has told me that she doesn't self-identify as gay. I know she's not ashamed of it and isn't afraid to face other people's reactions.

So, where does she fit into the picture?

I've known transsexuals, some of them fairly well. Did I think that they were actually a man/woman in the wrong body? No. Did they seem to benefit from taking testosterone or estrogen, and undergoing plastic surgery? Yes. Does that convince me that they were not deluded? No. — Bitter Crank

I don't think anything you're saying is in conflict with the things I wrote. It's not that I think transgender people are or are not really men or really women, it's that I have no reason not to accept their statement at face value. Except, as I said, sometimes I do - as in the case of the vulnerable 16 year old girl.

There is no doubt in the world that your experience in this area is much greater than mine. I take your opinion seriously.

Currently, dark matter is the hypothesis which best matches the data, but it is still only a hypothesis - it is not established theory. If you could present an alternative explanation that successfully matches all the data and does not involve hypothetical invisible particles, you would go down in history along with Einstein. — EricH

It's not my intention to reopen the dark matter discussion, but I was just reading an article on the web that I thought people might find interesting.

@https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/testing-dama

My point was that scientists definitely consider themselves to be finding out thigns about objective reality. I think there are excellent arguments for this. However I actually think the situation is more complicated and my position is very complicated and I have not even started trying to convey it. — Coben

"Scientists definitely consider themselves to be finding out thigns about objective reality," is clearly not true if by "scientists" you mean "all scientists." As I indicated before, the ideas that we can only know apparent reality, objective reality is a metaphysical concept, and even that objective reality does not exist are not wild and crazy ideas. They are mainstream epistemological understandings about the scientific method. And yes, not everyone agrees. And yes, many people don't understand that the discussion is a metaphysical one and not a matter of true or false.

And that is self-contradictory. If it is merely an opinion, this stil causes problems since one cannot approach the OR (Pattern). And given that the model that one can seems to be working for so many people, why should one switch over to this other opinion that undermines itself? — Coben

I guess we could have a discussion about which approach is most useful and the possible pitfalls of each. Is this the place to do that? Am I ready to have that discussion? Are you interested?

Here in America, we don't say "mu." We say "whatever."

I think I presented my case well in a couple of different ways. That might have an effect or it might not, but I've put in the effort I am willing and I think I did a good enough job for it to be evaluated. A lot of the points raised against my arguments ahve seemed irrelevent. Though I do understand that it is a tricky area of discussion. — Coben

I have found myself doing just what you are doing here recently - giving it my best shot, deciding that I've made my best case, and calling it a day. It's a good way to end a discussion when we've all done the best we can.

Can there be the case where some well-thought scientists think certain philosophical statements make more sense than their modern science's reach, but who do not dare to speak out loud? I have that kind a feeling after watching video interviews of big physicists. I also read some where that people change position (they used the word "retreat to a safer position", such as agnosticism) under harsh media attacks (provoking/luring questions). — Dzung

I get the feeling that most scientists don't spend much time thinking about philosophy at all. To some extent, I think that's because they don't understand the nature of metaphysics and epistemology or their unspoken assumptions about reality.