Evidence that there is a world before animal life which obeys the same laws of physics - red-shift. Evidence that consciousness is not necessary for a quantum system to attain constrained states - ionic bonding.

These are spelled out in my posts.

Probabilistic is not determined. — Rich

Didn't say it was.

There is zero support for determinism.

So you've repeatedly asserted. You are free to deny any evidence that does not convenience your faith.

You and the OP late looking for some hidden variables that are deterministic.

I think hidden variable interpretation is bunk, but it would be an example of deterministic physics if it were the case.

Everything you stated is an observation of yours or the restatement of someone else's observation.

Now, if you find an some observation made 100 million years ago that was made under the exact same conditions that you or someone else made of the same observations, you have some evidence of some kind immutable law and then we can talk about something particularly the conditions of reach observation. As it stands now, all we can say is that science and it's observations are constantly changing, whatever that might entail.

Until you provide such evidence, you are merely sharing your faith with me, which I appreciate and as a rule, I don't discuss faith because faith is not discussable.

The universe hasn't changed in terms of physical laws since animal life emerged.
— fdrake
We have no evidence of this one way or another.

Nothing requires consciousness
— fdrake
No evidence one way or another. — Rich

You seem to be unclear on the difference between evidence and proof. Yes, there is no disproof of idealism, but evidence abounds. It is also illogical to debate idealism since you're having a debate with a consciousness that cannot be experienced, and hence doesn't exist.

I'm very clear. Thank you for sharing your opinion.

I have already addressed this argument. It boils down to the following structure:

1) There is no written record that X influences Y before time t.
2) Therefore there is no evidence that X influences Y.

Let's ignore the idea that written record != evidence. Or the validity of the argument. Because regardless this argument has a false premise when t=now for any of the phenomena we've discussed. But let's throw more words at this in the hope that some get through:

The point of understanding a phenomenon means that you understand it whenever it occurs. For example, there is much the same understanding for ionic bonds irrelevant of when the ionic bonds were formed. Red shifting is a theory evinced in human history whose correctness entails that there was a world before consciousness was there to perceive it. So is the theory of ionic bonds, also for nuclear fusion in stars producing the elements on earth, radio-carbon dating...

Let's take radio-carbon dating as another example. The amount of the unstable isotope of Carbon, Carbon 14, in something can be used to see how long ago the thing stopped exchanging Carbon with the atmosphere. The accuracy of this operation requires that radioactive decay operates from the date the entity stopped exchanging carbon to the present date. There is excellent evidence that this procedure is valid, and is well accepted as providing age estimates of the appropriate order of magnitude among the scientific community. The accuracy of radiocarbon dating implies that there was a world prior to consciousness and that the laws of radioactive decay have been constant in this time. This is also evidence that however nature operates has been the same.

More generally, the operation of the entities within these theories predates the theories, and this universality is part of these theories. They have more than sufficient evidence to warrant belief, so there is more than sufficient evidence to believe there is (was?) a world prior to our consciousness whose laws of physics are the same.

1) There is no written record that X influences Y before time t.
2) Therefore there is no evidence that X influences Y. — fdrake

I never use logic, because I don't like playing that game. Thus, I have no idea where you got this.

You stated that something called laws (I presume you are referring to some equations) never changes over the history of the universe. Let's take one law, any law. Give me the history and show me all like the evidence over any period of time that supports your statement. It's your choice. Go for it.

BTW, you are similar stating what Sheldrake calls the 4th dogma of science. There is no evidence, just faith. But that's up to you to figure out.

You never use logic? :-O

The constancy of nature is a far weaker claim than nature being already described by an immutable set of equations. All that is required are consistent physical phenomena over long time scales. This is exactly what we have on Earth.

Let's take covalent bonding as an example. Whenever you have carbon based life, which is all life (except maybe sulphurous lifeforms at the bottom of the sea) on earth, the molecules and compounds inside it will mostly be covalent bond architectures with some ionic based compounds floating about in them (salts, iron in blood etc). We have good evidence that (almost) all life on Earth is carbon based and WAS carbon based. You can see this from the fossil record. Bones are bones are bones. Plants photosynthesise (chlorophyll compounds).

This is being used to demonstrate A) that there was a world prior to consciousness [fossil record] and B) that there is a theory (carbon based covalent bond architectures) which applies over these timescales.

The significance of A and B to your points is that A') the world doesn't depend on consciousness for its existence and that B') theories which have been evinced during the span of human history (which is all of them) can apply to events before the advent of (human) consciousness.

Aside: your favourite QM also applies seamlessly from 10^-30 secs into the universe's existence and will apply so long as things are sufficiently cool (no unification with gravity).

I know what you believe, what I am asking for is evidence.

It's actually very simple. Just give me an observation dating 100 million years ago under the exact same conditions as now, and we can do the comparison together. Restating your belief system really won't get v us anywhere, though I understand your faith in it, since it is a fundamental dogma of science, but as evidence dogma it's a big zero on a scale of 1 to 100.

Bones of dinosaurs predate humans. Bones of dinosaurs are chemically much the same as human bones. There, an observation of a phenomenon from millions of years ago showing that nature worked the same as it does now.

You can apply the same thing to redshift.

trolllmode: but you can't know there was 100 million years ago since there are no written records from that date, thus your entire post is meaningless.

[

but you can't know there was 100 million years ago since there are no written records from that date, thus your entire post is meaningless. — fdrake

Right. And your posts are simply a regurgitation of a dogma of science. So, you have no evidence. You are just repeating something someone told you and you bought it hook, line, and sinker. You are welcome to your faith. Be good. Enjoyed talking with you.

I find it interesting that you responded solely to the trollish bait. Why isn't the observation of a millions of years old bone with a similar chemical make up and precisely the same physical/chemical mechanisms governing it NOT an observation of something that happened millions of years ago operating under the same physical laws?

The observation of the bone was wonderful. Now all you have to show is that this would have been the same observation 50 million years ago. You have too provide evidence that all laws of nature (again I am assuming you are referring to a handful of equations)) don't change over 15 billion years, not over 50 years. I wish you luck and I think that concludes this discussion.

Now all you have to show is that this would have been the same observation 50 million years ago. — Rich

Why is that what he has to show?

Despite thinking your argument strategy is invalid, and providing a post showing as such, I'll play your game!

1) So you agree it's the same bone now and whenever the dinosaur was alive.
2) So it's made of the same stuff (up to some ageing, the interior of the bone is fine). (from 1)
3) So the stuff at time t and a different time t' is the same. (from 2)
4) Let t be now. Let t' be 200 million years ago.
5) So it's the same now and 200 million years ago. (from 3,4)
6) We observe a covalent bond in a molecule in the interior of the bone now.
7) That covalent bond was there at t'=200 million years ago. (from 5)
8) We observe a covalent bond that formed at least 200 million years ago (from 7)
9) The covalent bond behaves in the same way at t (now) as it did at t' (200 million years ago).(from 3,5,6)
10) We have observed that there is no change in the covalent bond in the molecule over 200 million years. (from 9)
11) We have observed that natures' operations haven't changed in any consistent way since t'=200 million years ago. (from 10)
12) We have observed evidence for the constancy of nature. (from 11)

For some more details on the unsoundness of your argument - the first premise is not true since there are records of these phenomena. The argument is also invalid since a theory can make statements about events which occurred before the inception of a theory and have those be accurate AND evinced. See red-shift and the radio-carbon dating as worked examples if this point is unclear to you.

1) Obviously not. I'm going to try one more of your statements, but after this first one, things are looking bleak.

2) OK. You're again just laying out the dogma.

3) That does it. Bye, bye. It's been a pleasure. Really.

For some more details on the unsoundness of your argument — fdrake

But Rich rejects logic. Rich rejects evidence. Rich rejects inductive method. Rich rejects the burden of proof. You got it, he rejects it.

That the equations that are used now to measure some results are the same results that were observed 5 billion years ago. Preferably the exact same experiment so we can do a reasonable comparison.

I think that post serves as an ad-absurdum for your position. You actually seem committed to the idea that the bone observed now is not the same bone as it was when the dinosaur died, 1 second after it died, 2 seconds ... (lots of dots) now. It might have some different properties due to ageing, but it still displays some permanence over time.

You also seem committed to the non-existence of dinosaurs prior to the advent of human consciousness. If there was no 'observation' without human consciousness there'd be no definite molecular properties, no chemistry... but, alas, we've already been through this.

What I object to is faith being shoved down people's throats. You are entitled to yours (and your's is probably the most dogmatic on the forum), I just don't share it. I even objected to it in school despite the threat of not getting As. So what? I did great in life without being a puppet.

BTW, do you have any evidence for your faith or did you just pop in to give the faithful some moral support, as any priest might and should. Mustn't let the flock wonder from the true faith, right?

No your post is absurd, but I attribute it to your faith. You might as well have popped in with a proof of God, a favorite of those who like to play games. You can't even read for gosh sakes! Talk to your priest. He'll explain it to you. That is why he popped in.

Is it finally over? Really, I know all about the dogmas of science and I'm not converting.

It's a fun watch.





This is the whole talk. Also lots of fun.


https://youtu.be/1TerTgDEgUE

That the equations that are used now to measure some results are the same results that were observed 5 billion years ago. — Rich

What?

That's right, fdrake has to provide evidence of the claim, otherwise it is pure, unadulterated faith and while I am spiritual, I am not religious and I decline all dogma.

dogmatism, noun: the tendency to lay down principles as undeniably true, without consideration of evidence or the opinions of others.

I don't think I have displayed this at all. I even went some of the way to critiquing my position for you by presenting that step by step argument (which I also believed was invalid). Your responses to arguments/sub-arguments are generally one liners with, self admittedly, little to no logic in them; bold assertions.

I probably appear as someone who is part of the oppressive academic consensus to you, but you really know nothing about me. Or about my relationship with @apokrisis (which is largely non-existent, since I think it was a disagreement about long term frequency vs Bayesian probability interpretations 5 years ago).

This is a very convenient defence mechanism, as soon as someone presents a systematic and sustained challenge to your worldview you instantly label them as an out-group threat, rather than engage them in an argument. The latter strategy is really what you expect for a philosophy forum.

As an aside: Rupert Sheldrake's 'science' has been refuted at every turn. His most major contribution is the idea of resonance between morphogenetic fields. Rupert Sheldrake (to my knowledge) has never explained how morphic resonance can occur in real life. Instead linking it to proclivities and selection processes which have already been observed which have been shown not to need morphic resonance to work. The most damning evidence of its irrelevance is that you can't find references to Sheldrake's concept of resonance even within the parts of developmental biology that still entertained morphogenetic fields.

Sorry, I mean I don't understand what this says:

That the equations that are used now to measure some results are the same results that were observed 5 billion years ago. — Rich

What I object to is faith being shoved down people's throats. — Rich

I think you mean education.

I even objected to it in school despite the threat of not getting As. — Rich

Yep. You meant education.

I don't think I have displayed this at all — fdrake

Actually you not only displayed it, but you did so repeatedly.

As for Sheldrake, it's a fun watch, especially about his description of science's intellectual phase locking.

Can you give me some examples of how I have been dogmatic?

Academic education is all about regurgitating for A's. Total waste of time. It should better be called Indoctrination. But whatever. That's life.