This statement seems to say 'what I said is correct, even though it doesn't sound right, and if you search the internet you will see why it's right'.But when the argument is made professionally, this point is supported and its basis is completely consistent with current scientific knowledge. If you can't accept that, google is your friend. — Rank Amateur
Most people, not being trained in Kolmogorov's formulation of probability theory would agree with you. But the more one learns about the foundation of probability theory, the more one realises that every statement about probabilities is based on a model, and is not truth-apt. Even if one accepted it as truth-apt and true, one would be going a lot further out on a limb to say it was a fact, which implies it is directly observable. How could we ever directly observe that the probability is one in six? We'd have to roll the dice infinitely many times and, even then, we could only make a statement about the probability that the probability was 1 in 6.I propose the probability of rolling a 1 on a fair 6 sided dice is one chance in 6 is a true statement. — Rank Amateur
Most people, not being trained in Kolmogorov's formulation of probability theory would agree with you. But the more one learns about the foundation of probability theory, the more one realises that every statement about probabilities is based on a model, and is not truth-apt. Even if one accepted it as truth-apt and true, one would be going a lot further out on a limb to say it was a fact, which implies it is directly observable. How could we ever directly observe that the probability is one in six? We'd have to roll the dice infinitely many times and, even then, we could only make a statement about the probability that the probability was 1 in 6. — andrewk
What intrigues me about these attempted arguments for God is what a complete deficiency of faith they demonstrate in those that make them. If one truly has faith in one's beliefs, one doesn't need to make arguments for them. — andrewk
Likewise, there are instances where Stephen Hawking indicated his distaste for any cosmological theories that implied the idea of an absolute beginning (see Why Physicists can't Avoid a Creation Event). Here again is an attempt to avoid a disliked metaphysical inference by steering research and consideration away from that direction. — Wayfarer
never let the truth stand in the way of a good story — attributed to Mark Twain
The model wasn't concocted in order to defy religious apologists. — jorndoe
From that abominable start, does it get any better? Are there any pages that are less naive and worth reading? — andrewk
there is no metaphysical reason why we should consider the laws to be fixed — SophistiCat
Isn’t there an empirical reason, namely, that they always are? Could it ever be F=MA(most of the time)? — Wayfarer
I would answer 1 in 6, but that just means that that's what I'd use in calculations about what to bet, in most situations. It's not a truth claim. It's not a fact. It's an assumption I make to help in decision-making. — andrewk
One can be convinced of God by direct experience of Her. If one has had such experience, why waste time on petty, questionable arguments that pale into total insignificance in comparison? — andrewk
Personally I am conflicted about the multiverse notion. I feel that it's probably true, not because of the FTA but rather because I just wonder - if there's one spacetime, why shouldn't there be more? — andrewk
If that works for you, good on you. For other people, going to church, temple or synagogue might work better in which case, good on them as well.If you want to feel spiritual, go look at the stars on a clear night. — Marchesk
That's one of many points on which Paul and I differ radically. I reject that statement utterly.To quote St. Paul "If Christ has not risen, your faith is in vain." — Marchesk
When I came to understand that my religious experiences where being generated by my brain, — Marchesk
The FTA considers the possibility of them being something other than what is empirically observed. I am just saying (and I am not being particularly original here) that we could, with the same justification, vary fundamental laws as well. — SophistiCat
That's one of many points on which Paul and I differ radically. I reject that statement utterly. — andrewk
There is currently no scientific explanation, but it is entirely conceivable that there may be one day. A new, falsifiable, more fundamental theory may be developed that, amongst other things, mandates that the value of the constants must be exactly what they are.What I think we loose sight of, is that science doesn’t explain them; they are simply given. So if there is another level of explanation, then, whatever it might be, it isn’t scientific — Wayfarer
That's one of many points on which Paul and I differ radically. I reject that statement utterly. — andrewk
where some essence of me.... — Marchesk
There is currently no scientific explanation, but it is entirely conceivable that there may be one day — andrewk
No ‘essence of me’ in Buddhism. Arguably, belief in such a thing is the very problem that has to be overcome. — Wayfarer
I would answer 1 in 6, but that just means that that's what I'd use in calculations about what to bet, in most situations. It's not a truth claim. It's not a fact. It's an assumption I make to help in decision-making. — andrewk
Take Rank Amateur's favorite card deck analogy, for example. It is just the kind of toy example where Bayesian analyses (which Collins favors) shine. And it is instructive to consider. I won't bore you with formulas (which are elementary, anyway), but the idea here is that the canonical ordering of cards in a deck is far more likely to be the result of a deliberate action (whether because it was just removed from its factory packaging or because someone deliberately arranged it in order) than of a random shuffling. But we know this because we know something about decks of cards, how they are labeled and handled, and about people and their habits and preferences. We have some rational expectations, or priors, in Bayesian lingo, which are based on our experiences of the world. — SophistiCat
If the possible domain for the gravity constant is only one card, then it is a 100 percent probability that we'd draw that card -- it'd just be a constant, as I've been saying, and evaluating its probability wouldn't mean anything at all.
But if it could be otherwise, then what else could it be? If it can't be otherwise, then there is nothing improbable about the gravity constant being what it is. — Moliere
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.