↪Caldwell
Does it really do that? What is the actual observation that manages that blow to causality? — Nickolasgaspar

No actual observation -- that's the point. If you believe those who say that the wavelike quantum entities are really gravitons (particles) forced to move like waves due to gravity (cause), then QM needs to explain the role of probability and how absolute space is only a constraint we impose on the description of quantum objects, (as opposed to absolute space is a reality).

Here again, no one is denying that at the larger, slower objects, causality is not an issue. But once we get to a much smaller, speedier entities, another theory is needed. Bohr, I think, supposes that there should be multi-theories, not a single one. (I don't know if this is correct).

↪Caldwell
how those standards are challenged? How does "Duality" challenge the scientific standards of evaluation? — Nickolasgaspar

I don't know. It challenges causality, the gold standard of science.

Can a system that is based on salary replace genuine human kindness? — Wheatley

No, it cannot. There is professional help, and then there's the spiritual and emotional support.

Old fashioned scientists were too innocent to be likened to hardcore physicalists. — theRiddler

Please do tell.

the principles of Methodological Naturalism and doesn't meet the standards of evidence demanded by science (objectivity/independent verification, Demarcation/ tentative nature etc)and unable to offer Accurate descriptions, testable predictions and technical applications. — Nickolasgaspar

The standards of evidence is what's being challenged here. Duality for example.

Does that mean that they can introduce their "epistemology" as science, no they can not.
Science as a method can't be affected or decay. — Nickolasgaspar

And yes, I was referring to economic and then political practices allowing them to present, for example, poor methodolgies and research practices as science. And then effectively paint critics, including scientists, as against science through media that they have much more contol over as a mouthpiece. — Bylaw

I'm trying to reconcile these arguments into something clearer to me. I've been grappling with it since the beginning. What Nickolasgaspar's quote above represents is what the decay critics have been saying. When QMists introduced their theories and postulates into science, they were presented as theories on par with causality, which irritated the critics. But, is this a manipulation similar to what Bylaw above is saying -- sleight of hand scientific practices more in tune with profiteering rather than scientific truth? And is the effect the same -- science deteriorates as a result? And who could tell the difference hundreds of generations from now? Just a thought.

Is the simulation as real as reality even as an in-between with reality, or must it be fake? — TiredThinker

Read BIV - brains in a vat.

.

:wink:

I hope you didn't think I used the word "selling." — James Riley

No I didn't. But the word "magic" triggered "snake oil", and snake oil triggered "selling.

but I never saw the stoic as concerned about money, family, schedules, etc. — James Riley

And here I was, hoping I might find magic in stoicism. Maybe I should forget that shit and just get on with life. Embrace the suck, if you will. — James Riley

On the off chance the Stoics are "selling" something, it's not magic they're selling, but how to deal with the practical concerns of daily life and the world. And yes, they are applicable in today's world. I wish I had my book with me to provide an exact quote, but along the lines of "do not busy yourself with checking out what others have been up to, going to their homes, just to see what they're doing, and call it a productive day". They hate kissing asses to emperors, the governors of towns, celebrities or whatever titles in high society one possesses. If you aren't one of the titled individual now, then take care of what you have, and forget about trying to know what others are doing. (Today, it is like someone living in the social media world where life's affirmation is based on the filtered images presented to you by others as "daily normal life".

I was introduced to Stoicism in my college days -- never regretted one bit of it. It has taken good care of me, I'm happy to say. I work in a demanding, high stress field, but good pay. My brain has to work in top capacity all day. It's high capacity or I'm pretty shot. That's just me.

Not to say that the Stoics promised a life without stress, difficulties, hardships, or unhappiness. It's your attitude towards these events that would determine how your well-being will turn out in the end. They do not believe in life as a cruddy existence -- that belief belongs to the Cynics. But the Stoics believe that there will be bad days from time to time. So save your energy by not complaining about the first world problems -- you know, house too big so internet cannot reach your bedroom, too large to clean, paid gardener not doing a good job in the garden, scratch on the car because you went to the grocery store and someone touched your car with a shopping cart, bitter cucumber, that sort of problems.

What's happening?

If there is no definition of a unit of complexity in mathematics, then does or can the notion of estimating complexity in mathematics, make any sense or even possible? — Shawn

It's not that it wouldn't make any sense, but math calculations are about precision -- how small or large or steep or within the smallest possible error, to the nth degree, or to .oooooooo1 point you can get. You don't talk about how complex it can be.

Don't fall for quotes like "we don't do it cause it's easy, we do it cause it's hard" nonsense.

Do explain why. — baker

There is a fundamental instinct that humans have regardless of their social personalities. "Weakness" is a relative social term, which may or may not play a role in an instinct that would kick in a given situation.

Please re-read the below quote again, and see how the switch from animal instinct to "weak relative to their potential" happens. Is there not a fallacious argument here?

In natural predator-prey relationships if a predator is so strong a hunter it proliferates and the prey population declines, their group gets equally wiped out. Would you say in this sense that weakness is necessary for survival, and thereby there is some good in weak people just in lieu of the fact that they are weak relative to their potential? — kudos

Within the context of a given mathematical system, yes. But there is more than one system, and hence more than one way to define/describe a line. For example, in analytical geometry a line is a collection of points, because that's just how analytical geometry is built up. — SophistiCat

Funny you should mention chess, because chess pieces are a good example of use-definition. A formal description of a chess game would not have a formal definition of a chess piece - it's just an abstract object to which we give a name. Its meaning is given by the use to which it is put in the game: the rules of how different pieces move, etc. — SophistiCat

Let's have consistency at least. Okay, more than one way to describe a line you say. Yet, you dismiss your own statement of "it's just an abstract object to which we give a name" regarding chess. So which is it? Chess exists in a vacuum. A line does not.

First, it only takes two points to make a line. Of course you can put however many points you want -- a collection of points. But we imply distance here, which doesn't change its meaning.

In short, I don't get your point.

I think he asked: Did we invent or did we discover chess? This I read as a parallel to the question of whether math are invented or discovered. — Olivier5

Thanks, @Olivier5

So why is this the case? Are we social/ pack animals or not? Or do humans simply not fit a well- defined category when it comes to the need/ desire for social unity. — Benj96

Solitude and isolation are not the same thing. But often, these two are thought to be interchangeable. A person wanting to be alone doesn't necessarily feel cut off from the rest of social population. At least to me, wanting solitude doesn't mean wanting to be cut off from connections. I feel as happy spending time alone as I am spending time with others. I divide my time between the two situations. And I get satisfaction from either.

But one thing, solitude is a need. Like sleeping is a need.

A line is not usually defined as a distance, if it is defined at all: in some systems it is a primitive element, which is not defined, but merely constrained by the axioms of that system. — SophistiCat

Funny you say this. I won't preface a statement about math objects as "usually". They're just are. Also, interesting that you mentioned constrained by the axioms of the system. Don't you want to direct that statement towards Banno's question regarding chess?

Interesting you would say this. In what ways are they different to you? — kudos

In a way of apples and oranges.

Science decaying in the way an apparatus is decaying? :confused: — Alkis Piskas

Er, no.

The Wuhan Lab cover-up being the most recent and scariest episode. — MondoR

Is this true?

If it is, is it there even when undrawn? — Banno

Correct.

Drawing the line is just a physical representation of the line. And saying it this way is even incorrect. But you get my point.

And Chess was there to be discovered? — Banno

No.

But I agree with W regarding the bridge and contradiction.

It is a mistake to think that because a line can be drawn between two point, that the line is there even if undrawn. — Banno

W is missing the point. A line is a distance. Two points apart entails a distance, therefore a line.

In what way then? :brow: — Alkis Piskas

Like in the way of apparatus. I know. Members here don't like this word apparatus. Cause it sneaks, and before you know it, we're unknowing participants -- believing it's still science. lol. I don't know.
Could someone explore this? Anyone?

Aha! Didn't see that coming! I thought that yourself believed in the deacy of science! OK then, let others believe that! :smile: — Alkis Piskas

Not yet at least. We're in the exploratory mode.

what counts as a person? — Srap Tasmaner

Yeah, typical PKD.

I once called someone I know personally an android. He was puzzled. I didn't elaborate. But I said it cause during the pandemic, I didn't believe he could get the virus if he tried -- he didn't smell like human. He doesn't have a smell in him. Like he's fresh out of a box no matter what time of day. He doesn't get sick. He doesn't crack at all. So, I wasn't worried when I touched whatever he touched.

If I'd known it was harmless, I'd have killed it myself. — Srap Tasmaner

:smile: Guys, was there a disclaimer in the OP that said only serious posts?

So, if science is worthwhile and it seems to be, its decline even if can't be stalled/avoided, can one day be brought back to life, Jesus-like - the interim period would be chronicled as a second episode of the Dark Ages. — TheMadFool

Sounds like a plan.

Weakness is not a biological fact, it's merely a human judgement. — Echarmion

Because kudos is mixing an assumed personality with wild instinct of animals. Incorrect application.

I suppose the question isn't is weakness good, but is weakness also strength in a dialectical kind of way. Like the same way it could be judged as good for a species, it could be viewed as bad. Our sense of it's 'badness' doesn't exist in itself but is sharply contextual. — kudos

Still inappropriate as a means to compare the natural instinct of prey and predators with personalities of people. Categorically incorrect.

Please try again.

Then, in what sense or way do you see the decay of Science? "Decay" can be "a state or process of rotting or decomposition" or it can be "a gradual decline in strength, soundness, or prosperity or in degree of excellence". Other kinds of decay may also exist but I believe that you have in mind the second of the ones I mentioned. — Alkis Piskas

None of the above.

And yes, I'm also trying to get to the bottom of this insane sentiment that science will someday decay. But not necessarily weaken, as an institution. Just to put it in perspective, a bad conglomerate can be strong and prosperous. I think the "decay" part is a metaphor for something that's hard to foresee or just understand. How dare critics insinuate that science can someday decay, no? Preposterous!

Many Naturalists Philosophers point out the epistemically and philosophically useless large volume of publications that are based on unfounded presuppositions that will always remain irrelevant to the rest body of knowledge and wisdom. — Nickolasgaspar

Sorry, but it's not the philosophy's fault that there exist useless large volume of publications that are based on unfounded presuppositions. Just like in all schools of thought, or field of study, there's gonna be works that are useless, or unfounded. Don't blame philosophy, though.

I stated "Science is guarding its field of publications rigorously with the peer review process, something that Philosophy isn't doing at all." This means for a hypothesis to become science, it needs to be objectively verified. Unfortunately in philosophy not many care about verification and on top of that their hypotheses can be based on all different types of auxiliary presuppositions.(Supernatural, theological etc). In science that is not permitted. — Nickolasgaspar

Sorry, this is just wrong. You're misunderstanding the methodology and quality of theoretical building in philosophy. Of course the science has its own way, and philosophy has its own method. But let'ot confuse the two methodologies. I was arguing for the rigour.

Roos Tarpals: Ouch time! — TheMadFool

:grin:

This thread encompasses a vast majority of topics. It should not only be about the literal action of killing bugs but also the implications of the action and my stance regarding the physical pain of those bugs encompassed a variety of points that were addressed. — TheSoundConspirator

Okay, got it.

No. Just the way you said it. Funny.

you're f**ked! — TheMadFool

:grin: Ouch!

Human beings have alternate methods of survival and food sources, ones that do not require slaughter and still give as much or more nutrition than meat, and yet we continue obliterating the lives of millions of animals every day. — TheSoundConspirator

While I certainly hate hijacking a thread with a topic all on its own -- this is squishing bugs thread, not eating meat (and why is Hitler being used here? -- bugs, Hitler, meat. What a combination) -- I just want to say there are now plant-based "meats" sold in supermarkets. There have always been vegan meat around. But now they are common in stores.

Science is guarding its field of publications rigorously with the peer review process, something that Philosophy isn't doing at all. — Nickolasgaspar

This is misinformation, I'm afraid. The philosophers of science are the scientists themselves. In the philosophy of mathematics, they are the mathematicians themselves. Logic, logicians. In my opinion, the rigour of theory building in philosophy requires much more than assiduous research. It is analyzed, debated, proofed, and debated again, then criticized. Plus it rallies the support of endowments (you can look this up). I think it's a misconception that physicists change hats between doing physics and doing philosophy. There's not a break in the rigour of their analyses -- they build on the works of past philosophers, not reinvent the wheel.

Most philosophers (Naturalists excluded) ignore the first two steps and jump in metaphysics from the get go or they use arbitrary and epistemically useless philosophical principles to interpret our epistemology (this is the case QM) according to their metaphysical beliefs. — Nickolasgaspar

No. I disagree very much. This is again misinformation. I'm afraid people who say this haven't read one book of a philosopher physicist. Nickolasgaspar, I really would like to discuss this, but this is a topic for another day. There's so much to say. I can't do it right now. I mean, how do we even begin talking about this when the part and parcel are all of the wrong specifications, so to speak. Some members in this forum are well equipped, not to mention eloquent, to tackle this sort of a mess.

But isn't indulging one's self by killing bugs something to think about? There are a million other ways to indulge one's self. Do you know that people use a nutcracker or some other object to crack a nut just to see how well they could crack it? No joke.

When you see someone who pretty habitually squashes them, even going out of the way to do so, does it give you a different idea about them than you otherwise would have? — IanBlain

Yes, it does. Because I find it unnecessary most of the time. So, my thought process is, the act of squishing must be a reaction to something more serious than bugs. Something about the personality of the person. It's just me. I don't really know why people squish bugs unnecessarily. I also don't shoo wild animals if I find them in the yard, like fox or racoon eating from the cat's food bowl. I let them be.

And oh yeah. The bees. I don't avoid bees -- they don't bother me. They stay away from me. lol. The ex BF, though, has phobia of bees. So, I'd be like cool when I hear bees buzzing in the bushes, and it would be like a kryptonite for him.

I've been pondering something. Firstly, I'm the kind of guy who steps on bugs, not around them. If there's a bug in my house; I don't "rescue it." I squash it, then flush it. Just want to be upfront about that. — IanBlain

I don't purposely kill bugs. I'd rather take them out of the house. Especially spiders. I can catch it with my hands (cup my hands) and take it outside. I haven't killed a spider in my life -- at least not knowingly. Same with any other bugs -- cockroach (it's a mixed feeling, I don't like to be near them). Also, garden snails - I could never hurt them. I couldn't care less about the plants in the garden if they're happy eating and reproducing. (Oh, we're talking about bugs, okay). Anyway, the exception is the flies. I could be patient and let it out through the door, or not, and get the fly swatter. But it's the only bug that I would purposely kill, sometimes.