"A discovery of witches" by Deborah Harkness. I love a good story!

The metatheory of fuzzy logic is classical logic. People don't really use fuzzy logic anyway. It might be useful for some applications but as I said, to actually construct the formalism for fuzzy logic you have to apply classical logic in the metatheory. — MindForged

[Fuzzy logic] is employed to handle the concept of partial truth, where the truth value may range between completely true and completely false. — Wikipedia

Fuzzy logic simply introduces grey to an otherwise black-and-white scenario. It is implemented using "classical" (Boolean) logic, because that's what it was created for. In its most recent incarnation, fuzzy logic allowed programmers to code for decision-making that is not limited to two truth values, but exists on a spectrum where TRUE and FALSE are merely the extremes, not the only possible truth-values.

In circumstances where truth-values exist on a spectrum, people do use fuzzy logic.

So the relationship between theories and reality is one of "fitting", or correspondence. — litewave

We can put it even more simply than that. We create the theories, then test how well they predict the future behaviour of (some aspect of) reality*. The best theories are the ones that best predict.

* - I'm trying not to derail into an objectivity/subjectivity debate, but our relationship with Objective Reality seems to have crept in, and we don't know what that is, or might be. The 'reality' we see in the mental images in our minds may or may not correspond to Objective Reality. We don't and can't know. When I refer to "reality", I refer to these mental images. N.B. I do not assert anything about the source or cause of those images; I define the Apparent World in terms of those images. I define "reality" (i.e. the Apparent World) from within the mind of the human doing the perceiving, because it's what we know. Objectively, all else is pointless speculation.

Because its predictions are more accurate in a wider range of circumstances? :chin: — Pattern-chaser

Sorry, this doesn't answer your question. You asked "why?", but I don't think there's an answer to that. If there is, I don't know it, and can't imagine what it might be. Sorry. :up:

Why then are some theories about reality better than others? — litewave

Because "some theories about reality" are "better than others"? Don't forget reality is the reference; we just try to curve-fit our data and our theories to it. Some just fit better than others, so they're 'better' (i.e. more useful) than others.

why is theory of relativity better at making predictions than Newtonian physics? — litewave

Because its predictions are more accurate in a wider range of circumstances? :chin:

As to the computer analogy, I think it is flawed just as the brain-in-a-vat hypothesis because they imply a separation between fact/reality and our perception of it. What we perceive is an expression of fact/reality not something disconnected or veiled from it. — BrianW

An analogy is only that. I think you read more into it than an analogy can usefully support. As for brain-in-a-vat, the most important point in considering it is that we can't know - ever - if it's correct. And this is because the relationship between "fact/reality and our perception of it" is unknown and unknowable to humans. "Fact/reality" = Objective Reality. Our perception shows us (interactive) images of a world - a consistent, testable and comprehensible world - whose relationship to Objective Reality cannot be known. So I don't think we can meaningfully or usefully assert anything about whether these two are separated or not. We don't know. Sadly. Hey-ho! That's life! :smile:

Why shouldn't a cause happen after the event? — Banno

Robert Anton Wilson ( a prize loony, but a thinker nonetheless) describes in his book "Quantum psychology" how the effect can chronologically precede its cause. It was a QM thing, involving entangled particles, but I can't remember any more details than that. It convinced me, when I read it, but I'm no QM expert! :wink:

As @apokrisis has said, the ball effectively vibrates, as its internal molecules move about (Unless the experiment takes place at absolute zero), so it 'pushes' itself, if nothing else does so first. No need even for QM, just Brownian motion is enough to explain it.

I'm sorry, but I just can't see the point you're trying to make. :confused:

So the act of placement is really a push, because placement cannot be precise. And, if the act of placement could be precise enough, or the surface flat enough, then a push would be needed. Therefore it's always a push. — Metaphysician Undercover

:up: :smile:

What is "imposed"? :chin:

Could you imagine ceasing to care about the individual pushes and instead accepting that the generic impossibility of eliminating all disturbances is this deep truth? — apokrisis

Or perhaps the "deep truth" is that the actual event that results in a push is unpredictable, just as the moment when the ball starts moving is unpredictable. Your thought experiment concerns chaos and complexity, a subject that interests me greatly, but on which I have no expertise to speak of. :blush:

I gave clear rebuke... — All sight

:scream: :rofl:

...of its self-defeating nature, and also reasons why it isn't true. — All sight

I saw no reasons, only assertions and questions. I cannot prove what I'm saying. That sort of goes with the whole uncertainty thing. But I offer human life-experience in the real world to justify what I say. What are these "reasons" you refer to? :chin:

all I know for certain is that I'd best not know anything — All sight

All I know is that, for me*, there is no certainty (worthy of the name) in the real world. So I don't pretend, to myself or to others, that I know anything. But there are many things (assumptions, necessarily) that seem to work. Since I have nothing better, I'll go with that. It's not ideal, but it works. :up:

* - and (as far as I know) for all other humans too.

As you wish. <shrug>

Isn't this eschewing of certainty just a form of virtue signaling? — All sight

No, just a fact of real-world, human, life. It's just honesty to/with ourselves. Nothing more than that. :up:

I want something completely self evident and irrefutable. — khaled

Don't we all! :up: But there is no such thing in the real world, I don't think. Objectivism, and the certainty that comes with it, is an intellectual game, nothing more (to us humans). There is nothing for us such as you describe. Sorry. :fear:

when the pressure is on, your body will be certain — All sight

No, it won't. But it will be able to act nonetheless. :up: :smile:

the perceived conflict between faith (church) and reason (science) [...] the 'conflict thesis' (conflict between science and religion) — Wayfarer

Personally, I have never seen a problem or a conflict between the two. To me, they are complementary. I know that others, who look at things differently, do have issues, but I don't.

Seek out a way of looking at things - a perspective - that embraces both. It makes things much easier. :smile:

Whatever happened to objectivity? — VagabondSpectre

Humans did. Humans without the means or equipment to access Objective Reality directly. For humans there is no objectivity, in practical terms. There never has been. So whatever happened to objectivity? It remains what it has always been: an intellectual speculation pursued for entertainment purposes by humans. So nothing has happened to objectivity. It's still there, somewhere, somehow, but we know no more than that. :wink:

There is no certainty for us.

Hail Eris! :wink:

You wouldn't have access to the concept of "physical reality" if all you can ever see is a 2D computer screen. — khaled

You would have indirect access, which is what we humans have to 'Objective Reality' anyway. This is why subject/object stuff gets so difficult. Our access (to Objective Reality) is indirect, and so OR is unknown to us. So we can't use it as a reference by which to judge other things. It would be ever so handy if we could.... :wink:

My definition of fact/reality is that which is; that whose value is absolute; the indisputable, the undeniable, and in that sense, it describes that which remains even when everything else ceases. — BrianW

Isn't that just a description of hard Objectivity? Objective Reality is that which is, in my mind. But then we end up derailing this thread into the eternal subjective/objective discussion, which probably isn't helpful. Suffice it to say that your definition is superb, but unusable (by humans) and impractical for that reason. It has no value to humans because it describes a reference that is (and must remain) unavailable for comparison. A yardstick that cannot be used to measure things....

Now logic requires neither rigor not any specific axioms, it just needs to be useful when applied to the world. — khaled

Yes, that's sort of how it is. :up: Axioms are guesses, so we should not use them to justify our arguments here. And there's nothing else, assuming you don't have a provable foundation for whatever it is you're thinking about. If you did, you wouldn't fall back on axioms, right? So yes, I think logic guides us to use usefulness (or something similar) when there's nothing better available. :chin:

What I'm trying to find in this discussion is an axiom that escapes this, an axiom everyone MUST accept — khaled

I think this might prove, er, challenging. :wink: The point is that "axiom" is another word for "guess" or "assumption". And axioms are the worst sort of assumptions, because declaring an axiom says "this is a guess, but I intend to reason on the basis of this guess. So any conclusions we reach depend on our guess being true. Yes, that's right, the guess that we are unable to prove - we would if we could! - is the foundation for future reasoning.... :chin:

So, is there a guess (an educated guess, perhaps, but still a guess) that everyone MUST accept? I suspect not. Only if it could be proven could you even hope for universal acceptance. [Humans being humans, many of them would choose not to accept it anyway.... :fear: ]

we accept Wayfarer as our personal savior — Jake

Messiah? :lol:

not to hijack the thread — Jake

:up:

At first I rebelled at any rule which limited my ability to type. :smile: But over time I came to see the 300 word limit was forcing me to slow down and really focus on finding the heart of what I wanted to say. — Jake

Just as a haiku is limited to 17 syllables. It concentrates the mind. :wink: :up:

Wow Wayfarer, great post! :up: — Jake

:up: [Me too.] :smile:

mass child rape by clerics — Jake

Please, this is not fair. Just like teachers, sports coaches and (school) bus drivers, the clerical profession is infiltrated by paedophiles when they can, to gain access to children. None of those professions bear the blame for this; the paedophiles are the guilty ones. [ All of these institutions have covered up paedophile activity in the past, presumably out of guilt/shame. But all have learned now that we expect them to safeguard children, as we all do. ]

but if the law of noncontradiction can be violated, then anything goes... — S

So it does. Science-types say this sort of thing a lot. But contain your outrage for a moment and think. Yes, if your aim is formal and rigid structured logic, then you need such 'laws' to operate. On the other hand, if you are someone who tries to study reality, without placing artificial limits on what might or might not be studied, then maybe you don't. Of course, things would be a lot easier if these 'laws' applied universally, but that seems not always to be the case in the real world. :confused:

So we have a choice. We, like science, can limit ourselves to the easy problems, the ones that (seem to) conform to these 'laws'. Or, we can attempt some of the more difficult stuff, but only if we are prepared to study with less of a safety net (or without one altogether). Even science acknowledges some uncertainty in the world, via QM, Godel et al or wave-particle duality in light (a contradiction if ever I saw one). Maybe we should try a bit harder with the harder problems? :chin:

A claim demands justification, otherwise it can rightly be dismissed. — S

If you subscribe to logic, and a logical viewpoint, then you don't just dismiss things without a logical reason.

When I label atheists as being people of faith I'm not trying to pin a crime on them, I'm reaching for clarity. — Jake

:up: Clarity is next to Godliness, as the old proverb should say. :wink:

I have faith that if I keep patiently typing day after day after day on these subjects for another twenty years nothing at all will be accomplished... — Jake

If Lord Cthulhu grants me another 20 years, I'll still be at it too. :smile:

But if an atheist simply believes that God does not exist, without trying to make their beliefs seem authoritative or binding on others, I don't see a problem. — Pattern-chaser


I don't see a problem either, but their belief is still based on faith, faith in the ability of human reason to meaningfully analyze the very largest of questions. — Jake

I'm in agreement with your general observations. :up: In fact, they don't go quite far enough. I think, with Objectivity being what it is, that more or less everything we believe and (think we) know is actually a faith-based thing. Almost nothing is certain or justified, in absolute terms, so almost everything is a faith position. But I'm not happy using the term "faith" for all of them.

There's something about the word that captures something specific about religious faith. It also applies to an atheist actively dismissing the existence of God, and a few other things too. But I think the term is diluted if we use it to describe every situation where we believe something without justification.

Finally, there are those (not you, Jake?) who seem to think faith is a Bad Thing. It isn't. It's a reasonable, rational, pragmatic and practical response to a world where there is little or no certainty. This, I think, is the matter that we're all failing to see: that our world, in practice, and for humans, is an uncertain place. There is no certainty, which for some means there is no comfort, no security. So we seek solace in faith. And we gain the most solace by not looking at faith closely enough to remember it means we're uncertain. On the contrary, we have faith, so how could we be uncertain? :smile: :smile: :smile:

The answer to this question is central and fundamental to understanding whether your atheists (i.e. the ones you describe) occupy a faith position or not. — Pattern-chaser

If a person of any position thinks that the rules of human reason are binding on all of reality, without any proof that this is so, they are a person of faith. Belief without proof = faith. This equation applies equally to everyone on all sides of the issue. — Jake

Yes, I can't disagree with what you say. But I don't think it invalidates - or even opposes - what I said. If an atheist actively asserts the non-existence of God, they occupy a faith position, according to what you say, and to what you and I seem to believe. But if an atheist simply believes that God does not exist, without trying to make their beliefs seem authoritative or binding on others, I don't see a problem. A belief, offered as a belief, and nothing more, is not misleading. That's the point. If there is no attempt to give beliefs artificial authority, we're most of the way there. But belief without proof remains a faith position, as you say. :up:

Do the atheists you describe actively assert the non-existence of God? — Pattern-chaser

No, if god is proven, god exist. Atheism is a process of understanding everything through facts, what can be proven. Atheists accept what is proven and change viewpoint if it's disproven. Claiming the non-existence of god, is not an option, not because that's a statement, but because it's not proven. — Christoffer

Then it would be my opinion that you, and the atheists you describe, do not hold a faith position. :up: Although I am just a little confused: the way you describe "atheist" seems to be identical to the way many would describe "scientist". :chin: Was this intentional on your part? Do you equate atheism with a 'belief' in science?

I am comparing the scientific method to that of how atheists view the world, i.e through facts and what is proven, not belief. This is a premiss countering the idea that atheism is based on faith or ideology, when it isn't. — Christoffer

Please, before you go any farther, will you clarify:

Do the atheists you describe actively assert the non-existence of God?

[ The answer to this question is central and fundamental to understanding whether your atheists (i.e. the ones you describe) occupy a faith position or not. ]

If Jesus tells us to find God in our heart, that truly isn't an order to have open heart surgery. — ssu

:smile: Oh, thank you for that! :smile: :up:

A counter argument is a timeless god. Such a god might still die due to the 2nd law but would die outside of time, thus such a God is both dead and alive at the same time from the perspective of humans — Devans99

:smile: I call Her Schrodinger's God ... and I worship Her too. :up: :wink:

Maybe what you really mean is something along the lines that the person who asserts the nonexistence of God, as per any conception whatsoever, goes beyond logic by going beyond the available evidence, and reaches a logically unjustified and unjustifiable position. — S

Yes, I thought that's what I said. :smile: :up:

Would you not take a position of strong atheism, instead of agnosticism, if you found that the conception of the God under consideration entails a contradiction? — S

I would rather consider the specific circumstance, but yes, I would have difficulty with a definition of God that seemed to entail a contradiction. :up:

If these posters don't start singing tearful tunes to Baby Jesus pretty soon we're just going to have burn them at the stake — Jake

Oh, it's a joy, in this day and age, to meet a man who truly respects the old traditions. :up: :smile:

In fairness to the critics, religion often does claim to be dealing in facts, so the confusion can be understandable and reasonable. — Jake

Do they? [Genuine question.] I was raised by cultists Roman Catholics. At 10 I could recite the mass, in Latin. The impression I drew from the education they gave me is that spiritual matters over-rode merely factual matters; God's stuff was more important than man's stuff. But they never represented the dogma and religious 'truths' as facts, as I understood it.

Surely some religions appear to assert facts, and some may even intend this to be so, but I have an issue with this. I'm a believer, and I try to respect all beliefs, but those who make factual claims when their claims aren't verifiably factual aren't helping, IMO. They shouldn't do it. :fear: