Is Global Warming a Hoax?

[Poopadoop]

I thought you were making an interesting point but it turns out you're just missing the point. It's never not going to be 2+2=4 because the fact it is isn't reliant on anything but maths itself. It might turn out that the whole subject is a crock of shit but it's still consistent with itself.

You're confusing mathematical theory with the observable events that support it and give it practical uses.

It's no good to just say '2 plus 2 will always equal 4 in the theory of maths' if the situation I described earlier arises in which two items are added to two like items and another item is created, resulting in five items. No-one will care if 2+2=4 is correct 'in theory' and can be proven 'in theory' if it doesn't actually work that way in the observable universe.

[Savy]

You're confusing mathematical theory with the observable events that support it and give it practical uses.

It's no good to just say '2 plus 2 will always equal 4 in the theory of maths' if the situation I described earlier arises in which two items are added to two like items and another item is created, resulting in five items. No-one will care if 2+2=4 is correct 'in theory' and can be proven 'in theory' if it doesn't actually work that way in the observable universe.

I'm not confusing anything you're just chatting complete shit and for some strange reason that has lead to everyone else talking nonsense.

And they 100% would, in fact it would be the only thing the scientific world would be looking at.

[Poopadoop]

I'm not confusing anything you're just chatting complete shit and for some strange reason that has lead to everyone else talking nonsense.

I think you're getting hung up on the notion that i'm saying that in the future 2+2=5 is a plausible event. I'm not.

The crux of the matter is this: You cannot know what you haven't observed. Since no-one can observe the future, no-one can know it. Thus we cannot exclude any possibility simply because it has never happened. IOW, you cannot prove any of the things you 'know' today will still be true tomorrow.

And they 100% would, in fact it would be the only thing the scientific world would be looking at.

Personally I'd be thinking up creative ways to increase my bank account and supplies of beer... shows great minds don't always think alike.

[MadMojoMonkey]

You're confusing mathematical theory with the observable events that support it and give it practical uses.

I think you're the one who is confused; you're the one insisting that any observation could change what math is and whether or not it is self-consistent.

You're conflating one cool thing about math (it's utility in describing the stuff*) to be all that is cool about math.
You're failing to dwell on the fact that math is a self-consistent system which is composed of uncountably many unexpected statements which derive from the most ridiculously simple assertions.

Math is only about numbers because numbers are a useful set of ordered symbols. The relations of the ordering is always there, no matter what symbol is attached to the members of a set. The fact that we can link numbers (ordering symbols) to quantities is a cool perk, but it's not the core of what mathematical statements are saying.

It's no good to just say '2 plus 2 will always equal 4 in the theory of maths' if the situation I described earlier arises in which two items are added to two like items and another item is created, resulting in five items. No-one will care if 2+2=4 is correct 'in theory' and can be proven 'in theory' if it doesn't actually work that way in the observable universe.

I firmly disagree with this.

Furthermore, if you're saying that you expected to see that 2+2=4, and you instead saw that 2+2+1=5, then that's not at all the same as saying 2+2=5 and numbers are wrong.


*(... and things)

[MadMojoMonkey]

The crux of the matter is this: You cannot know what you haven't observed.

Really should just keep repeating this and stop with the math chatter.

The problem is that math is not observationally driven and since its truth is not based on observations, but stipulations, then no future observations can change the value of its truthiness. All that can change is its utility.

[Poopadoop]

I think you're the one who is confused; you're the one insisting that any observation could change what math is and whether or not it is self-consistent.

You're conflating one cool thing about math (it's utility in describing the stuff*) to be all that is cool about math.
You're failing to dwell on the fact that math is a self-consistent system which is composed of uncountably many unexpected statements which derive from the most ridiculously simple assertions.

Math is only about numbers because numbers are a useful set of ordered symbols. The relations of the ordering is always there, no matter what symbol is attached to the members of a set. The fact that we can link numbers (ordering symbols) to quantities is a cool perk, but it's not the core of what mathematical statements are saying.

I'm not saying the theory of numbers can ever be proven to be wrong 'in theory.' I'm saying you can have a theory of anything that works great and all the points line up. But if it doesn't match the observations, it's a shit theory.

Furthermore, if you're saying that you expected to see that 2+2=4, and you instead saw that 2+2+1=5, then that's not at all the same as saying 2+2=5 and numbers are wrong.

It's your expectation (well, everyone's) that's been upset, because you expected 2+2 to make 4, and didn't account for the fact that the operation has been altered to result in 5.

If the above happened, what are you going to teach kids in school? The 'theory' of math that adding 2 things to 2 other things makes 4 things or the reality that it used to be that way, but now it makes 5?

[Poopadoop]

The problem is that math is not observationally driven and since its truth is not based on observations, but stipulations, then no future observations can change the value of its truthiness. All that can change is its utility.

By that definition, it has no utility. If it only worked in theory, no-one would ever use it (or at least not in everyday life). The fact that it's consistent with our observations is what gives it utility. If it stopped being so, we'd discard it (or at least revise it). IOW, we'd consider it a shit way of modeling the universe because it makes false predictions.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'm not saying the theory of numbers can ever be proven to be wrong 'in theory.' I'm saying you can have a theory of anything that works great and all the points line up. But if it doesn't match the observations, it's a shit theory.

See above. Math is not based on observations, and not burdened with describing anything but itself.

It's your expectation (well, everyone's) that's been upset, because you expected 2+2 to make 4, and didn't account for the fact that the operation has been altered to result in 5.

You're begging the question. You stipulate that I will be upset, or even notice that anything has been unexpected. I am not convinced. I am still not clear that there is any meaning to your though experiment.

I feel like you asked me, "What if tomorrow all the numbers were upside down?" My answer is, "I don't see how that changes anything," but you are so insistent that something is changing. I don't see how anything is changing but semantics in your theory.

In your thought experiment, you can still tell the difference between 4 and 5, or at least you expect 2+2 != 5. So the number line is still intact, and I say that means the math is still unchanged.

If the above happened, what are you going to teach kids in school? The 'theory' of math that adding 2 things to 2 other things makes 4 things or the reality that it used to be that way, but now it makes 5?

I'll teach them whatever I need to describe the universe and if math is no longer a useful tool, then my job got harder, but not thematicaly different. Math is a tool i begrudgingly use because it is powerful and effective. Remove the effectiveness and it's no longer worth my time and effort, like so many things.

That would never stop nerds around the world from exploring the beautiful world that is math.

[Poopadoop]

You stipulate that I will be upset, or even notice that anything has been unexpected.

I for one would notice a thing like that, and yes it would upset my expectations.

In your thought experiment, ... you expect 2+2 != 5. So the number line is still intact, and I say that means the math is still unchanged.

The theory has not changed; it's ability to predict things has. Thus it's value as a theory has been reduced.

I'll teach them whatever I need to describe the universe and if math is no longer a useful tool, then my job got harder, but not thematicaly different. Math is a tool i begrudgingly use because it is powerful and effective. Remove the effectiveness and it's no longer worth my time and effort, like so many things.

That would never stop nerds around the world from exploring the beautiful world that is math.

No, but it would change the way everyone goes about things.

[OngBonga]

The crux of the matter is this: You cannot know what you haven't observed.

This is an opinion, and not one I share.

[Poopadoop]

This is an opinion, and not one I share.

Prove that you know something that has never been observed.

[OngBonga]

Prove that you know something that has never been observed.

I know that a decaying particle will radiate energy, before it radiates the energy.

[Poopadoop]

I know that a decaying particle will radiate energy, before it radiates the energy.

Is it fair to say that your basis for 'knowing' that is that it's been shown to happen in the past?

If so, then how do you know it will also happen in the future? Is it not possible the rules could change?

[OngBonga]

Is it fair to say that your basis for 'knowing' that is that it's been shown to happen in the past?

If so, then how do you know it will also happen in the future?

Let's try another one.

I know that time and space exist, and that it will exist in the future. Not because it has existed in the past, but because it exists now. The same is true of energy and matter. I observe it now. So long as I am alive, I will continue to observe these things. I can't know that I won't die soon, but I do know that when I die, time and space, energy and matter, they will still exist. I can just no longer observe them (well, that's another can of wroms but "I" as in ongbonga).

Ultimately, I guess what you're trying to break this down to is that it comes down to an act of faith. But that faith is in the laws of physics, and the proof is in my existence, and my observation of the universe.

I draw a heavy distinction between "know" and "prove". To "prove" is to demonstrate to someone other than yourself. To "know" is to have 100% confidence without the need to demonstrate to others.

I have 100% confidence that 2+2=4, and I have 100% confidence that it will still be the case in the future. Can I prove it? No. But I know it.

[JKDS]

But, science is a liar...sometimes.

[OngBonga]

But, science is a liar...sometimes.

Sometimes. But the goal of phsyics is to accurately explain the laws of physics. The laws of physics don't lie... it's those who observe them incorrectly that lie.

[Poopadoop]

I have 100% confidence that 2+2=4, and I have 100% confidence that it will still be the case in the future. Can I prove it? No. But I know it.

100% confidence is not the same as knowing. People often are 100% confident on things that turn out to be false.

Moreover, your 100% confidence is based entirely on what's happened in the past. I'm not saying that's not a bad way to be, I'm saying that past observations, even they are entirely and repeatedly consistent with a single theory, do not allow one to make predictions about the future with 100% accuracy.

Believing is not knowing.

[Poopadoop]

Sometimes. But the goal of phsyics is to accurately explain the laws of physics. The laws of physics don't lie... it's those who observe them incorrectly that lie.

We haven't observed all the laws of physics in action from the beginning of time to eternity, thus we can't say for a fact that they're immutable. What if there's an as-yet-undiscovered law that all the other laws change periodically? Then the whole cosmic space-time theory turns out to be bollocks, and the predictions you based on it were wrong.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Prove that you know something that has never been observed.

All the proofs of math stem from posited statements, not observations.

You've stated that math is what it is even if it doesn't describe anything real. You haven't countered that it is still true unto itself and that the proofs it contains exit with total disregard to any observations.

I could easily prove the sum of the exterior angles of any polygon in a plane whose sides to not cross is always 2 pi. Even for a stupidly, absurdly high number of sided polygon and even if the edges are all zig-zaggy. Simple proof, doesn't need observation to prove it. All you need is the definitions involved, whether or not a "real plane" exists in curved spacetime.

[Poopadoop]

All the proofs of math stem from posited statements.

Posited statements are not truths, but assumptions. If any of those assumptions are wrong, so are the conclusions, no matter how consistent the internal logic is.

In that sense, maths can neither be considered inherently true or false, since it relies on its own circular reasoning.

[OngBonga]

We haven't observed all the laws of physics in action from the beginning of time to eternity, thus we can't say for a fact that they're immutable. What if there's an as-yet-undiscovered law that all the other laws change periodically? Then the whole cosmic space-time theory turns out to be bollocks, and the predictions you based on it were wrong.

Then it was the human that was wrong, not physics. Physics didn't lie. We just failed to observe it correctly. As an example, let's assume light speed is very gradually decaying that we're as yet unaware of. Just because we haven't noticed it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There are many as yet undiscovered laws of physics. Nonetheless, those laws are still very much in existence right now in this instant in time.

If we understood the laws of physics to 100% certainty, then we would be able to predict the future with 100% certainty. The reason we can't predict the future is not because tomorrow 2+2 might = 5, or so other absurd posit, it's because of our limitations in understanding the laws of physics.

I know that physical laws exist that maintain order and structure in the universe. I know these laws will still exist at any given point in the future. I know that we don't fully understand those laws. What I don't know is if we ever will.

[OngBonga]

100% confidence is "knowing" as far as I'm concerned, fwiw. Like, I don't have 100% confidence that flopping a royal flush will mean I win the hand, because I might disconnect and time out. The world might end just before the hand is over. A plane could land on my house. These are actual things that have a very small probability of happening, rather than something absurd like Jupiter turning into a giant squid and eating Earth.

"2+2 might = 5" is as ridiculous to me as the concept that there are infinite universes where every possible outcome happens. I often consider that while looking at my boiling hot cup of tea, and think to myself "throw it over your face". Well, is there a universe where I actually do it? I'm now looking at scissors and thinking "stab yourself in the eye". Surely there is a very small probability of me doing it? No, I can assure you there isn't.

[Poopadoop]

Then it was the human that was wrong, not physics.

A theory cannot be right or wrong separately from the ones who devise it. Either you devise a theory that's correct or you devise a theory that's incorrect. Either both you and your theory are correct, or you're both incorrect.

There are many as yet undiscovered laws of physics. Nonetheless, those laws are still very much in existence right now in this instant in time.

If you accept that, then you cannot have 100% confidence that what you expect to happen next will happen. One of those undiscovered laws might very well act on that phenomenon in ways you couldn't anticipate.

I know that physical laws exist that maintain order and structure in the universe. I know these laws will still exist at any given point in the future. I know that we don't fully understand those laws.

These are all beliefs, not knowledge. Any one of the above could be false and we just haven't learned it yet. We may find out tomorrow.

[Poopadoop]

100% confidence is "knowing" as far as I'm concerned, fwiw.

So, every time you were 100% sure something would happen (as in you couldn't even conceive of it not happening), it ended up happening? I don't believe you.

If not, you should revise your confidence estimates downward from here on.

I often consider that while looking at my boiling hot cup of tea, and think to myself "throw it over your face". Well, is there a universe where I actually do it? I'm now looking at scissors and thinking "stab yourself in the eye". Surely there is a very small probability of me doing it? No, I can assure you there isn't.

How often do you think someone somewhere has a stupid impulse? I'm guessing it happens to all of us multiple times a day. Since people sometimes do stupid things on impulse, we can assert that the probability of having a stupid impulse and then executing it is > 0. In your case, as someone with a solid instinct for self-preservation, the chance may be so small as to be practically zero. But it ain't zero.

If you were cloned into an infinite number of Ongs, I assert that at least one of those Ong clones would throw hot water into his own face and another would stab himself in the eye, and at least one of them would do both.

[wufwugy]

I can't find a way around this: 2+2 must necessarily =4, and if 2+2 didn't =4 it would necessarily not be 2+2.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Posited statements are not truths, but assumptions.

Agreed.

If any of those assumptions are wrong, so are the conclusions, no matter how consistent the internal logic is.

I sometimes come to true conclusions via false assumptions and bad logic.
Niels Bohr and his famous model of the atom is one case where it happened in physics.


I agree that, assuming sound logic is employed, the truth value of the conclusion exactly corresponds to the truth value of the (relevant) inputs. In math, the only truths you have to accept are that identity and sequence are not absurd concepts.

In that sense, maths can neither be considered inherently true or false, since it relies on its own circular reasoning.

What can possibly be inherently true if not math?
Our feelings? Anything else?

[MadMojoMonkey]

I can't find a way around this: 2+2 must necessarily =4, and if 2+2 didn't =4 it would necessarily not be 2+2.

What's happening?

I'm in total agreement with wufwugy again?!

OH NOOOOOOOOES!!!

[MadMojoMonkey]

The multiple universe thing is about particles being in the other one of their measured states when they were in a superposition of states prior to measurement.

It's not remotely clear the relationship between mind and QM at this time.

It sure feels like free will is a thing, though. Ong's argument that his mind could have influence over the possible outcomes in his future sure feels right. It's just not clear that what feels right is not a coping mechanism of mind, too.

[Poopadoop]

What can possibly be inherently true if not math?
Our feelings? Anything else?

If the only criterion for truth is that a set of assumptions has internal logic, then we need to broaden our concept of truth, don't we?

For example, the rules of monopoly represent a closed system with an internal logic. None of the rules (afaik) contradict any of the other rules. Does that mean they represent an inherent truth? I guess so...

So I guess I agree with you - if we accept the definition of maths as being totally abstract and self-referencing, then it doesn't matter what happens in the observable world since maths doesn't concern that.

However, if the situation arose where the extra object appeared , we'd certainly need to re-evaluate some theory. Maybe it would fall under conservation of matter or some such.

[Poopadoop]

It sure feels like free will is a thing, though.

Logically, if we accept that the mind and brain are the same thing (and it's hard to argue otherwise), we more or less accept determinism, and we don't have free will.

[Poopadoop]

It's actually quite interesting to contemplate Ong's brain and free will. He claims he asserts executive control and is able to reliably inhibit himself from self-harm, but I assume he's still prone to the occasional mishap, such as stubbing his toe. Would a rational, free-willed Ong do such a thing? No, it was done in error, a miscalculation on the part of his brain (or neural noise, or w/e you want to call it).

Perhaps the self-scalding or eye-stabbing idea he occasionally ponders, should it ever be executed, would best also be thought of as an error caused by his brain failing to inhibit the impulse, rather than as Ong willfully giving in to his own demons. It certainly seems that if stubbing a toe can happen by mistake the brain is capable of other fuckups (though admittedly, self-scalding would be a biggie).

I can only conclude from this that Ong should not be allowed near scissors or boiling water.

[OngBonga]

So, every time you were 100% sure something would happen (as in you couldn't even conceive of it not happening), it ended up happening? I don't believe you.

If I said I was 100% sure something would happen, and it didn't happen, then I clearly lied about my certainty. Or, at the very least, was mistaken.

In your case, as someone with a solid instinct for self-preservation, the chance may be so small as to be practically zero. But it ain't zero.

From your pov, it's not zero. From my point of view, it's exactly zero. That's knowledge.

[OngBonga]

...rather than as Ong willfully giving in to his own demons.

haha you make it sound like I'm fighting the urge.

[Poopadoop]

If I said I was 100% sure something would happen, and it didn't happen, then I clearly lied about my certainty.

The criterion wasn't you what you said, it was what you believed.

Or, at the very least, was mistaken.

Well if your argument is that 100% confidence = knowledge, and you've been wrong on at least one instance where you've had 100% confidence, your argument has been refuted.

From your pov, it's not zero. From my point of view, it's exactly zero. That's knowledge.

See above.

[Poopadoop]

haha you make it sound like I'm fighting the urge.

It's more fun that way.

[Poopadoop]

Do you ever have to grab the hand with the scissors with the other hand to keep from stabbing yourself? 'Cause if you do there's a good chance there's a problem with your brain.

[CoccoBill]

Logically, if we accept that the mind and brain are the same thing (and it's hard to argue otherwise), we more or less accept determinism, and we don't have free will.

We've veered quite a bit from global warming, but this shit is interesting. To determine whether we have free will, we first have to define "who" or "what" is the actor in that. What has been demonstrated is that our conscious self likely has less free will than we [would like to] think, but isn't our subconsciousness just as much "us", a part of our self?

[Poopadoop]

We've veered quite a bit from global warming, but this shit is interesting. To determine whether we have free will, we first have to define "who" or "what" is the actor in that.

Well, we each have a sense of self. You know the difference between where 'you' reside and where others reside in terms of corporeal space. You know that the body you inhabit is yours and you have the feeling of being the person who controls the muscles that move your body.

Interestingly, that sense of self is dependent on a functioning brain. It can be distorted when the brain gets damaged so that we experience (e.g.,) parts of our body as not belonging to us, or experience former parts of our body as being in pain.

What has been demonstrated is that our conscious self likely has less free will than we [would like to] think, but isn't our subconsciousness just as much "us", a part of our self?

Sure, but the whole idea of the subconscious is that it lies outside of awareness and thus outside of executive control. We can't choose what our subconscious is doing any more than we can choose what our liver or kidneys are doing, as they all lie outside of conscious control.

[CoccoBill]

Sure, but the whole idea of the subconscious is that it lies outside of awareness and thus outside of executive control. We can't choose what our subconscious is doing any more than we can choose what our liver or kidneys are doing, as they all lie outside of conscious control.

There's an argument to be made that consciousness indeed doesn't hold executive control, but is merely a front-end to the real boss, subconscious. The subconscious processes several megabits of data per second, all the time, from audiovisual and other sensory stimulus, memory, etc. At the same time, the conscious part is shown to process roughly 16 bits per second. That's not a lot if you think about it. There's also plenty of research that shows that whenever the conscious self decides to do something, such as press a button, there's subconscious brain activity happening roughly half a second before that, sort of priming the person for the upcoming action. The conscious part gets all its data from the subconsciousness, pre-processed and filtered. This process takes time, a few tenths of a second of lag for the conscious mind. The conscious minds just tricks itself to think there was no lag, and feels good about itself having reacted instantly. However, whatever reactions do happen before that half a sec response time, are subconscious. Our subconsciousness knows half a second in advance what the conscious mind is gonna do.

High recommendations to read Tor Norretranders's The User Illusion, if you haven't already and also this:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...out-free-will/

Here's more about the research I mentioned:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will

And naturally, this is all highly controversial. What is clear though, is that we're not as firmly on the driver's seat as we'd like to think we are.

[OngBonga]

Well if your argument is that 100% confidence = knowledge, and you've been wrong on at least one instance where you've had 100% confidence, your argument has been refuted.

Well I haven't been wrong about anything that I had 100% certainty about. That's because I haven't had 100% certainty that any given event will happen. I might have said I did, but only in a figure of speech context where I'm not taking into account the tiny probability of a solar flare destroying the world in an instant. I can't really think of much I do have 100% certainty in. The integirty of mathematics just happens to be one that I can think of. That I exist, that space and time exist, and that energy and matter exist, that I observe the present, that I have observed the past. These are other 100% certainties. I am also 100% certain that the future is observable, whether or not I can observe it. To think otherwise would be to assume this universe is mine and mine alone.

To predict the future is nearly impossible, but only because of the limitations of my understanding.

I can predict that any event that happens in the future will be bound by the laws of physics, and can theoretically be explained using mathematics. That's a prediction I'm comfortable making.

[MadMojoMonkey]

If the only criterion for truth is that a set of assumptions has internal logic, then we need to broaden our concept of truth, don't we?

I did say that the breadth of self-consistent statements which can be made in math is a beautiful and interesting property, but that was an argument for why math will always be relevant to humans, regardless of it's utility in describing things*.

I'm not saying the self-consistency is why math is inherently true. I'm saying the truth-value of the foundational assertions is exactly the same as the truth-value of the conclusions, so long as sound logic is used. I have yet to hear a compelling argument for why identity is absurd or why ordering and naming stuff** is absurd.

I could entertain the argument that our only reason to assert that identity is a thing is because we observe multiplicity, which is great, actually. The assertion that "identity is not absurd" seems impossible to counter, since I am not you (or anyone else who might try to convince me), so math is already tied to the real world in truthiness. The conceit that we can order and name things seems equally impossible to counter, given all the ordering and naming going on.

The truth-value of the assertions seems un-counterable, given these observations, which means that your thought experiment hasn't altered the truth-value of the input statements of math.

For example, the rules of monopoly represent a closed system with an internal logic. None of the rules (afaik) contradict any of the other rules. Does that mean they represent an inherent truth? I guess so...

Within the confines of the system, yes. However, a great deal of those inherent truths are already contained in mathematics (which contains much more than Monopoly truths). So while Monopoly has other stuff to offer - the feel of the game, the companionship of competitive gaming - math covers all the mechanics of the game.

Which makes my point that even if math doesn't describe truths about the real world, it describes truths about other stuff**.

So I guess I agree with you - if we accept the definition of maths as being totally abstract and self-referencing, then it doesn't matter what happens in the observable world since maths doesn't concern that.

See above.
EITHER
math happens to describe the observable world, because the foundational assertions of math seem impossible to counter, but could be consequences or delusions of minds.
OR
math necessarily describes the observable world, because the foundational assertions of math are properties of the universe.

However, if the situation arose where the extra object appeared , we'd certainly need to re-evaluate some theory. Maybe it would fall under conservation of matter or some such.

The successor function is already defined, so math has you covered.
Conservation laws would definitely need to be revisited, though.

*(... and stuff)
**(... and things)

[MadMojoMonkey]

I am also 100% certain that the future is observable, whether or not I can observe it. To think otherwise would be to assume this universe is mine and mine alone.

Huh?

Hmm...

Wait, what again?

Hmm...

Not sure if that's profound or bone-headed.
Good one.

To predict the future is nearly impossible, but only because of the limitations of my understanding.

Come to physics. It's what we do, here.
Physics is the study of predicting the future (insofar as it can be predicted).

I can predict that any event that happens in the future will be bound by the laws of physics

Well... we do keep insisting that's what we do, here.

When some know-it-all comes along and points out to us that we were doing it wrong, we just say, "Thanks, nerd." and keep insisting that NOW we're doing it right.

and can theoretically be explained using mathematics. That's a prediction I'm comfortable making.

It's been working great so far.

Just don't let poopadoop near the universe control switches.

[Poopadoop]

There's an argument to be made that consciousness indeed doesn't hold executive control, but is merely a front-end to the real boss, subconscious.

I wasn't arguing for free will. I just was responding to your point that the subconscious was still 'us', because I thought you were implying that that somehow gave us free will.

The subconscious processes several megabits of data per second, all the time, from audiovisual and other sensory stimulus, memory, etc. At the same time, the conscious part is shown to process roughly 16 bits per second. That's not a lot if you think about it.

I'm not sure where they get those numbers from, but I'm in agreement that most of our mental processes are unconscious.

There's also plenty of research that shows that whenever the conscious self decides to do something, such as press a button, there's subconscious brain activity happening roughly half a second before that, sort of priming the person for the upcoming action. The conscious part gets all its data from the subconsciousness, pre-processed and filtered. This process takes time, a few tenths of a second of lag for the conscious mind. The conscious minds just tricks itself to think there was no lag, and feels good about itself having reacted instantly. However, whatever reactions do happen before that half a sec response time, are subconscious. Our subconsciousness knows half a second in advance what the conscious mind is gonna do.

More or less my understanding as well.

Libet did the classic experiment showing that if you present someone with an analog clock, and tell them to press a button whenever they want to, then ask them to report where the second hand of the clock was when they decided to press it, there's activity in the brain that precedes and can predict the decision - the brain actually starts the chain of events leading up to the button press before the person reports having made the conscious decision to do it. E.g., if you say 'I decided to press it when the second hand was on 10' the brain will have begun to alter its activity before that, e.g., when the second hand was between 9 and 10.

Another interesting set of studies involve presenting stimuli in close succession such that one is separated from the other by a few degrees. So you see very briefly a circle in the middle of the screen, the screen goes blank briefly, then a circle to the left of center. The whole thing is done super quick so it lasts only about 1/4 of a second.

The conscious brain perceives this as a single object moving from the center to the left, when in fact it's two separate objects being presented. The important thing is that if we were experiencing the stimuli in real time there's no way the brain could anticipate the direction the object would be moving in, so no way it should perceive motion. It shows the whole episode is constructed by the brain after the fact.

What is clear though, is that we're not as firmly on the driver's seat as we'd like to think we are.

If at all. It's a lot easier to provide examples of the absence of free will than to show its existence.

[Poopadoop]

The physics lovers here are clearly blinded by their affection for this discipline. Ong and MMM can think they're able to predict the future with 100% accuracy using the laws of physics but they're only fooling themselves.

There's nothing that can prove the laws of physics are immutable. They've only been shown to be immutable in the (brief) time that we've been examining them. Physics can no more escape the problem of induction than anything else. Sorry, ladies.

[Poopadoop]

Conservation laws would definitely need to be revisited, though.

You should just keep repeating that and forget all this maths chatter.

[Poopadoop]

Well I haven't been wrong about anything that I had 100% certainty about.

There's a whole literature showing that confidence doesn't necessarily correlate with accuracy. Eyewitnesses often express 100% confidence in identifying a criminal when they can be shown to be making a mistake.

Some people are 100% confident God exists. Others are 100% confident there's no such thing. Either one or the other of these groups must be wrong. Therefore, 100% confidence != knowledge.

To think you're above this human limitation is to lack humility.

[OngBonga]

There's a whole literature showing that confidence doesn't necessarily correlate with accuracy.

That's because nearly always, people oversetimate their confidence. When they say 100%, they actually mean a figure close to, but lower than, 100%. Such as the probability of winning a hand after flopping a royal flush. For comparison, the probability of me spontaneously turning into a cat is zero, not some fraction above zero. If the probability was higher than zero, then so too is the probability of an infinite number of absurd events. In such a universal model, we wouldn't expect order and structure, because we would be surrounded by chaos. We are not surrounded by chaos.

Not sure if that's profound or bone-headed.
Good one.

If when I die, there is no observation of the universe in which I formerly occupied, then that implies I was the only one observing it, and that my observation that there were other observers was false. I am not alone in this universe. Thus, when I die, others still exist, and the universe continues to be observed.

[OngBonga]

Some people are 100% confident God exists. Others are 100% confident there's no such thing. Either one or the other of these groups must be wrong. Therefore, 100% confidence != knowledge.

Both are wrong to have 100% confidence, because neither can define "God" in any meaningful manner, so the concept of "certainty" is ludicrous.

[Poopadoop]

That's because nearly always, people oversetimate their confidence. When they say 100%, they actually mean a figure close to, but lower than, 100%.

They know their minds better than you do. They themselves say that they had 100% confidence. When someone expresses astonishment to discover they were wrong, that's consistent with their professed 100% belief.

Moreover, a significant portion of those participants even continue to believe they were accurate after being shown they weren't. If that's not having 100% confidence I don't know what is.

If the probability was higher than zero, then so too is the probability of an infinite number of absurd events. In such a universal model, we wouldn't expect order and structure, because we would be surrounded by chaos. We are not surrounded by chaos.

There may very well be some events in that infinite array that have a probability of zero. There may also be events that have probabilities so low as to be negligible (we can call them 'super-rare events'). In the latter case, the universe would very much have the appearance of order - until the super-rare event occurred.

An example of this is evident in a fractal statistical distribution. With a small number of observations, the distribution appears Gaussian. This can go on for quite a while, until a super-rare event occurs which disproves the Gaussian model and shows the fractal model is a better fit.

In the context of physics, if such a super-rare event disproved one or more laws of physics, it would show this law to be faulty. Just because such an event hasn't occurred in the past doesn't mean it won't occur in the future.

[Poopadoop]

Both are wrong to have 100% confidence

You're just proving my point then...

[MadMojoMonkey]

You want me to pass the pepper? 'Cause you seem to be good on salt.

The physics lovers here are clearly blinded by their affection for this discipline. Ong and MMM can think they're able to predict the future with 100% accuracy using the laws of physics but they're only fooling themselves.

I'm certain you're confusing me for someone else; I never said anything of the like (because I don't think that).
I am in agreement with you that any prediction of the future evolution of the universe is untested hypothesis.

I don't see what is your current disagreement with my position, aside from your salty post.

A) We agree that the truth value of the conclusions is exactly equal to the truth value of the assertions, provided sound logic is used.
B) We agree that math describes the universe if and only if its fundamental assertions are true facts in the universe.
C) We agree that those assertions do represent true facts about the universe, not to mention other human inventions.
D) We agree that the fundamental assertions of math are not time-dependent.

I don't see how you can persist that "Tomorrow 2 + 2 may = 5."
I don't see how that is even a meaningful thing to assert.

What am I missing, or have I persuaded you that the truthiness of math is not time-dependent.

There's nothing that can prove the laws of physics are immutable. They've only been shown to be immutable in the (brief) time that we've been examining them.

Agreed. At least, I neither know of nor can conceive of anything which would prove that to me.

There is even evidence that they may not be.
The first 10^-35 seconds after the Big Bang are not explained by any aspect of the Standard Model.
Dark Energy is baffling us, even for agreement on the value of the universe's accelerated expansion.

Physics can no more escape the problem of induction than anything else.

I think you're arguing with someone who's not here, though.
Ong is definitely trolling you with his 100% talk.
C'mon, man.

Sorry, ladies.

Wow.
Sexism?
This was not your most shining of moments.

***

You should just keep repeating that and forget all this maths chatter.

Stop saying things about math which make no sense to me and it wont happen again.

To recap:
You said something which doesn't even make sense to me... i.e. those words in that order do not bear any meaning to me, given what I understand about those words.

Now I'm the bad guy for having a discussion about what I understand vs. what you understand?
Even when you've begrudgingly accepted all of my reasons for understanding your statement the way that I do?

This is the opposite of good science.

[Poopadoop]

Taking things a bit too seriously, MMM. That's why it's more fun to talk to Ong.

[MadMojoMonkey]

If when I die, there is no observation of the universe in which I formerly occupied, then that implies I was the only one observing it, and that my observation that there were other observers was false. I am not alone in this universe. Thus, when I die, others still exist, and the universe continues to be observed.

I'm gonna have to land on the side of boneheaded, then.

Whether or not the universe contains a mind to observe it seems a trivial fact. I do not believe that any mind (as I understand the biological requirements for such) was present in the early universe. By early, I mean ~10^-35 seconds after the Big Bang through the first ... you know ... while ... until the elements heavier than Lithium were synthesized in stars and supernova.

I don't see any a priori reason that a non-biological mind was present then, but I can't rule it out, to be clear.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Taking things a bit too seriously, MMM. That's why it's more fun to talk to Ong.

*sigh*
Agreed.

He's pretty cool, huh?

[Poopadoop]

He's pretty cool, huh?

I wouldn't go that far...

[OngBonga]

You're just proving my point then...

To a degree. We're not talking about god here though. God means different things to different people, it is not well defined. Maths is universal, it's the same language to us all. I don't have to explain what 2+2 means to you, we both already perfectly agree on what 2 means, what + means, what = means, and we both understand why we're reaching the answer 4. So when I say 2+2=4, it's not my interpretation that is being discussed. So I'm only proving your point where it comes to everyday examples where there is doubt when it comes to the definition. I'm not proving your point when it comes to the idea that maybe tomorrow 2+2=5, because that argument is absurd and is based on the concept that whatever you can imagine is a potential outcome in the universe.

In the context of physics, if such a super-rare event disproved one or more laws of physics, it would show this law to be faulty.

No. It would show an incomplete understanding of said laws. You can't disprove a law of physics. You can only disprove what we thought was a law of physics. By disproving it, it ceases to be a law. It was never a law in the first place, we just thought it was.

The laws of physics, we might as well just call it mathematics. They're one and the same for all intents and purposes. If something can't be explained using maths, then we're doing the maths wrong.

[Poopadoop]

To a degree. We're not talking about god here though. God means different things to different people, it is not well defined.

Nitpicking. You can take any two beliefs that are undeniably mutually exclusive and two opposing people who are both 100% confident in their side of the argument. One is still going to be wrong, and thus 100% confidence != knowing.

E.g., two people disagree on what one of them said the day before. Both are 100% confident. At least one has to be wrong.

E.g., two people disagree on the make of the car that just drove by them. Both are 100% confident. At least one is wrong.

etc. etc.

I'm not proving your point when it comes to the idea that maybe tomorrow 2+2=5, because that argument is absurd and is based on the concept that whatever you can imagine is a potential outcome in the universe.

You can't prove that it isn't possible just because it hasn't happened before. Whether or not it seems absurd to you, me, or anyone else is irrelevant; absurdity is entirely subjective.

No. It would show an incomplete understanding of said laws.

In other words, that what we thought was a law turned out not to be. In other words, that what we (or at least you) believed with 100% certainty turned out to be false - proving that you cannot predict things with 100% certainty.

Further, you can't even assume any such laws exist, i.e., that there are universal truths that hold under all circumstances. We can't know that because we haven't observed all circumstances to see if there are any universal truths. We only know that under the circumstances we have observed, certain properties of the universe appear immutable and thus are labeled as 'laws'.

[Poopadoop]

... based on the concept that whatever you can imagine is a potential outcome in the universe.

...And I did not say this. In fact, I said there's a good chance a large number of events have a probability of zero. An extra item being created out of nothing when two items are joined with two like items may very well be one of them. I just said we couldn't prove it.

Saying we cannot know the probability of something happening != saying that same probability is > 0.

[OngBonga]

You can't prove that it isn't possible just because it hasn't happened before.

This is where you're putting words into my mouth.

In other words, that what we thought was a law turned out not to be. In other words, that what we (or at least you) believed with 100% certainty turned out to be false - proving that you cannot predict things with 100% certainty.

It depends on the "certainty". My certainty is that everything that has happened, is happening, and will happen, is bound by the laws of physics and can be explained by maths. I'm not certain that the speed of light is a fixed value. I'm not certain that the moon causes the tides. I am certain that 2+2=4, now and in the future.

[OngBonga]

...And I did not say this. In fact, I said there's a good chance a large number of events have a probability of zero. An extra item being created out of nothing when two items are joined with two like items may very well be one of them. I just said we couldn't prove it.

But we can know it.

[Poopadoop]

This is where you're putting words into my mouth.



It depends on the "certainty". My certainty is that everything that has happened, is happening, and will happen, is bound by the laws of physics and can be explained by maths. I'm not certain that the speed of light is a fixed value. I'm not certain that the moon causes the tides.

And if you're not certain what those laws are or that they won't change, you can't predict the future.

I am certain that 2+2=4, now and in the future.

The example was poorly worded. As I've said repeatedly now, the idea was you can't be certain that tomorrow, if two items are put with two like items, a fifth item will be created.

2+2 will always equal 4 in the abstract, just like the rules of monopoly will always have internal logic in the abstract.

[Poopadoop]

But we can know it.

You can't and you don't.

[OngBonga]

You can't and you don't.

Again, for you, to know is to prove. I draw a distinction between the two. You don't.

I know that I am typing words onto my keyboard. Can I prove it? No, I could be a bot, or I could be dictating. Even if you saw me doing it, is it proof? No, because I could be a hologram, or perhaps you are hallucinating. Do you know that your Mother is actually your Mother? No, because you don't remember being born.

In your world, you can't know anything. Even the existence of space and time, you can't "know" these actually exist because you can't prove it. I can prove it, because I'm happy to say "it exists, therefore it did exist, and will exist". But to you, the present is not proof. Only the future, and the future is always out of reach.

[Poopadoop]

Again, for you, to know is to prove. I draw a distinction between the two. You don't.

Exactly. And I argue your distinction is the same as the distinction between believing and knowing.

In your world, you can't know anything. Even the existence of space and time, you can't "know" these actually exist because you can't prove it.

Those are different philosophical questions, still related to epistemology but on a different level.

I can prove it, because I'm happy to say "it exists, therefore it did exist, and will exist".

Saying things and being happy to say them is not proof.

But to you, the present is not proof. Only the future, and the future is always out of reach.

'The present' is an ill-defined concept and should be left out of things. What really concerns us here is the past and future. The past is proof of the past and nothing more. If all measurements taken in the past agree with (say) the principle of inertia, then you can rightfully say 'this principle has held till now'. What you cannot do is predict with 100% accuracy 'this principle will hold forever', or even 'this principle will hold an hour from now', or 'this principle will hold by the time we finish arguing on the internet about the problem of induction' (which may be even sooner if we are lucky).

[OngBonga]

'The present' is an ill-defined concept and should be left out of things.

What? No it's not. The present is as well defined as it can be. It is me, now, here, in this exact region of spacetime. We might measure the present different, but relativity can take care of that headfuck. The past and future, these are more difficult to define, because they don't actually exist anywhere outside of our heads.

Existence, now, in the present, is all the proof that is necessary to know that there was existence, and there will be existence.

[OngBonga]

What you cannot do is predict with 100% accuracy 'this principle will hold forever

Depends on the principle (for example, 2+2=4), and it also depends on how you define "forever". If you want to argue that there's another universe where our laws don't apply, well I can't argue against that. But if it is not part of our universe, then it is not subject to our perception of time, so the idea that it has a future relative to ours is absurd. The future is merely the region of spacetime we're heading towards. The future, present and past are concepts that are entirely bound by spacetime. Without spacetime, the concept of "forever" has no meaning.

I can predict the future, merely by saying what is currently the future will become the present, and then the past.

[Poopadoop]

What? No it's not. The present is as well defined as it can be. It is me, now, here, in this exact region of spacetime. We might measure the present different, but relativity can take care of that headfuck.

Define the period of time 'the present' inhabits. A second, a millisecond, a nanosecond? Any point towards the earlier part of that time period is by definition already in the past.

The past and future ... don't actually exist anywhere outside of our heads.

lol.

Existence, now, in the present, is all the proof that is necessary to know that there was existence, and there will be existence.

Saying it over and over again doesn't make it true.

[OngBonga]

Define the period of time 'the present' inhabits. A second, a millisecond, a nanosecond?

All three of these options are absurd. The present can be seen as one of two ways... it's either precisely 0 seconds (much like a singularity), or it's infinite, in the sense that it's always the present.

Saying it over and over again doesn't make it true.

Ditto.

[OngBonga]

The problem with you idea of the present is that it's only based on time, and not space.

The present is this exact region of spacetime that I occupy. It's not merely a time, it's a time and place.

[Poopadoop]

All three of these options are absurd. The present can be seen as one of two ways... it's either precisely 0 seconds (much like a singularity), or it's infinite, in the sense that it's always the present.

Like I said, ill-defined.

[OngBonga]

Like I said, ill-defined.

You're the one who's ill defining it.

[Poopadoop]

The problem with you idea of the present is that it's only based on time, and not space.

The present is this exact region of spacetime that I occupy. It's not merely a time, it's a time and place.

It's also irrelevant since we're talking about whether one can predict the future based on the past.

[Poopadoop]

You're the one who's ill defining it.

Lol, I just copied and pasted your definition.

[OngBonga]

It's also irrelevant since we're talking about whether one can predict the future based on the past.

No, that's what you're talking about. I'm just talking about predicting the future. You're the one who keeps bringing the past into it.

Lol, I just copied and pasted your definition.

No you didn't, you copy pasted my response to your attempt to define it. My following post defines the present more accurately. I'm not attempting to assign a time limit to the present. Besides, 0 and infinity, what's the difference? Both answers work. A singularity has zero volume and infinite density. So it is both zero and infinite. Just depends which angle you look at it from.

[Poopadoop]

No, that's what you're talking about. I'm just talking about predicting the future. You're the one who keeps bringing the past into it.

Then I guess you don't understand the point of my argument. Never mind then.

0 and infinity, what's the difference? Both answers work.

ill-defined
adjective

not having a clear description or limits; vague.