(2017-11-07, 09:29 PM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]I doubt that. Just repeating that you know something doesn't mean that you do know that thing. Even mundane knowledge changes over time with the introduction of new evidence. Isn't that how science measures progress? You can continue to deny the non-physical but that, in the end, is a metaphysical position, not an empirical one.
Once you get drawn into an ideology you are in the grip of its dogma. In that sense, it is no different for atheists/materialists than it is for the religious. The only way to keep an open mind is to abandon certainty and forego dogma. Religion and Atheism: a curse on both their houses.
I am defending a methodological approach, where science measures empirical reality (methodological physicalism). And I equally defend where science measures logical reality (methodological informational realism).
There is ultra strong evidence that coding is a natural event. The units of measure of Materials Science and Physics don't address coding.
"tongue in cheek" comment to Kamarling: don't abandon the certainty or uncertainty in reality! They are methodologically measurable in Information Theory.
Quote: Mutual information is one of many quantities that measures how much one random variables tells us about another. It is a dimensionless quantity with (generally) units of bits, and can be thought of as the reduction in uncertainty about one random variable given knowledge of another.
Mutual information - Scholarpedia
www.scholarpedia.org/article/Mutual_information
(2017-11-07, 10:40 PM)stephenw Wrote: [ -> ]I am defending a methodological approach, where science measures empirical reality (methodological physicalism). And I equally defend where science measures logical reality (methodological informational realism).
There is ultra strong evidence that coding is a natural event. The units of measure of Materials Science and Physics don't address coding.
"tongue in cheek" comment to Kamarling: don't abandon the certainty or uncertainty in reality! They are methodologically measurable in Information Theory.
Mutual information - Scholarpedia
www.scholarpedia.org/article/Mutual_information
Well, I'll give you this, stephenw: my uncertainty has just increased as I don't have a clue what you are talking about.
(2017-11-07, 09:29 PM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]I doubt that. Just repeating that you know something doesn't mean that you do know that thing. Even mundane knowledge changes over time with the introduction of new evidence. Isn't that how science measures progress? You can continue to deny the non-physical but that, in the end, is a metaphysical position, not an empirical one.
You know that's not what I mean. More in the vein of for example if archaeologists found irrefutable evidence Jesus did not die on the cross, but lived a life as any normal man would have of that time. Imagine if the scientific consensus from various and related disciplines found out there is no immaterial world. Now do you see why the immaterialist has more to lose than the materialist?
Holy crap there's 28 pages of this. My reply way back on, what, page 24 or so(?) seems especially pointless now. But it's not like I was expecting much else.
(2017-11-07, 08:30 PM)stephenw Wrote: [ -> ]What you have expressed is perfectly sensible, at a general level. However, if we use the terms of science it quickly falls apart. First - physicalness is not a measurable variable in science. And Physicalism is a Metaphysical worldview.
Measurable items in Materials Science and Physics are called empirical. In physics: mass and force lead the list of empirical variables. SI units are the list of empirical values that describe measurements in Physics and the Material Sciences.
Science addresses non-physical variables, and pretending that they are not real, is pretty weird in the modern day. If you want to measure channel capacity and its derivative measurement: bandwidth - you need to address the logical coding of the information.
There are logical events and structures in science. QM addresses probability, context and detected/not detected as fundamental states beyond SI units of measure. Logic is non-physical, as is coding, information, virtual photons and future probability for things that have not happened materially. There is nothing empirical to measure in the past or in the future. Science's reach has gone beyond where it was in 1899. Be open to it.
I know physics has moved beyond the materialism of the 19th century and by extension I include all things paranormal, supernatural, mystical as part of the physical realm.
(2017-11-07, 11:13 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]You know that's not what I mean. More in the vein of for example if archaeologists found irrefutable evidence Jesus did not die on the cross, but lived a life as any normal man would have of that time. Imagine if the scientific consensus from various and related disciplines found out there is no immaterial world. Now do you see why the immaterialist has more to lose than the materialist?
How can I know what you mean if you don't explain yourself? Nor can I see a relevant analogy in your Jesus example. Nor can I imagine how it could be proved that there is no "immaterial world" as you call it. You seem to have this habit of claiming that proof either has been found or will be found. I don't believe that proof is possible - no matter how wide the consensus.
Your final point seems to have more to do with ideology than science and the hint is in the Jesus reference. You seem to think that what you call the immaterialist has an ideological (perhaps religious?) investment in the existence of the non-physical. If so, you have totally ignored what I said earlier about abandoning dogma. Conversely, you - an avowed atheist - do have an ideological investment. So who has something to lose or, to use your patronising tone: now do you see why it is you who has the investment therefore something to lose?
(2017-11-07, 11:54 PM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]How can I know what you mean if you don't explain yourself? Nor can I see a relevant analogy in your Jesus example. Nor can I imagine how it could be proved that there is no "immaterial world" as you call it. You seem to have this habit of claiming that proof either has been found or will be found. I don't believe that proof is possible - no matter how wide the consensus.
Your final point seems to have more to do with ideology than science and the hint is in the Jesus reference. You seem to think that what you call the immaterialist has an ideological (perhaps religious?) investment in the existence of the non-physical. If so, you have totally ignored what I said earlier about abandoning dogma. Conversely, you - an avowed atheist - do have an ideological investment. So who has something to lose or, to use your patronising tone: now do you see why it is you who has the investment therefore something to lose?
You don't understand Stephenw. You don't understand me. I might include Sparky, Malf and Paul and Linda. Curious indeed.
(2017-11-08, 01:12 AM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]You don't understand Stephenw. You don't understand me. I might include Malf and Paul and Linda. Curious indeed.
Sorry Steve, I did persist in engaging with you even when advised that it was pointless. But now I've had enough and will join those who have you on ignore. FWIW, if you do want people to engage with you, you might want to think twice about patronising them as though they are all idiots.
(2017-11-08, 01:12 AM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]You don't understand Stephenw. You don't understand me. I might include Malf and Paul and Linda. Curious indeed.
To put yourself on the same level as stephenw in terms of content of your posts is quite the assertion