Logical positivism [split: A splendid video about evolution]

Speculating about a designer may be comforting, but it has no backing, neither from empirical evidence nor from logical argument. Without that, it remains a belief, not knowledge (almost like multiverses - but at least we know of one universe so logically there could be more)

Yes, obviously, at least regarding the ontological question. Without empirical verification, the multiverse and the extra dimensions of string theory remain speculative frameworks rather than realities. The mathematics of string theory may well be sound, but mathematics alone doesn’t grant existence — otherwise, every internally consistent fantasy would be real.

So what are we to make of the Finely Tuned constants that put our universe together?

While I would agree it isn't *proof* of Design, it does at least provide evidence suggestive of someone making the universe.

If they are making the universe from outside the universe - again, not definitively necessary even if one accepts Design - then this is evidence for a "spiritual" reality, if by which we mean a reality outside this universe where one can form universes like ours?

I also think, regarding the question of stuff like NDEs or other OOBE journeys, that we do have evidence in the sense of eye-witness accounts. However I would agree that this evidence's weight is made less strong by the fact that different people report different things, though there are commonalities we need to consider. Additionally, the strength of this evidence is dependent on what can be verified which are OOBE observations of *this* world. 

I also agree that particular details claimed by a single person have a great possibility of being fiction / delusion and so any one account isn't going to be taken as evidence by the larger consensus. 

However I think commonalities can give us reason to think there is evidence - not proof - of a reality that we would say diverges from the consensus reality of day-to-day experience. That said I would agree with anyone who said that the evidence for spiritual realities is not at the level of evidence for QM oddities, or any other seemingly bizarre claim that has been backed by replicable evidence or consistent consensus agreement on what lies in the deepest ocean, in space, etc.

I disagree completely. Statements like ‘I saw four spiritual dimensions’ belong in the same category as much of what clutters the spiritual bestseller lists: unverified claims dressed up as insight, designed to entertain a willing audience rather than inform. Without objective evidence, they aren’t profound, they’re just words. I’ll hold off on further comments until the weekend, but I won’t pretend such claims carry any real weight.

At this point, I think you just have me on your ignore list, which is why you can't see any of my posts... I don't really understand the point of ignore lists, when they just break the flow of conversation.

Besides, I'll still comment here ~ statements like ‘I saw four spiritual dimensions’ don't belong in any such categories, even if they're not inter-subjectively, scientifically or "objectively" verifiable. Individuals can certainly independently and subjectively perceive such things, even if they cannot demonstrate them to others that have not or cannot. There's simply no point trying, for obvious reasons. Yet they still have meaning to the individual, who can recount them to those that are willing to listen and consider the unknown. After all, enough anecdotes must form a pattern...

But... the same can be said for metaphysical claims made about a quantum multiverse, string theory, or the like. Actually, the same can also be said for metaphysical claims about Materialism. None of these things are "objective", either ~ yet do you still believe in any of them? Have you perceived them? How do you know that those who say they do aren't just saying "words" or seeking to "entertain"? I mean, matter creating consciousness is a nice trick... one never explained, at that... we cannot empirically verify any such claims, yet they still hold meaning for those that believe in them.

We cannot live life by only believing in "objective" things, anyways ~ everything would fall apart if everyone acted like that. I dare say not even those saying they believe in only "objective" things really behave like that, anyways. But gaslighting yourself into believing that you do makes all the difference... you can't see what you can't see, Yet we all believe in apparently irrational things for one reason or another.

I can experience, perhaps sense, certain individual anomalous voices with consistency and stability over many years, that respond to my thoughts and emotions independently, even pointing out things I'd rather avoid. Do things exist only because we can "objectively" sense them per science (Materialism, rather?) or do we extend that to mathematical entities too, in pure contradiction to Materialism? Multiverses aren't physical, yet Materialists seem to say they believe in them, simply because they "exist" as a byproduct of non-physical mathematics, which is most hypocritical, if they say they only believe in empirical, perceived things...

At this point, I think you just have me on your ignore list, which is why you can't see any of my posts... I don't really understand the point of ignore lists, when they just break the flow of conversation.

Besides, I'll still comment here ~ statements like ‘I saw four spiritual dimensions’ don't belong in any such categories, even if they're not inter-subjectively, scientifically or "objectively" verifiable. Individuals can certainly independently and subjectively perceive such things, even if they cannot demonstrate them to others that have not or cannot. There's simply no point trying, for obvious reasons. Yet they still have meaning to the individual, who can recount them to those that are willing to listen and consider the unknown. After all, enough anecdotes must form a pattern...

But... the same can be said for metaphysical claims made about a quantum multiverse, string theory, or the like. Actually, the same can also be said for metaphysical claims about Materialism. None of these things are "objective", either ~ yet do you still believe in any of them? Have you perceived them? How do you know that those who say they do aren't just saying "words" or seeking to "entertain"? I mean, matter creating consciousness is a nice trick... one never explained, at that... we cannot empirically verify any such claims, yet they still hold meaning for those that believe in them.

We cannot live life by only believing in "objective" things, anyways ~ everything would fall apart if everyone acted like that. I dare say not even those saying they believe in only "objective" things really behave like that, anyways. But gaslighting yourself into believing that you do makes all the difference... you can't see what you can't see, Yet we all believe in apparently irrational things for one reason or another.

I can experience, perhaps sense, certain individual anomalous voices with consistency and stability over many years, that respond to my thoughts and emotions independently, even pointing out things I'd rather avoid. Do things exist only because we can "objectively" sense them per science (Materialism, rather?) or do we extend that to mathematical entities too, in pure contradiction to Materialism? Multiverses aren't physical, yet Materialists seem to say they believe in them, simply because they "exist" as a byproduct of non-physical mathematics, which is most hypocritical, if they say they only believe in empirical, perceived things...

I would divide the standard into what one can personally say is true for their own lives and what the consensus should be in agreement upon.

My own "Deep Weird" experiences have made me quite open to the paranormal and the possibility of "spiritual realities".

However I realize others cannot take my own witnessing as evidence in the same way the oddities of QM can be shown through continuous replication.

On the flip side however, if the existence of this universe lends credence to MWI multiverse or other universes pseudo-skeptics are ok with then you can make a similar argument for "spiritual realities."

After all there are QM interpretations that support Idealism, or at least some dimension where reality's nature is different. Heisenberg speculated on such a possibility, that space-time outside the universe was different than within it.

It also isn't clear what makes a different universe a "spiritual reality".

That's a solid point! It's why you really need to understand the mathematics to truly grasp physics. Only in the elegance of mathematical descriptions can misunderstandings be avoided.

Thanks, but I rather think you have missed my point - that most of the confusion in the overlap between psychic discussions and physics is the fault of physics - whereas you tend to place the blame on the psychics. Physics (and to some extent other sciences) glibly modified or restricted the meanings of words to serve physics, rather than picking new words.

The statement "‘I saw four spiritual dimensions" might mean something depending on context. For example, it is not utterly clear if all the non-physical realms are restricted to 3 dimensions (plus time) - how do we know, and how can we possibly be sure?

I have seen many discussions of the block universe, where the past is supposed to still exist down the fourth dimension of space-time. Given the true nature of that extra dimension I can't picture the block of space-time that contains my life (say) at all. Indeed, I do wonder if physicists employed slightly more primitive maths to describe relativity it might make some of them stop to question what exactly they are talking about.

David

I would divide the standard into what one can personally say is true for their own lives and what the consensus should be in agreement upon.

While I do agree, this is the source of a neverending debate in the search for truth, as it were... value, meaning, purpose, whatever "truth" is defined as capable of being.

My own "Deep Weird" experiences have made me quite open to the paranormal and the possibility of "spiritual realities".

However I realize others cannot take my own witnessing as evidence in the same way the oddities of QM can be shown through continuous replication.

Are not the "oddities" of QM simply someone else's interpretation of the output of whatever mathematical equations and instrumentation they are using? Even if we're talking multiple individuals coming to a "scientific consensus", we know that ideology can blind multiple individuals into going down the same dead-end.

So I'm not certain that consensus means much, when, in science, it takes but a single good counter-example to pop any claims about something.

My concern is that the purported QM oddities are being proclaimed as "objective", yet these cannot be clearly demonstrated. I certainly can't sense them, or wrap my head around the crazy mathematics we might be told to look at, so I'm not very convinced that it's any more "objective" than another's personal truths, mine, yours, or otherwise.

On the flip side however, if the existence of this universe lends credence to MWI multiverse or other universes pseudo-skeptics are ok with then you can make a similar argument for "spiritual realities."

Perhaps... however, stable, long-term experience would appear to trump claims about realities derived only from abstract mathematical measurements? Not just mine ~ yours, those of mediums and participants in seances who have experienced otherworldly entities, etc, and so on.

If these claims were to pierce beyond being mere artifacts of mathematics, I'd probably pay more attention.

But... I am partial to philosophical inquiries into the quantum that don't rely on mathematics to make their arguments, because it would appear to be the result of intuition rather than mere mathematical logic.

After all there are QM interpretations that support Idealism, or at least some dimension where reality's nature is different. Heisenberg speculated on such a possibility, that space-time outside the universe was different than within it.

Indeed, however, where the scientific side is concerned, there is no evidence to be had, alas, given science's severe limits to explore such possibilities.

Until we can... theoretically open wormholes to other realities / planets / what-have-you, I believe it will remain firmly in the realms of philosophical thought ~ well, and the spiritual side of things for those that have had such experiences. I cannot explain why I have had my experiences, just that I have, for whatever reasons.

It also isn't clear what makes a different universe a "spiritual reality".

Well... is it not relative to our own experience of our subset of reality?

From the soul reality / afterlife / what-have-you, none of this "spiritual". From another universe's perspective, this reality might be "spiritual". From another layer within this universe, this layer might be classed as "astral". Definitions are tricky, but that's what we have.

Thanks, but I rather think you have missed my point - that most of the confusion in the overlap between psychic discussions and physics is the fault of psychics - whereas you tend to place the blame on the psychics. Physics (and to some extent other sciences) glibly modified or restricted the meanings of words to serve physics, rather than picking new words.

The statement "‘I saw four spiritual dimensions" might mean something depending on context. For example, it is not utterly clear if all the non-physical realms are restricted to 3 dimensions (plus time) - how do we know, and how can we possibly be sure?

I have seen many discussions of the block universe, where the past is supposed to still exist down the fourth dimension of space-time. Given the true nature of that extra dimension I can't picture the block of space-time that contains my life (say) at all. Indeed, I do wonder if physicists employed slightly more primitive maths to describe relativity it might make some of them stop to question what exactly they are talking about.

David

I think it’s you who are misinterpreting what physics actually tells us. The mathematics behind the block universe is sound: solutions to Einstein’s field equations yield metrics in which time t is a coordinate on the same footing as x, y, z. Claiming that "because the math is too difficult for me, the physics must be wrong" isn’t a meaningful argument against the theory. That said, while we do have empirical evidence supporting aspects of this framework, we have no evidence that one can actually move in the negative t-direction - obviously not. This suggests the theory may not provide the full picture of gravity. From the perspective of logical positivism, it even makes statements that border on the absurd.

Still, the idea of time travel is no more absurd than the unfounded claim of intelligent design.

In the absence of a response, I'll take it as established. Here's what I wanted to draw from it:

I think we should be very suspicious of movements that rely heavily on redefining words. It's not always inappropriate - for example, technical contexts sometimes require technical variants of common terms - but often, as here, it is manipulative.

Rather than grappling intellectually - through evidence and argument - with those aspects of reality to which these people have an emotional aversion, they simply declare statements about them to be literally meaningless - ironically (and perversely) by redefining the meaning of meaningful - thereby wiping them off the table: erasing them from the very bounds of conceivable thought.

This is an Orwellian move.

In any case, let's reframe @sbu's position statement, using words that don't have to be redefined, into something (slightly) more reasonable:

"Ontological statements are only epistemically relevant and due consideration if they can be verified through empirical observation or are analytically true (such as logical or mathematical statements)."

There is still a host of problems with this epistemic position.

For a start: verified by whom?

Strictly speaking, only sbu can verify through empirical observation (introspection) that he is conscious. Therefore, by his own standards, the ontological statement "Sbu is conscious" is not epistemically relevant to, and due consideration by, the rest of us. Very clearly, though, whether or not sbu is conscious very much is relevant to - and due consideration by - the rest of us, because if he isn't, then we don't owe him any moral consideration. One would assume that that very much matters at the very least to sbu himself.

Secondly (and which the first is implicitly tied up with): verified according to which standard?

It is well known that in principle, even the most well-established of scientific theories is only provisional: as the article that @Valmar shared in post #125 points out didactically, the empirical theory that all swans are white is contingent on the non-existence of a single black swan, a proposition that cannot itself be verified with certainty.

We can only, then, have a certain degree of confidence that any given ontological statement has been "verified". As (re)stated, sbu's position statement doesn't stipulate which in-principle attainable degree of confidence qualifies a given statement as "verifiable", nor how we might go about assessing in the first place - i.e., prior to starting our observations - which in-principle degree of confidence is attainable.

This brings us back to the ontological statements that it attempts to erase from consideration: as Valmar has affirmed a couple of times in his own responses to sbu, many people have verified through their own personal experiences with a certain degree of confidence that some such statements are true. I expect that the degree of confidence that they have attained exceeds that which empirical science has attained for some of the theories that I expect sbu would accept as "verified".

Summing up:

Verification lies on a spectrum and to some extent is relative (to persons or groups). Thus, among its other problems, and even after correcting for its sinister thought control, sbu's epistemic position mistakenly reduces a subjective spectrum to an objective dichotomy.

On 'Orwellian' word games and intelligent design: That's rich coming from a movement (here assuming you are an ID proponent like David) that redefined 'theory' to mean 'wild guess' and 'teach the controversy' to mean 'inject religious doctrine into science class.' Logical positivism doesn't redefine 'meaningful' - it simply refuses to let people dress up untestable speculation as science.

On verification standards:The standard is simple. if you're making claims about objective reality - whether it's intelligent design or the metaphysical nature of consciousness - provide evidence that others can evaluate. Personal experience is valid as personal experience, but it doesn't automatically validate ontological claims about external reality. Regarding near death experience and similar subjective experienced, Here's the key distinction you're blurring - nobody disputes that people have profound subjective experiences during NDEs. The question is whether these experiences constitute evidence for specific metaphysical claims about reality's structure. Correlation isn't causation, and subjective intensity isn't objective verification.

I think it’s you who are misinterpreting what physics actually tells us.

Physics is just a modelling of the perceived, observed patterns of behaviour exhibited by matter, a predictive model made by mathematics. Nothing more or less.

The mathematics behind the block universe is sound: solutions to Einstein’s field equations yield metrics in which time t is a coordinate on the same footing as x, y, z.

Physics cannot make metaphysical statements about the nature of reality, therefore mathematical models, physics-based or otherwise, can neither confirm nor deny a block universe, which is a purely metaphysical belief about the nature of the universe.

Actually, a block universe doesn't make logical sense, as it runs counter to our intuitive knowledge that we make choices and decisions in the present moment to determine what future actions we will take, along with our taking into account past choices, decisions and actions to feed into that.

We are clearly not machines nor automatons, even if we occasionally act on unconscious impulses or compulsions.

Claiming that "because the math is too difficult for me, the physics must be wrong" isn’t a meaningful argument against the theory.

David never implied that, I believe ~ so this is a strawman. Besides, being able to understand the math doesn't make that bit of physics right or correct, either, so it's not a meaningful argument for a metaphysical statement about reality.

That said, while we do have empirical evidence supporting aspects of this framework, we have no evidence that one can actually move in the negative t-direction - obviously not.

We actually have no evidence against that aspect. We cannot have negative evidence for something no-one has yet perceived not happening. We don't even know if it hasn't happened ~ how would we even perceive it, if it has?

Besides, what physics does or does not say has no relation to whether time travel or possible or not. Time is merely a measurement of change over time ~ it is not a "law" of physics.

This suggests the theory may not provide the full picture of gravity. From the perspective of logical positivism, it even makes statements that border on the absurd.

Logical Positivism is itself absurd, so it can be dismissed ~ scientific truths are the only truths? We cannot ever prove nor disprove Logical Positivism scientifically. Nothing can refute it ~ except itself, actually.

Still, the idea of time travel is no more absurd than the unfounded claim of intelligent design.

Only because you already don't believe in time travel. I, on the other hand, do not dismiss it out of hand, simply because I haven't experienced it myself.

On 'Orwellian' word games and intelligent design: That's rich coming from a movement (here assuming you are an ID proponent like David) that redefined 'theory' to mean 'wild guess' and 'teach the controversy' to mean 'inject religious doctrine into science class.' Logical positivism doesn't redefine 'meaningful' - it simply refuses to let people dress up untestable speculation as science.

Simply laughable logic here. Logical Positivism HAS to redefine "meaningful" if it wants to restrict the definition of "meaningful" as only applying to "scientific statements", the definition of which is... rather vague and undefined, as it changes all the time, from scientist to scientist, and the scientific "consensus" of the day, which has also changed often enough.

On verification standards:The standard is simple. if you're making claims about objective reality - whether it's intelligent design or the metaphysical nature of consciousness - provide evidence that others can evaluate. Personal experience is valid as personal experience, but it doesn't automatically validate ontological claims about external reality. Regarding near death experience and similar subjective experienced, Here's the key distinction you're blurring - nobody disputes that people have profound subjective experiences during NDEs. The question is whether these experiences constitute evidence for specific metaphysical claims about reality's structure. Correlation isn't causation, and subjective intensity isn't objective verification.

Seeing as science can never comment on anything metaphysical ~ you cannot prove nor disprove metaphysical statements scientifically, as metaphysics is about existence, something transcending physics entirely. Metaphysical statements are purely untestable ~ scientifically, philosophically, religiously, spiritually, even experientially.

[Laird]

Logical positivism doesn't redefine 'meaningful'

It very obviously does, and, worse, it equivocates.

You explicitly redefine "meaningful" as "verifiable in principle".

At the same time, you equivocally trade on the sense of "meaningful" as "comprehensible". That's the only sense according to which certain ontological statements that you acknowledge have propositional form could not (you say at the same time) be assigned a truth value: that they contain no content comprehensible enough to be either true or false.

Obviously, again, though, this is false: as I've pointed out already, the first class of statements that we considered (about spiritual dimensions) are clearly comprehensible to any fluent English speaker. In addition, you implicitly acknowledge that ontological statements about the multiverse or extra dimensions are comprehensible in that we can "talk about" them "in ordinary conversation", and in that the mathematics on which they are based "may well be sound": sound mathematics is of course comprehensible - at least to those fluent enough in the language of mathematics and intelligent enough to understand the mathematics in question.

So, while you explicitly redefine meaningfulness as "in-principle verifiability", you equivocally - and manipulatively - trade on its existing sense of "comprehensibility", and thereby attempt to erase all ontological statements that make you uncomfortable from consideration at all: they're "not even wrong" (my paraphrasing) - they cannot even have a truth value assigned, so there's no point in even thinking about or discussing them, let alone arguing about them.

It's an intellectually disreputable and, frankly, contemptible move: rather than grapple with arguments and evidence, just declare a whole arena of thought to be incomprehensible in the first place by implicitly trading off a sense of "meaningful" that you've explicitly given up.

(here assuming you are an ID proponent like David)

False assumption. I expanded on my actual position here. The TL;DR: "it's complicated".

On verification standards:The standard is simple. if you're making claims about objective reality - whether it's intelligent design or the metaphysical nature of consciousness - provide evidence that others can evaluate.

That's a very, very low bar to clear, and one that almost any ontological claim that people take seriously enough to advocate for will meet.

Personal experience is valid as personal experience, but it doesn't automatically validate ontological claims about external reality.

Now you switch the standard from simply "provide evaluable evidence" to "validate". That's a much higher bar.

Which is it?

In any case, as I pointed out in the post to which you were responding, we can only have a greater or lesser degree of confidence in the "verification" of any given ontological claim, and here you seem to be using "validation" as a synonym, so you still haven't addressed that point: what degree of confidence do we need to have in any given ontological claim to consider it definitively to have been validated/verified? In other words, what sort of evidence, and of what quantity and quality, does there need to be to cross the bar from "speculative" to "verified"?

The broader point is that verification is relative, in at least three different respects, the first two of which I raised in my previous post:

1. To individuals (some of whom may have access to verifying evidence that others don't).
   
2. To evidential standard (the point of the paragraph above).
   
3. To time (we sometimes gain understanding and interrogative methods that we didn't have initially, which changes whether or not we can verify any given ontological statement).
   

Logical positivism as you present it, though, ignores this relative spectrum and presents an absolute dichotomy. I made this point originally, and you failed to address it.

Regarding near death experience and similar subjective experienced, Here's the key distinction you're blurring - nobody disputes that people have profound subjective experiences during NDEs. The question is whether these experiences constitute evidence for specific metaphysical claims about reality's structure. Correlation isn't causation, and subjective intensity isn't objective verification.

The answer to that question is clearly, "Yes, they do". For example, veridical NDEs during periods in which the brain is shut down due to lack of blood flow (typically due to cardiac arrest) constitute evidence for the specific metaphysical claim that conscious subjects can exist (and accurately perceive) independently of their biological bodies. There are others.

Of course, some specific metaphysical claims that some might take NDEs to constitute evidence for are less well supported by the evidence.