/sci/ - Science & Math

Because sense hinges on there being order in the world.

>>14997741
You have stumbled upon something that is true but that every scientist with a brain realizes. Yes, you have no guarantee. But, since we do not have access to the internal structure of how the universe works, the best we can do is experiment and assume our models will work out in the future.

>>14997741
>u cannot no nuffin but a guy with curlers in his hair said it so it's deep
ok

>And the things in your models, they exist outside of their being perceived? I think not.

>Have you ever made an observation about something that you observe? Is there any scientific paper anywhere using unperceived observations? I think not.

>Just try to imagine something existing without your experiencing it. I have no doubt that you will imagine some aspect of the experience of that thing. But I can tell you no one has ever perceived a material thing, only perceptions. Now don't go hurting your toe kicking the pavement.

>>14997804
Ahem.

>>14997803
You can know relations of ideas and you can know matters of fact. You can't know the future.

>So you arrived at your conclusions via logical deduction? Wanna show this deductive system to me? Oh, it's actually just a set of axioms and a set of rules of inference. Can you justify why modus ponens or modus tollens or something equivalent to them should be included in the rules of inference? "Because it just werks" you say? Sorry honey, that's not a proof.
Dedooction deboonked

>>14997741

Causalcucks in shambles.

>>14997741
>Please explain this in rational terms
By principle of sufficient reason.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sufficient-reason/

>>14997741
>t. picrel
I assume there are consistent laws of nature and that patterns that never seem to break are expressions of those laws. Why is this irrational and why do you have sex with men?

>>14997741
But he’s right, cause & effect determined empirically is always necessarily an illusion. Everyone with room temperature iq and above agrees with this.

>>14998446
>PSR
quantum mechanics violates PSR, we know it’s bullshit

This is why no one takes philosophy seriously

>>14998479
>my IQ is 80

>>14997804
>>And the things in your models, they exist outside of their being perceived? I think not.
Because...? Explain why the model works if it isn't true. In other words, create a better model. Oh, you can't? That's too bad.

>>14998481
You're retarded

>>14998483
The model is an approximation of reality :)

>>14998485
I'm retarded for knowing what Hume's argument was actually about (OP is a retard) and why it was important?

>>14998496
Yes, you're retarded for thinking it's important

>>14998444
Checked. But Hume is still a material cuck. Also, despite no one ever coming up with a satisfactory answer to the problem of induction, people have answers they like well enough. The whole "received" view of scientific theories as sets of logical statements falls to holism and circularity, but the view that theories are defined mathematically holds up a bit better. Despite the problems is the received view, many scientists aren't aware of them, and still see falsification as an unproblematic way to define science. You also have the abductive view, looking for the best predictions. This can be bolstered by formalizations of Ockham's Razor, such as Jaynes' principle of maximum entropy, to make parsimony a criteria for theory selection. Bayesian views might fare the best, but they can never offer certainty or true no-go theorems, and you still have brute facts or circularity creeping into your priors unless you subscribe to the principal of indifference in all cases, which isn't practical.

But with Berkeley >>14997805, you don't see clever work arounds. I don't think I've seen any other argument in philosophy/science subjected to so much ad hominem or brute fact refutation. It's a gold mine of seethe.

>>14998446
Known by Hume. You have to claim inductive is valid as a brute fact or make a circular argument. In general, this is not seen as sufficient.

>>14998483
The model working isn't evidence for some magical material world no one has ever or will ever experience. Every model in science can be seen as explaining how experience works and making predictions about experience. Berkeley didn't reject science. He said science is an empirical framework that uses experience to create theories about experience.

People make this mistake all the time; they think that because an epistemological system works, and most of the people using that system have a given ontology, the system's success is an argument in favor of the ontology. It isn't. There are scientists who have been dualists and idealists and they do science the same way as anyone else.

>>14998501
You will never experience sentience.

>>14998501
>Logical validity isn't important for science or gaining knowledge!

Show me where the fat British genius touched you Anon.

>>14998525
>>14998528
Mouthbreathers

>>14998533
Your anti-thought, anti-human, pop-science-worshipping cult is universally hated.

>>14998538
Cry more and start spamming soijacks like you usually do, drone

>>14998541
Cry harder, nonhuman drone. Philosophy isn't going away. Your soience cult is.

>>14997741
this is why

>>14998545
Filthy cretin

>>14998550
See >>14998545

If we live in a mechanistic reality then OP is 100 percent correct. You should be able to explain by what mechanism the result is happening. Or if in social sciences, the contributing factors. You don’t have to explain the entire universe.

>>14998561
>You should be able to explain by what mechanism the result is happening.
That's what physicists do. OP is disputing their ability to conclude that there is a mechanism in the first place. Your reading comprehension isn't very good.

A brief history of science
>neolithic farmers: I observe plants in nature and hypothesize that planting these seeds will allow me to grow these plants for agriculture. Let's test this hypothesis.
>bronze age cultures: Let's create highly accurate models of celestial motion to predict the position of stars in the sky.
>ancient Greece: *discovers models of buoyancy and projectile motion*
>Renaissance: fluid dynamics, friction, gravity, anatomy
>16th and 17th century alchemists: Let's create a collection of repeatable experiments and discover empirically verifiable chemical reactions.
>...
>some 18th century dysgenic aristocratic armchair pseud who never left his basement: HURR DURR LIKE WHAT IF WE CAN GAIN KNOWLEDGE BY OBSERVING THINGS, LMAO NOBODY THOUGHT OF THIS BEFORE, I AM SO LE SMART XD. AM I LE DEEP YET? GIVE ME ALL THE SOI MILK
And this asshole is credited with "inventing" the scientific method? Fuck this shit. Philosophy is useless garbage and science would be better if philosophers never existed.

>>14998494
That doesn't answer my question. How do you know the things in the model don't exist?

>>14998518
>The model working isn't evidence for some magical material world no one has ever or will ever experience.
The model working is evidence that it's correct. Everything you experience is material.

>Every model in science can be seen as explaining how experience works and making predictions about experience.
No, that would simply be a misrepresentation of these models. The models describe material. You're claiming experience is independent from material. You need to at least have a coherent model that can be tested, but unfortunately you don't. Why is every successful model relying on material and not the immaterial things you believe in? Is it a conspiracy to suppress your beliefs? Or are you simply wrong?

>People make this mistake all the time; they think that because an epistemological system works, and most of the people using that system have a given ontology
Strawman. It has nothing to do with what the people using science believe. It's the models themselves. Saying that fundamental particles don't exist is not an interpretation of physical models, it's a rejection of them.

>There are scientists who have been dualists and idealists and they do science the same way as anyone else.
Explain how anything contrary is implied by what I said. Of course they would have to do science the same way, personal beliefs don't affect facts. Are you saying that every scientist would believe in materialism if it were true? That assumes every scientist is perfectly rational, but as humans we are not.

>the model working is evidence that it's correct. Everything you experience is material.

>>14998821
Thanks for conceding.

>>14997798
/thread

>>14997741
>But Anon, what reason do you have for thinking that, just because whenever X occured with Y before, it will in the future? Why will the future be like the past? Please explain this in rational terms. And remember, you can't use the fact that the future was like the past before to explain why the future will be like the past going forward, that is circular reasoning.

This sounds like some pilpul a Jew came up with, to be honest.

>>14997741
>>14998563
You can't conclude that simply because it happened, there may be unseen factors that allowed or made it happen.

>Thanks for conceding.

>>14998904
>You can't conclude that simply because it happened, there may be unseen factors that allowed or made it happen.
Why not?

>>14998921
See >>14998835

>>14998925
See >>14998921
You are obsessed and will spend the rest of your life foaming at the mouth and desperately trying to validate your insane cult dogma.

>>14998931
The only obsessive desperation here is your substanceless posts. If this was "dogma" you should have some argument or evidence against it. You don't. Cry more.

>>14997741
Mr. Hume, can you please define this "past" and "future" terms you're using, please?

>If this was "dogma" you should have some argument or evidence against it.
Absolutely obsessed.

>>14998944
See >>14998925

>s-s-see!!
>SEE!!
>you have no argument!
>you conceded!!!!
Same thing every thread. This is what severe mental illness looks like.

>>14997741
Because I'm certain of it religiously, why would God create an inane world?
QED

>>14998963
>materialism and catholicism reveal themselves to be one and the same AGAIN

Clockwork.

>>14998970
Knowledge is not material
But I am certain my ego has seen what it defines as material

>>14998950
See >>14998949

>>14998976
Knowledge is material. It's in your brain or on paper. Knowledge independent from material is an abstraction that doesn't exist.

>>14999009
Deranged.

>>14999019
Not an argument. Thanks for conceding.

>>14999019
>posts the same insults over and over instead of adding to the discussion
>calls others obsessed and deranged
LOL, take your meds.

>>14999038
>>14999054
>i accept your concession
>thanks for admitting i'm right
>[generic dogma talking point]
>not an argument
>see generic post 89291924
>why did you lie?
>i accept your concession
>thanks for admitting i'm right
>...
Literally every thread. I wasn't even arguing with you ITT. I'm just getting secondhand embarrassment every time I see your playing out your script. Deranged.

As predicted >>14998541, the braindead invalid started spamming wojaks

>>14999092
Every time you post you confirm that you're intellectually bankrupt and mad about it. For your own benefit, don't post if you have nothing substantive to add to a thread.

>>14999147
Every time you post, you do one of the things described in >>14999092, and it's really embarrassing.

>>14999171
No, I posted several times in this thread before you responded to me. You're confusing my responses to your substanceless posts with all of my posts.

>>14997805
>you know the past but not the future
Wow dude what a shock

>>14999189
Are you the absolute nigger who posted >>14998820 and >>14998835?

>>14999092
>I'll obsessively list all of his responses to my deranged shitposts, that'll show him!
Wow, you really proved you aren't obsessed and deranged. Take your meds.

>>14999197
I've had enough of your childish insults. Let me know when you want to discuss this like an adult.

>>14997803
>I don't like the reality that its not actually possible to have true knowledge so I will make up a catchphrase "you can't no nuffin" to cope
You will never have true knowledge

>>14998820
>The model working is evidence that it's correct.
No it isn't, it's evidence that humans have consistent experiences.
>Everything you experience is material.
Even if this is true, it does not imply that a model reproducing is correct

David Hume was an enemy of God

>>14997771
>Because sense hinges on there being order in the world.
"sense" is the far right conspiracy theory that there exist objective standards of truth to can validate your ideas with that exist OUTSIDE the institutions we control in our democracy.

>>14999204
>>14999226
>deranged samefag

>>14999302
>everyone pointing out I'm a schizo is the same person
LOL, take your meds. You forgot to include >>14999140

>>14998939
No evidence can ever be sufficient to refute your cult's dogma in the eyes of a cultist.

>>14999282
>No it isn't, it's evidence that humans have consistent experiences.
Experiences consistent with what the model predicts. That's evidence it's correct. Why would our experiences be consistent with it if it wasn't true? You can't tell me, because you don't even have a coherent model.

>Even if this is true, it does not imply that a model reproducing is correct
What implies it's correct is its predictions being correct. So I'm not sure what you're even trying to respond to. What implies materialism is correct is that every successful theory so far has been materialist. I'm waiting for you to provide any evidence for your beliefs, but you clearly have none. At best you can only attempt to piggyback off the success of physics by adding your extraneous dogma to it arbitrarily.

>>14999452
You have zero evidence, schizo. If you did you would be spamming it all over.

>>14999482
Why would I bother when you won't listen to it? You don't throw pearls before swine.

>>14999489
Why wouldn't I listen to it? I've read all of your schizo shitposts. I'm fully invested. You won't post it because it doesn't exist. Meds. Now.

>>14999507
Is the shitposter in the room with you now? Which voice in your head am I?

>>14999509
He's in the thread:

>>14999509
>>14999489
>>14999452
>>14999302
>>14999092
>>14999019
>>14998950
>>14998944
>>14998921
You shitpost over and over and then pretend it would be a waste of time to present evidence. You're a clear schizo.

>>14999013
Everything is an abstraction of my Ego

>>14999509
So you're not going to post the "evidence?" What a shock. Schizo.

>>14999519
Your ego is just your brain.

>>14999453
>Why would our experiences be consistent with it if it wasn't true?
We designed the model to be consistent with our experiences. That does not entail the model is true.
>What implies it's correct is its predictions being correct.
It's predictions are not correct. Only that our experience are replicated. In none of this can you ever derive that the model is actually true.

>What implies materialism is correct is that every successful theory so far has been materialist
This is false. Every model uses mathematics and our experiences, there is no need to add anything else including some abstract idea called "material"

Give me any description or definition or model of "material" of material that does not require mathematics or subjective experiences

Deduce this *shoots off both kneecaps before eyefucking him*

>>14999516
You're hearing voices, anon.

>>14998569
Philosotards BTFO

>>14997741
>And because of this? A man can chop his cock off and call himself a woman. Because bro, how can you even really know what a woman is without verifying everything you call is a woman is in fact a woman??? The word is meaningless! The idea is meaningless!
I'm not sure where you should stop reading or giving a shit about philosophy, but it's long before Hume. Maybe end it at Francis Bacon? At some point in the history of Philosophy things go completely off the rails and begin evolving into the absolute trash we have these days. After a certain point Philosophy becomes nothing but people trying to fist each other's asses and giggle.

>>14999666
This. Ultimately all philosophy evolves into trannyism.

>>14999598
You fucked up schizo. If >>14999452 isn't you then why did you reply here >>14999489 as if it was you? They're all you, only you have cried about dogma in this thread.

>>14999720
I didn't "reply to it as if it was me." That's your mental illness. I replied to it independently telling you that I personally would not waste my time explaining things you will never attempt to grasp.

>>14999580
>We designed the model to be consistent with our experiences.
Duh. There would be no point in designing a model that is already falsified.

>That does not entail the model is true.
Right, what implies the model is true is that it makes correct predictions. Predictions haven't been experienced when the model is designed. Again you don't seem to understand the basics of empirical proof.

>It's predictions are not correct.
Yes they are.

>Only that our experience are replicated.
You're confusing prediction with replication.

>In none of this can you ever derive that the model is actually true.
It's inductive reasoning, not a derivation.

>Every model uses mathematics and our experiences, there is no need to add anything else including some abstract idea called "material"
You're begging the question by assuming math and experience aren't material. They are fully material. They only exist in the brain or on paper. Treating them as independent from material is abstraction, not material. And you're completely ignoring the content of the models. Every successful scientific model uses and describes material. Show me one that doesn't.

>Give me any description or definition or model of "material" of material that does not require mathematics or subjective experiences
Why?

>>14999736
>I didn't "reply to it as if it was me."
>No evidence can ever be sufficient to refute your cult's dogma in the eyes of a cultist.
>>YOU have zero evidence, schizo. If YOU did YOU would be spamming it all over.
>Why would I bother when you won't listen to it?
You're really bad at this.

>>14999840
(You) are a schizophrenic who's jumping at shadows.

>>14999736
>You are obsessed and will spend the rest of your life foaming at the mouth and desperately trying to validate your insane cult dogma.
>No evidence can ever be sufficient to refute your cult's dogma in the eyes of a cultist.
Same shitposter. Take your meds.

>>14999849
You got caught. Take your meds

>>14999840
>>14999851
Psychological decline.

>>14999855
That's the best you can do after getting caught samefagging? Meds. Now.

>>14999870
It's not a conspiracy, people just think you're delusional and retarded.

>>14998463

>>14999876
A conspiracy requires multiple people. Samefagging is not a conspiracy. It's just you. Take your meds.

>>14999979
If I am samefagging then there are, at minimum, still 2 people calling you a mongoloid.

>>14999984
That doesn't follow. You really need to take your meds if you can't even make basic logical arguments.

>>14998820
This gets so close to stating outright why this position is invalid that I'm going to assume this is bait.

But if not, you should consider that science is a system of epistemology, not an ontology. When physicists make claims like "the universe is made of information and physical reality emerges from this information," they are still doing science even though they are arguably expressing a statement that would popularly be construed as advocating a form of immaterialism.

If there we discover strong empirical evidence that there is a totally unique substance that appear related to consciousness but only interacts with the world in subtle, unique ways, people could take this as evidence for dualism, but the people doing the research would still be doing science.

Models don't reflect any sort of "real" world anyhow. Newton's laws work great as an approximation of what we observe (observation, a part of experience), but notably they start to fall apart as more than two bodies are considered. We often know that models don't even fail to describe everything in the natural world, but that they specifically misrepresent some phenomena, but we still use them for prediction and to aid in our understanding.

>>14998569
>ancient Greece: *discovers models of buoyancy and projectile motion*
the greek philosophers always argued from first principles. aristotle, in particular, was the worst among them and possibly history's biggest namefag. i don't even know what he actually accompished.

>>15000058
If that solitary post belongs to me like you claim, you still spent ages arguing with at least one other person who thinks you're retarded. Maybe more.

>>15000358
Again, that doesn't logically follow. Your brain is broken.

>>15000626
You're literally a schizophrenic who's upset that people think his ideas are stupid.

>>15000269
>But if not, you should consider that science is a system of epistemology, not an ontology.
Consider that calling your religious dogma ontology does nothing to alleviate the issue, which is that you have no evidence for your dogma and no explanation of why the only reliable method of obtaining knowledge about reality keeps coming up with answers that don't support your dogma.

>When physicists make claims like "the universe is made of information and physical reality emerges from this information," they are still doing science
Not really, since that isn't a scientific theory that makes predictions. It's just raw conjecture. It's not even clear what that means. All information we know of is contained in arrangements of matter. Let me know when you have evidence of information existing independent from matter or being fundamental.

>If there we discover strong empirical evidence that there is a totally unique substance that appear related to consciousness but only interacts with the world in subtle, unique ways, people could take this as evidence for dualism, but the people doing the research would still be doing science.
Again, where did I say anything to the contrary? I didn't say dualism isn't scientific regardless of evidence, I said the scientific evidence so far isn't dualistic. I'm waiting for you to provide such evidence.

>Models don't reflect any sort of "real" world anyhow.
They are the best guesses we have of what is real.

>Newton's laws work great as an approximation of what we observe (observation, a part of experience), but notably they start to fall apart as more than two bodies are considered.
Putting aside that that's completely inaccurate (Newton's laws perfectly model three or more classical bodies. The issue is solving Newton's equations, not whether the equations are accurate models. Newton's laws fail at relativistic speeds), what is your point? Newton's laws were supplanted by a better model. When are you going to do that?

>>15000628
You're projecting. You can't even form basic logical arguments or samefag without giving yourself away. Taking your meds will make you much more successful at not making an absolute ass out of yourself.

>>15000686
Let me know when it can be proven anything besides I exist. Matter is secondary to that, at best, a recurring theme which perfectly analogizes the human prototypes pretending to be real, but nevertheless remain nothing, inert flat goo, and not me. Quit slurping the 151 pokemon of soience. The massitron does not evolve from gigamaxing some protons. These infantile materialist delusions are exactly what one would expect from dreamless blobs that seek to validate their existence and alleviate my boredom.

>>15000720
>Let me know when it can be proven anything besides I exist.
lol

ITT: STEMcel peabrains exposed

>>14998921
Lul

>>14999532
That is not what is understood by my ego

>>15000342
This. Certainly there were some geniuses in ancient Greece. But they were mathematicians, e.g. Archimedes and Euclid. The philosophers on the other hand were typical midwits operating on low levels of consciousness, as expected from a late bronze age / early iron age society with an average IQ of 80. The only thing that distinguishes Plato and Aristotle from other primitive mystics is the fact that they wrote down lengthy and wordy descriptions of their mysticism. But it's infantile and unscientific nonetheless.

The only people reading Plato and Aristotle today are the typical soiboi pseuds. You don't read P and A for their contents, because those are obselete or outright wrong. You only read them to appear educated by association. It's a vanity thing. "Look at me, I read these authors whom other people declared to be intellectual. Therefore I'm an intellectual as well now." The same illusion of intellectualism they get from having earned a degree in transfeminist studies by obediently regurgitating their authoritarian professors' opinion. It's the kind of people who doesn't care about logical or factual truth, but only wants a shortcut to the social status of being an "academic".

The pseud is immunized to all criticism. You can call him a scoundrel, parasite, swindler, profiteer, it all runs off him like water off a raincoat. But ask him to present the actual knowledge he gained from reading his ancient philosobabble and to critically analyze the truth content of what he read, and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: "I've been found out."

>>15000720
>Let me know when it can be proven anything besides I exist.
Absolute proof is unobtainable. The best we can do is have facts built on empirical evidence, which always has some degree of uncertainty. But preserving your religious dogma is not a valid excuse to ignore scientific evidence.

>Matter is secondary to that
How did you determine that? Perhaps you mean your perception of matter is secondary to your perception of self. I don't see how that matters. Reality doesn't have to conform to what's directly observable to you.

The rest of your post is too puerile to be worth responding to. Do better.

>>15000844
Your ego doesn't understand a lot.

>>14997741
>Hume

>>14997741
I completely agree with Hume in the sense that it's circular reasoning, but I'd like to add that this is what our brain does regardless of whether we like it or not!

That's why babies are dumb fucks. They haven't encountered complex enough "Y then X"s enough times. Look up Piaget tests.

Stupid toddler thinks that tall but narrow glasses have more volume because they've seen lots of "taller then more".
If you put a toy beneath blanket #1 regularly for a stupid baby that's just starting to grasp object permanence to find, and then put it beneath blanket #2 (while the baby is looking). The stupid baby will still look underneath blanket #1 because they've seen lots of "look under blanket #1 then find toy".
Only after their simple "Y then X"s fail enough time will they start considering more complex "Y then X"s

>>14998444
Retrocausality enthusiasts rise up!

>>14997741
I always assume that the future resembles the past sufficiently well that I can use information about the past to reason about the future. You’re under no obligation to do the same.

>>14997741
Why are you using words you learned in the past and expecting them to mean the same thing now?

>>15000686
>All information we know of is contained in arrangements of matter. Let me know when you have evidence of information existing independent from matter or being funda

Complete dogmatic assumption. That's what it from bit guys would say. All physics reduces down to information. Matter is just an abstraction based on the human sensory systems that has nothing to do with information fundamentally.

There are no more materialists anymore. There are physicalists. Corpuscularism is dead. If only things with mass, i.e. material exist, what the fuck is light?

But these can all be explained in terms of information.

Then again, physicalism now means non-locality, and it appears like it will mean contextuality soon too. So saying you're a physicalist reduces to "I think whatever there is good evidence for is true," which isn't an ontology.

Idealist arguments hit epistemology posterior to the results of observation so there isn't really a good way to dispell them, but perhaps people feel ok ignoring them due to that fact. Information ontology is anterior to empirical observation and arguably btfos "physicalism" in its definite forms on its own grounds.

Just look what physicalists have been reduced to, LOL.


>What makes the structure physical and not mathematical? That is a question that we refuse to answer. In our view, there is nothing more to be said about this that doesn’t amount to empty words and venture beyond what the PNC allows. The ‘world-structure’ just is and exists independently of us and we represent it mathematico-physically via our theories.

LOL, LMAO even.

BTFO by mathematical universe Platonists and It From Bitters in their own flailing terms. Physical things are just the shadows on the wall of Plato's cave bro, read the first chapter in pic related (might be the second, I forget).

At least Neo Hegelian schizos make their shit consistent with modern findings and cover up their insanity with page after page of autism runes.

>>15001862
>Complete dogmatic assumption
Not an assumption, it's an observation.

>That's what it from bit guys would say.
They can say whatever they want, it's just specilation until they have evidence. I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand.

>All physics reduces down to information.
There's no successful model that says that.

>There are no more materialists anymore. There are physicalists.
I don't care about semantics.

>But these can all be explained in terms of information.
Then where's the explanation?

>So saying you're a physicalist reduces to "I think whatever there is good evidence for is true," which isn't an ontology.
Is more like, "whatever there is good evidence for is probably true," and I don't care whether you call it an ontology. If your ontology is not supported by evidence, then it must be pretty crap.

>Idealist arguments hit epistemology posterior to the results of observation so there isn't really a good way to dispell them
Sounds like special pleading. A good way to dispel them is to point out that every successful model so far is talking about material, not ideas. Why?

>>What makes the structure physical and not mathematical?
This begs the question by assuming the mathematical is separate from the physical. Mathematics that actually exists is physical. It exists in the brain and on paper. Mathematics independent from the physical is an abstraction that doesn't exist. Is this really your best argument? This is your tough question?

You're never going to disprove physicalism. You're never going to provide evidence or even a coherent model for your beliefs. You have nothing. Just dogma and impotent rage.

>>15000686
n-body problems only have to do with things moving really fast

>>15001918
No, it has to do with equations that can't be solved analytically. You're saying only n-body problems involving relativistic speeds can't be solved analytically?

>>15001905
>This begs the question
Immediately assumes what he has set out to prove in response.

> where's the explanation?
>Bro just summarize physics and information theory for me in 2000 characters

If you're actually interested Davies' Information and the Nature of Reality is good as an intro. Parts can be skipped but read Deacon's bits too for sure. Juan Roederer Information and It's Role in Nature is good too.

Pic related or >>15001862 that pic related, although you will need a background in the mathematics and formalism.

>>15001963
Whoops.

The Great Courses also had pretty good spoon feeding courses on information and thermodynamics.

>>15001963
>Immediately assumes what he has set out to prove in response.
It's not an assumption that the question assumes the physical and mathematical are separate. That's what it does.

>>Bro just summarize physics and information theory for me in 2000 characters
And I didn't ask you to summarize anything, I asked where the explanation is. I'm much more familiar with physics than you are, there's no successful model in physics that treats information as fundamental. It's pure speculation. I already know all you're going to give me are speculative books, not models.

>>15001963
Every successful model so far is talking about material, not ideas. Why?

Explain why irrational arguments like circular arguments are bad without using reason (which would be circular reasoning)

>>15002349
they're a trans freak giveaway

>>14997741

It still works anyway, so your attempt at debunking science is moot and folly.

Based materialists win again. Idealist schizos BTFO

>>14997798
spbp - it's no different than the assumption that the laws of reality are the same everywhere: The H-alpha line is 656 nm, the mass of an electron is 9.11e-31 kg, and 1+1=2 whether you're here or in galaxy NC18941 or wherever.

Sure, there's nothing saying they have to be, but without those kind of basic, fundamental assumptions, there's no progress to be made and all we can do is throw everything out and start cracking each other's heads open and feasting on the goo inside.

>>14997741
You are 100% correct, that's why history is full of theories. Nevertheless we have to use our "best guess" of what has been falsified, what explains most things in the most simple manner, what has the fewest contradictions and the smallest complexity.

Never forget the map is not the picture and stay open-minded, but we have to work with something.

>>15004246
>all we can do is throw everything out and start cracking each other's heads open and feasting on the goo inside

That's a pretty accurate depiction of history of mankind, though..

Just cause, 2.

>>15001568
Fucking based argument. Simply by expressing oneself in natural language in the usual way without adding numerous qualifying statements, one commits himself to not only many common sense concepts implied by the definitions of words, but to communication in natural language being in some way possible.

Maybe the common sense conception of natural language communication is wrong, but to implicitly deny it while failing to provide a reasonable explanation for what it is and simultaneously employing it makes any such skeptical argument extremely unconvincing.

>>15004253
For a not-insignificant-percentage of the human population for a not-insignificant-percentage of our history as a species... yes, that's true. But I'd like to believe that's not the entirety or the end of the story.

Just as it takes a leap of faith to assume that you can apply fundamental axioms across space and time, it takes a leap of faith to believe humanity is capable of more.

>>15001998
Every successful model is talking about phenomena.

>>14997741
Based fat Brit. Still triggering everyone centuries later.

>>15006032
>Simply by expressing oneself in natural language in the usual way without adding numerous qualifying statements, one SHOULD commit himself to not only many common sense concepts implied by the definitions of words, but to communication in natural language being in some way possible.

Anon, I believe if you consider this, you shall see that you have confused and "is" with an "ought."

>>14997741
Do you have a better method then?

>>14997741
>6.362 What can be described can happen too, and what is excluded by the law of causality cannot be described.
>6.363 The process of induction is the process of assuming the simplest law that can be made to harmonize with our experience.
>6.3631 This process, however, has no logical foundation but only a psychological one.
It is clear that there are no grounds for believing that the simplest course of events will really happen.
>6.36311 That the sun will rise to-morrow, is an hypothesis; and that means that we do not know whether it will rise.
>6.37 A necessity for one thing to happen because another has happened does not exist. There is only logical necessity.
>6.371 At the basis of the whole modern view of the world lies the illusion that the so-called laws of nature are the explanations of natural phenomena.
>6.372 So people stop short at natural laws as something unassailable, as did the ancients at God and Fate.
>And they are both right and wrong. but the ancients were clearer, in so far as they recognized one clear terminus, whereas the modern system makes it appear as though everything were explained.

>>15006091
>Every successful model is talking about phenomena.
That's such a vague statement that it doesn't even contradict what I said. What do you think"material" means?

>>15006117
>It is clear that there are no grounds for believing that the simplest course of events will really happen.
Not true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akaike_information_criterion

>>15006104
Not OP but how is that relevant?

>>15007982
Lack of a better alternative is relevant to any criticism.

>>14997741
if we couldn't predict the future with a degree of accuracy then we would have never developed agriculture and subsequently never developed civilization

>"Well, Mr. Hume. I noticed that when I calculate the probability of an event coinciding with another event that the more often two things coincide the more likely it is that they'll coincide again. After a certain point, it becomes statistically impossible that they won't coincide again ... whatever the reason for their relation.

>>14998820
No, everything you experience is the subjective (soul/mind). The material must be first filtered through the subjective through the senses to be experienced.

>>14997741
The fact Is that, in order to do science, you have to accept the dogma of realism.
Realism Is the metaphysical idea that there Is an ontological entity wich Is external and indipendent from human minds (the so-called reality) and that such entity has some intrinsic properties that are constant throught time.
For the realist science Is then a collection of explanations for something that, regardless of wheter It Is described or not, would be the case anyway.

>>15011197
>No, everything you experience is the subjective (soul/mind).
There is no "soul" and the mind is completely material (the brain).

>The material must be first filtered through the subjective through the senses to be experienced.
The senses are material. Just chemical reactions. It's too bad you have no evidence and not even a coherent model for your religious dogma that can be tested. Until you do, your beliefs will be ignored and materialists will just keep on winning. Let me know even you do OK?

>>15011238
You don't have to accept anything. You can treat all models as wrong, but some are less wrong than others. That is the basis of information theory, model selection, and empirical science. Unfortunately for the idealists, the best models we have all talk about material, which leads us to the conclusion that idealism is probably wrong.

>>15011281
>The senses are material. Just chemical reactions. It's too bad you have no evidence and not even a coherent model for your religious dogma that can be tested. Until you do, your beliefs will be ignored and materialists will just keep on winning. Let me know even you do OK?
Where does consciousness arise inside this "brain" of yours (assuming someone like you even has one).

>>15011281
>evidence
I think therefore I am. I know that I am not material and have a soul due texperience, and any evidence you give that my experience is fallible must be filtered through this ostensible fallible experience. Since senses provide an extra source of error from pure experience (error from both experience and senses as opposed to only error from experience), anything which comes from the senses is less reliable than what comes from experience

>>15011281
it's the other way around: "material" is just an idea inside the mind
the fundamental substance of reality is mental
the senses are most definitely not "chemical reactions", that's just another idea inside the mind
the sensations themselves are also cognitive constructs
this is the undeniable scientific reality
it's rather the dogmatic belief in "material", which is just an idea, that is religious in nature

>>15011238
not true at all
science is perfectly possible within the acknowledged factual truth of idealism, it's just a lot different

>>15001568
Based

>>15011810
the actual truth that muh feefees idealists can't cope with is that science is indeed perfectly possible within the acknowledged factual truth (if you will) of idealism, and that it doesn't change a thing w.r.t. physicalist science.

>>15001568
Absolutely REKT. Philosotards will never recover from this.

>>15011307
>Where does consciousness arise inside this "brain" of yours
Several areas: the prefrontal and posterior occipital cortices, the claustrum, etc. Now please show me evidence of anything nonphysical.

>>15011377
>I know that I am not material and have a soul due texperience
What experience?

>and any evidence you give that my experience is fallible
I don't need to prove your experience is fallible, every claim that isn't a logical necessity is fallible. YOU need to show it's correct. Too bad you don't even have a coherent model that can be tested.

>Since senses provide an extra source of error from pure experience
Please explain how your conclusion that you have a soul and are not material is a "pure experience" rather than just a belief anyone could have regardless of whether it's true.

>>15011809
>it's the other way around: "material" is just an idea inside the mind
Then why is there no successful theory that describes the mind as fundamental? There is not even a coherent theory that can be tested. Sorry, but you're just spouting religious dogma. Material is fundamental according to our best understanding of reality.

>the senses are most definitely not "chemical reactions"
>this is the undeniable scientific reality
So "definitely" and "undeniable" that you must have some really good evidence of this, right? I'm waiting. I've been asking for this for years yet none of you have been able to give me one iota of evidence. It's rather pathetic. Why do you cling to your religious dogma with zero evidence? Can you at least tell me that?

I was thinking about this ontology stuff for a little while and I don't think it makes a difference. Whether or not the particles are matter or ideal or whatever doesn't really make a difference.

Like, what difference does it make if we call stuff "matter" vs "information" vs "ideals" or whatever? Like what is the ACTUAL difference between any form of monism? If you're claiming that everything is just one type of stuff that adds up together into different patterns or whatever then I see no reason why it matters if we call the stuff matter vs information vs mathematical platonic forms vs ideas in the mind of God or whatever. Theyre all the same thing at that point

>>15001905
>There's no successful model that says that.
Literally the most successful model says that (quantum field theory)

>>15004246
None of those things exist.
The point is lack of experience with these questions means you lack nuance, which means you are easily led astray or unable to properly evaluate, modify, and critique your own tradition of concepts and models. There is a way of doing things that isn't braindead throwing it all out and braindead blind delusion.

>>15012087
The difference is that no idealist has ever put forth a model that predicts anything. All they can do is arbitrarily add their dogma to successful materialist models. It's a huge difference.

>>14999822
You don't know what materialism means, you didn't understand his posts, you don't understand the questions in play. You are a blind fanatic regurgitating meaningless sentiments.

>>15012089
No, it says fields are fundamental, not information.

>>15012100
>You don't know what materialism means, you didn't understand his posts, you don't understand the questions in play.
Are you being vague on purpose? Please explain what you think I don't understand.

>>15012098
Let's imagine every single mention of the word "material" in every scientific paper is replaced with "the platonic form" or "the mathematical object" or whatever. Does this make any difference in the model or it's ability to describe phenomena or reproduce?

No. The model is exactly the same in terms of it's utility, but we would look at it as a description of a different ontological unit, or whatever, despite the difference in the linguistic description.

So the only reason the word "material" has privilege here is because of the culture and language at the time when science was getting off the ground. It's not because it necessarily has any greater descriptive power.

>>15012095
>None of those things exist.
Proof?

>>15012111
>Let's imagine every single mention of the word "material" in every scientific paper is replaced with "the platonic form"
That wouldn't make sense. Material describes things like particles, as opposed to idealism which deals with things like ideas. Particles have specific properties that are quantifiable. Ideas do not. That is why there is no coherent model of idealism that can even be tested. Adding "and everything is information" at the end of every successful model about material doesn't necessarily change the predictions of the model, but it is superfluous and arbitrary. So you're asking the wrong question. The question is not how our current models would be different if we made them idealist, the question is what models would we even have in the first place? Idealists can't produce any on their own, because they're "not even wrong."

>So the only reason the word "material" has privilege here is because of the culture and language at the time when science was getting off the ground.
No, it's because only models based on material have been successful. You think that's just a coincidence?

>>15012144
>That wouldn't make sense
Yes it would, I just explained it and it makes perfect sense.
There is nothing that is more or less superfluous or arbitrary about calling it "material" vs "information".
>Particles have specific properties that are quantifiable
So does information
>Ideas do not
Yes they do
>That is why there is no coherent model of idealism that can even be tested.
I just gave the example
>adding "everything is information" at the end of every successful model about material doesn't necessarily change the predictions of the model, but it is superfluous and arbitrary
Calling it "material" vs "information" is just as superfluous and arbitrary
>The question is not how our current models would be different if we made them idealist, the question is what models would we even have in the first place?
We would have the exact same models
> Idealists can't produce any on their own, because they're "not even wrong."
This is wrong, I just proved why.

>No, it's because only models based on material have been successful. You think that's just a coincidence?
Yes, I just proved it. The only reason models using "material" are successful is because that's the cultural-linguistic description of them.

You are making a culture-linguistic argument, not an ontological one.

>>15012154
>Yes it would, I just explained it and it makes perfect sense.
No, a particle is material by definition. Your didn't explain how they're interchangeable, you just stated they are.

>So does information
Then please show me a successful idealist theory.

>Yes they do
What is the mass of an idea?

>I just gave the example
Where?

>Calling it "material" vs "information" is just as superfluous and arbitrary
No, it's material by definition.

>We would have the exact same models
No we wouldn't. No idealist has ever come up with a successful model on their own. They just take models describing material and add their dogma to it. There is no symmetry.

>This is wrong, I just proved why.
>Yes, I just proved it.

>The only reason models using "material" are successful is because that's the cultural-linguistic description of them.
Clearly not. There are plenty of idealists, what stopped them from making their own models? You haven't even shown me a single model that successfully replaces material concepts with idealist ones. You just keep saying it can be done. In reality, the content of these models are not arbitrary. Materialists can only append to them, they cannot change them to remove the material, let alone create them.

>>15012154
>This is wrong, I just proved why.
>Yes, I just proved it.
Where?

>>15012209
>No, a particle is material by definition. Your didn't explain how they're interchangeable
You're literally saying that you are just right because you're defining yourself as right.
They are interchangeable because I could just say "a particle is a mathematical object by definition" and there is no difference in explanatory power, and I'm right by definition.
>Then please show me a successful idealist theory.
Digital physics
>What is the mass of an idea?
The information density
>Where?
In the post I made
>No, it's material by definition.
Just saying you're right by definition will never be an argument
>No we wouldn't. No idealist has ever come up with a successful model on their own. They just take models describing material and add their dogma to it. There is no symmetry.
Nope, because I already explained that it makes no difference whether you call it material vs information and you have no argument here
>Clearly not. There are plenty of idealists, what stopped them from making their own models?
Idealists make models all the time, Born was an idealist, so was Von Neumann and Planck and Schrodinger, for examples
>You haven't even shown me a single model that successfully replaces material concepts with idealist one
Yes I did
>You just keep saying it can be done.
No, I gave a proof by showing they are isomorphic
>In reality, the content of these models are not arbitrary
It is in fact arbitrary to replace the word material with information
>Materialists can only append to them, they cannot change them to remove the material, let alone create them.
Yes, they can, regardless of if you want to pretend they cant - I LITERALLY just did so in several posts now

>>15012213
In the firs post

>>15012233
>You're literally saying that you are just right because you're defining yourself as right.
No, I'm saying that the words you are claiming are interchangeable have specific meaning and are therefore not interchangeable. You can claim matter is whatever you like, doesn't change the fact that a model is about matter and is therefore materialist. That's the difference between creating a theory and arbitrarily converting it.

>They are interchangeable because I could just say "a particle is a mathematical object by definition"
Doesn't follow. What you say has no bearing on the meaning of the word material.

>Digital physics
That's not a theory, it's speculation.

>The information density
Huh? Information density is how much information something contains. It's not a property of information itself, which doesn't even exist.

>In the post I made
You're being obtuse. Where in the post?

>Just saying you're right by definition will never be an argument
It is an argument, since you're saying material doesn't mean what it means.

>Nope, because I already explained that it makes no difference whether you call it material vs information
You didn't explain, you just claimed it. Quote your explanation.

>you have no argument here
My argument is clear. You presented no model, you simply stated they are interchangeable.

>Idealists make models all the time, Born was an idealist, so was Von Neumann and Planck and Schrodinger, for examples
I didn't ask for idealists that make models about material, I asked for idealist models. Hint: there are none.

>Yes I did
Where?

>No, I gave a proof by showing they are isomorphic
You didn't show anything. You claimed it.

>It is in fact arbitrary to replace the word material with information
It isn't, they describe different things.

>Yes, they can,
Then do it.

>I LITERALLY just did so in several posts now
Where?

>In the firs post
Where?

You seem have difficulty quoting yourself. Do you know how to copy and paste?

>>15006095
It’s not about what one should do, but about what one is doing when using natural language.

At the very least one assumes the role of speaker or writer (or reader or listener).

>>15012270
>No, I'm saying that the words you are claiming are interchangeable have specific meaning and are therefore not interchangeable
Yea, and you're wrong.
There is nothing in any materialist model that couldn't be replaced with concepts of mathematical objects or whatever.
>That's not a theory, it's speculation.
No, its just as much of a predictive theory. They are just interpretating the ontology of the model differently, which is exactly what i'm saying.
>Huh? Information density is how much information something contains. It's not a property of information itself, which doesn't even exist.
Read what the digital physicists write about this.
>You're being obtuse. Where in the post?
Right in the first line, where I show using a quick proof that we could replace all the worlds material with mathematical object and it would make no difference.
This is a direct proof
>It is an argument, since you're saying material doesn't mean what it means.
You are the one saying material doesn't mean what it means, not me.
>My argument is clear. You presented no model, you simply stated they are interchangeable.
Wrong
>I didn't ask for idealists that make models about material, I asked for idealist models. Hint: there are none.
So now when I post examples you just pretend they don't exist? Not an argument, buddy

This is boring now, you're not very smart and you havent been able to make any argument.

>>15010255
>After a certain point, it becomes statistically impossible that they won't coincide again
Check as many times as you like that 0 != 1 and that the year is before 2023.
What happens to your statistical impossibility in January?

>>15012280
>Yea, and you're wrong.
Pick up a dictionary. I'm right.

>There is nothing in any materialist model that couldn't be replaced with concepts of mathematical objects or whatever.
Then do it. You're just going to call matter something else, you're not actually going to replace the concept of matter that is integral to the model. You can only copy, not produce anything.

>No, its just as much of a predictive theory
No, it's a hypothesis. You don't know what theory means. It's also false: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012365X13000873?via%3Dihub

>Read what the digital physicists write about this.
I don't waste my time on falsified physics.

>Right in the first line, where I show using a quick proof that we could replace all the worlds material with mathematical object and it would make no difference.
You didn't show that, you stated it would make no difference. You know this, which is why you refused to quote it and why you refuse to actually present any model.

>You are the one saying material doesn't mean what it means
Where? You're saying material and mathematical object are interchangeable when they mean different things.

>Wrong
Then where's the model? You're lying.

>So now when I post examples you just pretend they don't exist?
I didn't pretend the examples you posted don't exist, I said they're not examples of what I asked for. Try to argue honestly.

>you havent been able to make any argument.
My argument is the same as in my first reply:

The difference is that no idealist has ever put forth a model that predicts anything. All they can do is arbitrarily add their dogma to successful materialist models. It's a huge difference.

So far you have not refuted this.

>>15012281
Then you receive new data that tells you they don't coincide, and eventually it becomes statistically impossible for them to coincide.

>>15012321
Every single one of the particles here in this model are equally able to be described as "bits of matter" as they are as "bits of information/mathematical objects".
There is no argument you can make against this other than just going "no that's not true they are matter by definition!"
Well, I just say they are mathematical objects by definition with certain mathematical transformations (which is itself a mathematical object)
You have no argument against this

>>15012321
>Pick up a dictionary. I'm right.
No, you're not
>Then do it. You're just going to call matter something else, you're not actually going to replace the concept of matter that is integral to the model. You can only copy, not produce anything.
I've literally done this several times
>No, it's a hypothesis. You don't know what theory means. It's also false: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012365X13000873?via%3Dihub
This is saying reality can't be discrete. It's not saying that reality can't be a mathematical structure. There are continuous mathematical structures.
>You didn't show that, you stated it would make no difference.
Yes, I proved it would make no difference, and it wouldn't
>You know this, which is why you refused to quote it and why you refuse to actually present any model.
I have quoted it several times, here it is again:
>Let's imagine every single mention of the word "material" in every scientific paper is replaced with "the platonic form" or "the mathematical object" or whatever. Does this make any difference in the model or it's ability to describe phenomena or reproduce?

No. The model is exactly the same in terms of it's utility, but we would look at it as a description of a different ontological unit, or whatever, despite the difference in the linguistic description.
That's the proof, and it is a solid proof that you have no argument against.

>Where? You're saying material and mathematical object are interchangeable when they mean different things.
They are interchangeable, and they do not mean different things with respect to the power of a model, which I have been saying this whole time, and which you have no argument against.
>Then where's the model? You're lying.
I've given it several times
>I didn't pretend the examples you posted don't exist, I said they're not examples of what I asked for. Try to argue honestly.
Yes, they are, and you're in denial

>>14997741
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/zmSuDDFE4dicqd4Hg/you-only-need-faith-in-two-things

>You only need faith in two things: That "induction works" has a non-super-exponentially-tiny prior probability, and that some single large ordinal is well-ordered. Anything else worth believing in is a deductive consequence of one or both.

>(Because being exposed to ordered sensory data will rapidly promote the hypothesis that induction works, even if you started by assigning it very tiny prior probability, so long as that prior probability is not super-exponentially tiny. Then induction on sensory data gives you all empirical facts worth believing in. Believing that a mathematical system has a model usually corresponds to believing that a certain computable ordinal is well-ordered (the proof-theoretic ordinal of that system), and large ordinals imply the well-orderedness of all smaller ordinals. So if you assign non-tiny prior probability to the idea that induction might work, and you believe in the well-orderedness of a single sufficiently large computable ordinal, all of empirical science, and all of the math you will actually believe in, will follow without any further need for faith.)

>(The reason why you need faith for the first case is that although the fact that induction works can be readily observed, there is also some anti-inductive prior which says, 'Well, but since induction has worked all those previous times, it'll probably fail next time!' and 'Anti-induction is bound to work next time, since it's never worked before!' Since anti-induction objectively gets a far lower Bayes-score on any ordered sequence and is then demoted by the logical operation of Bayesian updating, to favor induction over anti-induction it is not necessary to start out believing that induction works better than anti-induction, it is only necessary *not* to start out by being *perfectly* confident that induction won't work.)

>>15012349
Yudkowski still believes that drexlerian nanobots are possible despite smalley btfo him 20 years ago and the last 20 years of research also showing drexler is wrong.
Yudkowski doesnt practice what he preaches

>>14998479
This is why physics has been shitting the bed for the past fifty years.

>>15012358
He also believes that polycules and cuckoldry will save society.

>>15012331
I can't tell if you're joking or completely oblivious to your own use of the word "impossible"
If you're not laughing along, what does "impossible" mean to you and how can you reconcile it with "impossible" things happening all the time?

>>15013227
>I can't tell if you're joking or completely oblivious to your own use of the word "impossible"
Is "statistically impossible" not "impossible." Probability 0 doesn't mean impossible.

Hume destroyed science before science was even a thing. We pressed on regardless. But where has science gotten us?

>>15013266
He didn't.

>>15013273
What does science have to show for it? Let’s see. Starlink. So you can watch porn whilst in the Congo. Going off to Mars. So you can die there of radiation poisoning and/or rapid-onset osteoporosis.

>>15013280
Men can get their penis turned into a stinkditch too. Don't forget that!

>>15012077
The fact that I have experience IS logical necessity because it would be a contradiction for an agent to claim it does not exist as the agent must exist to make the denial.
Meanwhile, the existence of the material is not a logical necessity as a mind could hypothetically exist without the material world as we know it (see Boltzmann's brain for an example). This means that I have far more reason to believe in experience than the material.

>>15013255
Okay, so you're actually retarded. 2023 is not a statistically impossible event

>>15013280
Yup, that's it, you got it. Genius.

>>15013340
No one said it was.

>>15013338
>The fact that I have experience IS logical necessity
No one said otherwise, try to stay on topic. I asked what experience told you that you have a soul and aren't material. I doubt I'm going to get an answer.

>Meanwhile, the existence of the material is not a logical necessity
No one said it was. It's just what our best models of reality keep saying over and over again.

>This means that I have far more reason to believe in experience than the material.
There is no contradiction between the two, so this claim is pointless.

>>15012340
>Every single one of the particles here in this model are equally able to be described as "bits of matter" as they are as "bits of information/mathematical objects".
This is exactly what I said you would do. You didn't replace the concept, you just added a label to it. No successful model has ever or will ever be produced this way, because it's arbitrary and can only copy already existing successful models.

>There is no argument you can make against this
Why would I argue against it when it's exactly what I predicted?

>>15012348
>No, you're not
I am. Read a dictionary.

>I've literally done this several times
You literally haven't and can't quote a single example.

>It's not saying that reality can't be a mathematical structure.
It's a disproof of digital physics. Try to stay on topic.

>Yes, I proved it would make no difference
Making a bald claim is not proof.

>I have quoted it several times, here it is again:
>Let's imagine every single mention of the word "material" in every scientific paper is replaced with "the platonic form" or "the mathematical object" or whatever. Does this make any difference in the model or it's ability to describe phenomena or reproduce?
That's not a proof, it's a question you answered without proof. The more you repeat the word proof without showing any proof, the more ridiculous you make yourself.

>They are interchangeable, and they do not mean different things with respect to the power of a model
They mean different things with respect to the content of the model. There is no idealist concept of a subatomic particle. It took hundreds of years to develop that concept to what it is today. Idealism had nothing to do with it. All you can do is swoop in after the work is done and arbitrarily slap your label on it. It's laughable

>I've given it several times
No you haven't.

>Yes, they are
No they aren't. Which of their models are idealist? Give me one.

>>14998479
This is why nobody takes science seriously.
It's literally a 100% irrational, faith-based belief, no different than a holy book.

>>14997741
In the long term every system is chaotic. In the short term no. It's the concept of time it self, from order to chaos globally, locally it's not due to energy balance. So inside my local environment where i put lots of energy to stabilize my sistem, the experiment is repeatable.

>Well, for the past 42 years I identified as a man. But you can't inductively infer my gender today. From now on I'm a woman and my pronouns are she/her.
Does all philosophy ultimately serve the sole purpose of justifying trannyism?

>>14997741
Enough with the antisemitism.
Now take the vaccine, and make sure to have abortions.

>>15014723
>Now take the vaccine
>and make sure to have abortions.
Redundant. The former induces the latter.

>>14997741
Nature is full of patterns.

>>14998820
>The model working is evidence that it's correct.
Congratulations! Your fallacy is: Affirming the Consequent.

>You need to at least have a coherent model that can be tested
Wrong, tests can only compare the DIFFERENCES between two models.

>>15012087
>DIFFERENCE
Correct.
>>15012233
>DIFFERENCE
Correct.

>>14998518
>because an epistemological system works, and most of the people using that system have a given ontology, the system's success is an argument in favor of the ontology.
It kind of is lol. A far more incisive argument is to point out that "science" is a category error. Physics and psychology have **NOTHING** in common with each other. In fact, even "physics" is a category error. String theory and Newton's laws have **NOTHING** in common with each other.

There's also a ton of stolen valor going on whereby 99% of the benefit to humanity has been provided by engineers, not soientists, but then soientists try and claim credit for shit they had nothing to do with.

>>15000269
>When physicists make claims like "the universe is made of information and physical reality emerges from this information," they are still doing science
?????? That claim is not science it's religious tautological mumbo-jumbo bullshit.

A scientific statement is one based off a falsifiable experiment with a control group. For example - objects in the universe are attracted to each other with a force proportional to the product of their masses divided by the distance between them squared.

>>15012281
Correct. A more practical example is "to an ant, every day in his life has been warm, but then one day winter comes ..."

>>15012349
>You only need faith in two things
Very fragile form of reasoning. Better to reason in anti-fragile semilattice form than fragile tree form. That means you distribute partial faith among lots of interwoven statements so that even if some are wrong the fabric remains intact.

>>15016612
>Congratulations! Your fallacy is: Affirming the Consequent.
No, affirming the consequent would be me saying "the model is correct because it works" not "the model working is evidence it's correct." You're confusing empirical evidence with logical proof. Dumb creationist.

>Wrong, tests can only compare the DIFFERENCES between two models.
No, tests can falsify or support a model workout comparison to any other model. Your don't even have a model that can be supported or falsified.

>>14997741
There is no 100% satisfying response to Hume's induction problem and other problems like it in the philosophy of science.
It's not logically necessary for the scientific principles underlying modern technology to hold tomorrow, so you can't get 100% conviction. The Internet could implode tomorrow. But we'll keep on keeping on while the principles seem to hold.
If anyone promises you any more from science, stop reading Reddit.

>>15017507
The 100% satisfying response to Hume is that empirical science has never claimed 100% certainty. Naive philosophers think everything is about logical necessity and can't into uncertainty and probability.

>>14997741
Probability?

>>14997804
>And the things in your models, they exist outside of their being perceived? I think not.
wrong good sir, i used my latest invention, "math", to get around this issue quite nicely
>Is there any scientific paper anywhere using unperceived observations?
there are many, although there are few for astromomy, physics and math have produced a great deal. for the real unperceived observations, you may turn to the "social sciences"

>>14997741
>Please explain this in rational terms.
*shoots you*
Nah, it's called probability, BITCH
*blow smoke off barrel*

>>14997741
He's right. Probability isn't proof. If you can't answer the question WHY a certain cause had a certain effect in a scientific study then you cannot claim to know it.

For example, you could count the sun rising 1,000 times and setting 1,000 times, and then make the claim that the sun will rise 1,001 times. But if you know nothing about the sun, and nothing about the Earth... you will never be able to answer the question why the sun rises.

Once you can answer that question, you leave the world of probability and enter the world of certainty.

Once you figure out the sun is a star, and the earth is a planet, and that the earth is rotating around the sun while also rotating on it's axis. You can make a model and directly understand that the earth's rotation is what makes the sun appear to rise and fall.

>>15017629
*jams gun barrel against your temple*
Hey man, if I pull this trigger, you'll be fine, cause it's only a probability it'd going to fire a red hot slug into your brain, not proven, right?
Not so tough now, huh faggot

>>15017629
>If you can't answer the question WHY a certain cause had a certain effect in a scientific study then you cannot claim to know it.
Can't no nuffin.

>But if you know nothing about the sun, and nothing about the Earth... you will never be able to answer the question why the sun rises.
Observing the Sun is the first step to answering that question. Then you form a model based on observations and you test that model repeatedly. Please explain how else we would obtain knowledge about reality.

>Once you can answer that question, you leave the world of probability and enter the world of certainty.
You can never achieve absolute certainty about reality.

>Once you figure out the sun is a star, and the earth is a planet, and that the earth is rotating around the sun while also rotating on it's axis.
How? These are just more models based on repeated testing. It's all ultimately based on induction no matter how complex it gets.