Magical thinking in science and philosophy

Atla · Post by **Atla** » January 11th, 2020, 6:45 am

Steve3007 wrote: ↑January 11th, 2020, 6:42 am
Atla wrote:So you don't consider getting something out of nothing to be magic?
There are no known cases of getting something out of nothing so what evidence are you asking me for?
Ah, so your answer to my question is that your evidence is empirical? Derived from sensations?

Well I see it as both logical and empirical. We can't get something out of nothing, also it's the 'law' of conversation.

Steve3007 · Post by **Steve3007** » January 11th, 2020, 6:46 am

That's not what you said. You said that Windows isn't matter. But of course it is.

I disagree. I don't think that software is hardware.

creation · Post by **creation** » January 11th, 2020, 6:47 am

Steve3007 wrote: ↑January 11th, 2020, 6:02 am I don't agree with the way that any of those 3 concepts have been characterized.

1. Emergence is simply the idea that there are properties of complex systems which cannot be extrapolated from consideration of their individual parts - from reductionism. This clearly appears to be the case. For example, human beings seem to have minds. Human brains appear to be composed of atoms. If that appearance changes in the future, I might think differently. But for now, it seems reasonable to suppose that mind is an emergent property of matter.

But human beings do not have minds.

Steve3007 wrote: ↑January 11th, 2020, 6:02 am 2, Encoded information. Obviously information exists. The Windows Operating System on this computer that I'm using exists. But it is not matter. So if you think it doesn't, you'll have to explain to me exactly what it means to you for something to objectively "exist" and we'll see if we disagree as to the definition of that word.

3. This seems to me to be a garbled account of what was meant by the short, pithy phrase "shut up and calculate". I don't see how you're trying to relate it to some idea that quantum and classical physics are different realms. You'd have to explain more.

Atla · Post by **Atla** » January 11th, 2020, 6:48 am

Steve3007 wrote: ↑January 11th, 2020, 6:44 am
Umm no. It's about when or why or how things behace classically (like being in one place) or superpositionally (like for example being in 2 places at once or everywhere at the same time etc.)
Things don't "behave classically" or behave quantumly (new word I've invented). See my description of the way that models work.

Everything is a model then so what's your point? And we usually use one model for the the classical and another model for the quantum, that's what I'm criticizing.

Steve3007 · Post by **Steve3007** » January 11th, 2020, 6:49 am

Well I see it as both logical and empirical. We can't get something out of nothing, also it's the 'law' of conversation.

Conservation laws, such as the laws of conservation of mass, energy, mass-energy, charge, strangeness, charm etc, are empirically derived. Like any other law or principle they are provisional. Subject to possible (even if improbable) change in the light of new observations.

Atla · Post by **Atla** » January 11th, 2020, 6:50 am

Steve3007 wrote: ↑January 11th, 2020, 6:46 am
That's not what you said. You said that Windows isn't matter. But of course it is.
I disagree. I don't think that software is hardware.

Yes and that's factually wrong. Software 'running on hardware' means that the software is physically a part of the hardware. That's how all computer parts are manufactured.

Steve3007 · Post by **Steve3007** » January 11th, 2020, 6:51 am

Everything is a model then so what's your point? And we usually use one model for the the classical and another model for the quantum, that's what I'm criticizing.

What's your criticism if it works? We use Newton's laws for all kinds of useful things, like getting to the moon, and it works, despite them being a subset of both Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity.

Steve3007 · Post by **Steve3007** » January 11th, 2020, 6:52 am

If you think it's factually wrong to say that software is not hardware and that software doesn't exist, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Atla · Post by **Atla** » January 11th, 2020, 6:53 am

Steve3007 wrote: ↑January 11th, 2020, 6:51 am
Everything is a model then so what's your point? And we usually use one model for the the classical and another model for the quantum, that's what I'm criticizing.
What's your criticism if it works? We use Newton's laws for all kinds of useful things, like getting to the moon, and it works, despite them being a subset of both Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity.

My point is that we don't live in two different, strangely connected 'realms'. There is only one 'realm'.

Atla · Post by **Atla** » January 11th, 2020, 6:54 am

Steve3007 wrote: ↑January 11th, 2020, 6:52 am If you think it's factually wrong to say that software is not hardware and that software doesn't exist, we'll have to agree to disagree.

I neither said that software is not hardware, nor that software doesn't exist. You should look into the nature of information though.

Atla · Post by **Atla** » January 11th, 2020, 6:56 am

Steve3007 wrote: ↑January 11th, 2020, 6:49 am
Well I see it as both logical and empirical. We can't get something out of nothing, also it's the 'law' of conversation.
Conservation laws, such as the laws of conservation of mass, energy, mass-energy, charge, strangeness, charm etc, are empirically derived. Like any other law or principle they are provisional. Subject to possible (even if improbable) change in the light of new observations.

Can you without a doubt demonstrate that we can get something out of nothing?

Steve3007 · Post by **Steve3007** » January 11th, 2020, 7:01 am

Atla wrote:I neither said that software is not hardware, nor that software doesn't exist.

viewtopic.php?p=345355#p345355

Steve3007 wrote:I disagree. I don't think that software is hardware.

Atla wrote:Yes and that's factually wrong.

Steve3007 · Post by **Steve3007** » January 11th, 2020, 7:10 am

Can you without a doubt demonstrate that we can get something out of nothing?

No. And I've never knowingly experienced such a thing. Can you without a doubt (in other words by using pure logic without any reference to sensations/experiences) demonstrate that we can't?

chewybrian · Post by **chewybrian** » January 11th, 2020, 7:18 am

Atla wrote: ↑January 11th, 2020, 6:26 am
2, Encoded information. Obviously information exists. The Windows Operating System on this computer that I'm using exists. But it is not matter. So if you think it doesn't, you'll have to explain to me exactly what it means to you for something to objectively "exist" and we'll see if we disagree as to the definition of that word.
That's factually completely wrong. Windows is a software, and a software is always a part of the hardware. Software is just electrons flying around and such, depends on how the hardware is manufactured. There is no such thing as information by itself.

Is the English language a part of your physical being? Were you born with the English language inside you? I think, rather, you were born with an ability to understand ideas, and the English language is one way of encoding ideas, and encouraging you to have an idea in your head similar to the idea in the head of the speaker or writer. You could just as easily have learned French or some other language, just as the computer could run on different software. But the language, for you, and the software, for the computer, are not physical elements built in.

If the computer had its memory wiped out, windows would go away with it, though you might have windows stored separately on discs or something. Similarly, if all humans died today, the English language would die with them, though it may remain stored in dictionaries or other means. In either case, the hardware of the computer could still be present, and your 'hardware', your dead body, may still be present, but the software is not part of that hardware. Software is only information, which the hardware stores, just as language is information which we store.

Steve3007 · Post by **Steve3007** » January 11th, 2020, 7:28 am

Atla wrote:I neither said that software is not hardware, nor that software doesn't exist.

In that case, I think you should avoid making sweeping assertions like "that's factually completely wrong" when referring to entire passages. E.g:

Steve3007 wrote:2, Encoded information. Obviously information exists. The Windows Operating System on this computer that I'm using exists. But it is not matter. So if you think it doesn't, you'll have to explain to me exactly what it means to you for something to objectively "exist" and we'll see if we disagree as to the definition of that word.

Atla wrote:That's factually completely wrong. Windows is a software, and a software is always a part of the hardware. Software is just electrons flying around and such, depends on how the hardware is manufactured. There is no such thing as information by itself.

I have to assume that if what I said was, in your view, "factually completely wrong" then you think I'm wrong to say "obviously information exists" and wrong to say "the Windows Operating System on this computer that I'm using exists. But it is not matter" and wrong to ask you to define the word "exists". Don't I?

But if that assumption is correct then it contradicts the quote from you at the top of this post.