Magical thinking in science and philosophy

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
Locked
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4175
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Magical thinking in science and philosophy

Post by Terrapin Station » January 11th, 2020, 12:34 pm

Atla wrote:
January 11th, 2020, 12:31 pm
Terrapin Station wrote:
January 11th, 2020, 12:25 pm


Yes, I read the rest of the comment. But I wanted you to answer my question.

So apparently you didn't answer my question, and I have no idea what "Sure" was in response to. Could you answer my question first?
You are making pretty lame attempts at trolling, don't you think?
Sigh. I'm trying to have a discussion with you. Why does that have to be so difficult?

Atla
Posts: 1153
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: Magical thinking in science and philosophy

Post by Atla » January 11th, 2020, 12:35 pm

Terrapin Station wrote:
January 11th, 2020, 12:34 pm
Atla wrote:
January 11th, 2020, 12:31 pm

You are making pretty lame attempts at trolling, don't you think?
Sigh. I'm trying to have a discussion with you. Why does that have to be so difficult?
Actually it wasn't that bad, I'll give you a 6/10 :lol:

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4175
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Magical thinking in science and philosophy

Post by Terrapin Station » January 11th, 2020, 12:35 pm

I'm trying to write very plainly/straightforwardly. I asked you a simple question that I was hoping you'd answer. You appeared to answer (since you wrote "Sure"), but apparently, per you above, that wasn't an answer to the question(s) I asked. In a conversation, usually you can ask someone a question and they'll answer it.

User avatar
Consul
Posts: 3370
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Magical thinking in science and philosophy

Post by Consul » January 11th, 2020, 4:02 pm

Atla wrote:
January 10th, 2020, 4:27 pm
Here are my 3 favourites (there are more, but these take the prize in my opinion):

1. Strong emergence. We get something out of nothing, for example: we get mind out of matter; we get qualia out of the complexity of matter; we get the Big Bang and the entire universe out of nothing and so on.

People employ the technique of handwaving to demonstrate how something extra emeeeerges out of nothing.
Ontological (strong) emergence is not an emergence ex nihilo, because all emergent properties of a system are grounded or rooted in structural properties of it, i.e. in groups of relations between and properties of the system's elements.
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars

Atla
Posts: 1153
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: Magical thinking in science and philosophy

Post by Atla » January 11th, 2020, 4:10 pm

Consul wrote:
January 11th, 2020, 4:02 pm
Atla wrote:
January 10th, 2020, 4:27 pm
Here are my 3 favourites (there are more, but these take the prize in my opinion):

1. Strong emergence. We get something out of nothing, for example: we get mind out of matter; we get qualia out of the complexity of matter; we get the Big Bang and the entire universe out of nothing and so on.

People employ the technique of handwaving to demonstrate how something extra emeeeerges out of nothing.
Ontological (strong) emergence is not an emergence ex nihilo, because all emergent properties of a system are grounded or rooted in structural properties of it, i.e. in groups of relations between and properties of the system's elements.
Then aren't you talking about weak emergence?
For example the Big Bang emerging out of 'nothing': what structural properties or relation between its elements or whatever does 'nothing' possess?

creation
Posts: 1098
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Magical thinking in science and philosophy

Post by creation » January 11th, 2020, 9:33 pm

Atla wrote:
January 11th, 2020, 11:22 am
Terrapin Station wrote:
January 11th, 2020, 11:17 am


You're not thinking that the standard model lists every single property of all matter, are you? For example, does it list the properties of how stereo systems produce music from vinyl albums?
Sure, the part of the inside of the human head called human mind is made of 'matter', and stereo systems are made of 'matter' etc., but then everything is a property of matter. I don't think that's a good definition for property.
So, according to you when a human head is cut open then there will be seen particles of 'matter', which you would say is the human "mind"?

User avatar
Consul
Posts: 3370
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Magical thinking in science and philosophy

Post by Consul » January 12th, 2020, 12:01 pm

Atla wrote:
January 11th, 2020, 4:10 pm
Consul wrote:
January 11th, 2020, 4:02 pm
Ontological (strong) emergence is not an emergence ex nihilo, because all emergent properties of a system are grounded or rooted in structural properties of it, i.e. in groups of relations between and properties of the system's elements.
Then aren't you talking about weak emergence?
No.
Atla wrote:
January 11th, 2020, 4:10 pm
For example the Big Bang emerging out of 'nothing': what structural properties or relation between its elements or whatever does 'nothing' possess?
There's no possible (ontological) emergence out of nothing, because it's part of the very concept of emergence that emergent entities are founded on, grounded or rooted in other entities. Emergent attributes are ontologically irreducible but not ontologically independent.
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars

User avatar
The_architect
New Trial Member
Posts: 13
Joined: March 17th, 2017, 2:10 am

Re: Magical thinking in science and philosophy

Post by The_architect » January 12th, 2020, 1:12 pm

I talked to a man who was run over by a car. At the emergency room he flat lined 3 or 4 times for several seconds, up to a minute or so each time. He said he remembered what it felt like during those moments of death because he had them so frequently. He described it as feeling like "nothing". He said it was the most awesome feeling. He couldn't describe it any other way. He said it was the most peaceful feeling, that his mind didn't think, it was turned off, but he had an awareness of "nothing".

I wasn't the least surprised. My theory on life is that it is fundamentally a creature of polarity. Where there is life, there is death: where there is everything, there is nothing. Light, dark. Good, evil. Prey, predator. Time, no time. The Big Bang is not a problem because the Nothing is still there. It is out of our reach, however. Everything and Nothing co-exist. They are two parallel states. Then there is the 1s and 0s of life that I suggest as so:

1 DNA evolve 0 AND love 1 DNA evolve 0 AND love ...

Note that "love" are the first 4 letter of evolve spelled backwards, as DNA and AND mirror each other. We don't evolve by one lifetime; that doesn't make sense. To evolve as a species with singular DNA within that species, meaning we are actually individual subspecies, you need to regenerate. One lifetime does not regenerate. It is only logical that our individual DNA must regenerate to evolve; hence, more than one liftetime. And, I believe what is evolving is our capacity for love, not the capability of our minds. It is not necessarily a religious thing; it is a survival thing. If we plan to remain a fixture on this planet we will need to grow our capacity for love of humanity to prevent war and annihilation and the cooperative global effort to maintain a healthy environment on Earth.

The magic of science is the incredulity it defines in our universe. It certainly seems to be discovering and defining the divine. In any case, the numbers and facts are so astronomical they are out of our brain's league. That is unquestionable. We have the knowledge but we don't comprehend them so much. We've only been here for two seconds, after all. If God existed since the beginning of time or infinitely, He only created us 2 seconds ago in the age of the universe. Why did He wait so long? Did it take Earth that long to become inhabitable? Why was He dependent on a growth line in the first place? Trial and error?

User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 2607
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Magical thinking in science and philosophy

Post by Sculptor1 » January 12th, 2020, 1:22 pm

Consul wrote:
January 12th, 2020, 12:01 pm
Atla wrote:
January 11th, 2020, 4:10 pm
Then aren't you talking about weak emergence?
No.
Atla wrote:
January 11th, 2020, 4:10 pm
For example the Big Bang emerging out of 'nothing': what structural properties or relation between its elements or whatever does 'nothing' possess?
There's no possible (ontological) emergence out of nothing, because it's part of the very concept of emergence that emergent entities are founded on, grounded or rooted in other entities. Emergent attributes are ontologically irreducible but not ontologically independent.
Since we have only one example of the "big bang", there is no empirical precedent to comment on the possibility or impossibility of this event.

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 7999
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes of Cyrene
Location: UK

Re: Magical thinking in science and philosophy

Post by Steve3007 » January 12th, 2020, 1:27 pm

Sculptor1 wrote:Since we have only one example of the "big bang", there is no empirical precedent to comment on the possibility or impossibility of this event.
Very good point. I think this illustrates the way that the concept of probability is often misused. Probability and Statistics go together for a reason. And Statistics is the study of lots of stuff happening. Not just one stuff. Although I don't think that's the official definition of it.

User avatar
Consul
Posts: 3370
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Magical thinking in science and philosophy

Post by Consul » January 12th, 2020, 1:35 pm

Sculptor1 wrote:
January 12th, 2020, 1:22 pm
Consul wrote:
January 12th, 2020, 12:01 pm
There's no possible (ontological) emergence out of nothing, because it's part of the very concept of emergence that emergent entities are founded on, grounded or rooted in other entities. Emergent attributes are ontologically irreducible but not ontologically independent.
Since we have only one example of the "big bang", there is no empirical precedent to comment on the possibility or impossibility of this event.
My point is that if the Big Bang is the absolute beginning of the matter-energy-space-time system, then it's not a case of emergence, since emergence from nothing is non-emergence.
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 7999
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes of Cyrene
Location: UK

Re: Magical thinking in science and philosophy

Post by Steve3007 » January 12th, 2020, 2:42 pm

Consul wrote:My point is that if the Big Bang is the absolute beginning of the matter-energy-space-time system, then it's not a case of emergence, since emergence from nothing is non-emergence
Also a good point.

User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 1207
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: Magical thinking in science and philosophy

Post by h_k_s » January 12th, 2020, 9:10 pm

Present awareness wrote:
January 10th, 2020, 9:15 pm
Atla wrote:
January 10th, 2020, 4:27 pm
Here are my 3 favourites (there are more, but these take the prize in my opinion):

1. Strong emergence. We get something out of nothing, for example: we get mind out of matter; we get qualia out of the complexity of matter; we get the Big Bang and the entire universe out of nothing and so on.

People employ the technique of handwaving to demonstrate how something extra emeeeerges out of nothing.

2. Encoded information. Shannon information is a dimensionless abstract concept created in the last century. So then people employed the technique of the reification fallacy to treat information as a newly discovered thing that exists in addition to matter. So now bits of information are encoded 'in' matter and so on, effectively duplicating the universe.

3. Classical realm vs quantum realm. People employed the technique of shut up and calculate so they could sweep the problems under the carpet.
So if I zoom out and squint this way, it's all 'real' and it's the classical world. If I zoom in and squint that way, none of it is 'real' and it's the quantum world.

I don't get it, why are such fallacies still so mainstream?
Something from nothing is not a logical proposition, so like you say, magic would have to be involved. The three most common ideas on how the universe came to be are:
1. The universe appeared out of nothing with a Big Bang
2. God created the universe
3. The universe was always here

Number 3 seems most logical to me, since the present moment is always here and everything exists in the present. Number 1 doesn’t make much sense and number two has the problem of whom created God?
I must agree with you, @Present awareness .

#3 seems the most logical.

The other two result in major self-contradictions, dilemmas, and paradoxes.

User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 1207
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: Magical thinking in science and philosophy

Post by h_k_s » January 12th, 2020, 9:11 pm

Steve3007 wrote:
January 12th, 2020, 2:42 pm
Consul wrote:My point is that if the Big Bang is the absolute beginning of the matter-energy-space-time system, then it's not a case of emergence, since emergence from nothing is non-emergence
Also a good point.
Stop blowing sunshine up his rotunda @Steve3007 . It is pure nonsense. See #3 supra. That is the only logical, philosophically sound conclusion.

User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 1207
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: Magical thinking in science and philosophy

Post by h_k_s » January 12th, 2020, 9:15 pm

The_architect wrote:
January 12th, 2020, 1:12 pm
I talked to a man who was run over by a car. At the emergency room he flat lined 3 or 4 times for several seconds, up to a minute or so each time. He said he remembered what it felt like during those moments of death because he had them so frequently. He described it as feeling like "nothing". He said it was the most awesome feeling. He couldn't describe it any other way. He said it was the most peaceful feeling, that his mind didn't think, it was turned off, but he had an awareness of "nothing".

I wasn't the least surprised. My theory on life is that it is fundamentally a creature of polarity. Where there is life, there is death: where there is everything, there is nothing. Light, dark. Good, evil. Prey, predator. Time, no time. The Big Bang is not a problem because the Nothing is still there. It is out of our reach, however. Everything and Nothing co-exist. They are two parallel states. Then there is the 1s and 0s of life that I suggest as so:

1 DNA evolve 0 AND love 1 DNA evolve 0 AND love ...

Note that "love" are the first 4 letter of evolve spelled backwards, as DNA and AND mirror each other. We don't evolve by one lifetime; that doesn't make sense. To evolve as a species with singular DNA within that species, meaning we are actually individual subspecies, you need to regenerate. One lifetime does not regenerate. It is only logical that our individual DNA must regenerate to evolve; hence, more than one liftetime. And, I believe what is evolving is our capacity for love, not the capability of our minds. It is not necessarily a religious thing; it is a survival thing. If we plan to remain a fixture on this planet we will need to grow our capacity for love of humanity to prevent war and annihilation and the cooperative global effort to maintain a healthy environment on Earth.

The magic of science is the incredulity it defines in our universe. It certainly seems to be discovering and defining the divine. In any case, the numbers and facts are so astronomical they are out of our brain's league. That is unquestionable. We have the knowledge but we don't comprehend them so much. We've only been here for two seconds, after all. If God existed since the beginning of time or infinitely, He only created us 2 seconds ago in the age of the universe. Why did He wait so long? Did it take Earth that long to become inhabitable? Why was He dependent on a growth line in the first place? Trial and error?
Just because someone gets run over by a car does not necessarily mean they have experienced "death."

That is the fallacy in your story @architect .

Locked