Re: Dennett / Ruse Tiff Continues

catshark wrote:
On "Chimp" <pan_paniscus1859@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
catshark wrote:
"Chimp" <pan_paniscus1859@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Try giving me an alternative definition of "real".

That which exists in any way, whether or not we can even
conceptually detect it.

Giving a synonym doesn't really answer. If something is
conceptually undetectable then in what way can it be
said to "exist" or "be real"?

It can be real if it is detectible by a being with different abilities than
ours. Or, to put it the other way 'round, what basis is there for
believing that empiricism can detect everything that is real?

If it is detectable by some other being, and if we can have
interaction with that being, then we can detect it indirectly
through that being. This is no different from, say, detecting
radiation indirectly using a Geiger counter.

If, however, that "being with different abilities" cannot
interact with us then it is causally disconnected from
our universe. Both that being and whatever it detects
are better thought of as a "seperate reality" than as
"real" in our universe.

So, the basis for believing that "empiricism can detect
everything that is real" is, again, a definition of "real".

You persist in using "real" for something that can
never, even in principle, have any influence on
any part of our observable universe. To my mind
that contradicts the sensible meaning of "real".

How would you detect a pattern from a single non-random decay? Out of
billions of decays a minute in places unavailable to humans and in times
long before humans existed, how would you detect 10 or 100 non-random
decays? How could you ever be sure you had detected a pattern instead of a
nice run of flipping heads in a row? I can't see how anything less than
perfect knowledge could even begin to enable you to detect a pattern that
consisted of anything less than massive interference.

I entirely agree that in some cases we may not, as a practical
matter, have the capability to detect some things that are in
principle detectable.

But, you are proposing a "supernatural intervention that
alters sufficiently few decays that they are practically
undetectable".

Yes, that would give difficulty, but no more difficulty than
"_natural_phenomenon_ that alters sufficiently few decays
that they are practically undetectable".

In other words, the difficulty is NOT that you have invoked
the supernatural, it is that the hypothetical effects are
minimal.

But even with massive interference, how would you
distinguish such interference from an unknown natural law?
Again, you'd need perfect knowledge.

The hypotheses ("unknown natural law" versus "supernatural
interference") would TELL ME how to distinguish them.

If they _didn't_ tell me how to distinguish them they
would be equivalent, and I could treat them as the
same thing.

And just how do you reliably detect a pattern of design
without knowing the intent of the design and the attributes
of the designer?

In the usual way, by comparing differing hypotheses
for their explanatory success and predictive power.

No, that suffers from the very defect that we pummel the IDeologists with.
You can't test a hypothesis of a divine designer empirically, precisely
because nothing is beyond the ability of such a being. No result is
incompatable with that hypothesis.

If no result is incompatible with the "divine designer" then
it has no predictive power. I thus would reject it in favor
of any hypothesis that did have predictive power.

Now this is a good reason why the God hypothesis can't be
scientific . . . but that's what I am arguing . . . it *can't* be scientific

I disagree. It is perfectly possible to formulate testable
hypotheses and predictions based on a "God". Here is one:
"If I read this Bible verse over this sick child then this sick
child will recover, and if he dies I will accept that my
prediction is falsified".

The fact that believers do not usually do this (preferring
to end ". . . and if he doesn't, I'll invent some feeble excuse
for why my prediction isn't falsified") does not mean that the
above cannot be done.

Either the "God hypothesis" cannot make falsifiable predictions,
in which case we reject it in favor of theories with predicitive
power; or, if the "God hypothesis" _can_ make falsifiable
predictions then we simply test it like any other theory.

Things can be conceptually indistinguishable to humans
and other finite beings and still be not identical.

This sentence seems confused between:
A) "They are conceptually distinguishable, but we limited
humans are not up to the task", and
B) "They are conceptually indistinguishable, even to
an infinitely competent being".

I wasn't making that confusion. You perhaps have some problem
with the idea that infinitely competent beings are not necessarily
limited to empiricism.

If this "infinitely competent being" can detect some thing
by non-empirical means, and this being can, in some way,
interact with us, then indirect knowledge of that thing via
this being allows us to "detect" that thing.

So no, I have absolutely no problem with the concept
that other beings may have competences beyond ours.

[In fact, electric fish, bats that detect ultrasound, bees that
see in the UV, etc, all do. I have no problem with extending
that concept.]

And doesn't that beg the whole question, which is whether
only that which we can observe is real?

Again, it is really a matter of how we define "real".
You are asserting that something can be "real "
despite its existence being conceptually indistinguishable
from its non-existence. I'm just interested by what
_you_ mean by "real" in that usage.

"Being conceptually indistinguishable from its
non-existence" seems a pretty good definition
of "non-real" to me. In fact, I'm beginning to like it.

You are then assuming that anything a human can't
observe is unreal.

For the EIGHTH time it is a _definition_ not an assumption.

I am saying if there is no possible way for a "thing" to
influence any part of the observable universe -- even
through indirect means via beings that have capabilities
way beyond ours -- then that thing doesn't "exist" as
far as our universe is concerned. [Though it may be
part of some seperate reality.]

You are effectively claiming that something "exists"
even though the difference between its existence and
its non-existence could never been distinguished
(even in principle) by any being that has any causal
connection with our observable universe.

If God is unobservable by empiric means, he/she/it
doesn't exist?

If "God" or anything else is, ex-hypothesis, incapable
of affecting any observable feature of the universe,
by direct or indirect means, then yes, that "God" does
not "exist" -- that is the only sensible meaning of the
word "exist", since otherwise it is indistinguishable
with "doesn't exist".

Chimp

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Dennett / Ruse Tiff Continues
    ... predictions then we simply test it like any other theory. ... influence any part of the observable universe -- even ... connection with our observable universe. ... is conceptually indistinguishable from a "mutation" ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Significance (contd)
    ... competing theories making different predictions, ... advocated denies the possibility that the robot could pass the turing ... following whatever the known laws of physics are at the time. ... universe will eventually stop expanding and contract. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: "The Arrow of Time"
    ... The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity. ... Time only exists because you need a way to track your memories, and build your predictions. ... You never defined the term *exists* Secondly, in the context of this debate, the existence of factual evidence is that which is under debate, and therefore, has not been established except that you've asserted it. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Science Disproves Evolution
    ... without some ad hoc parameterization to 'adjust' predictions that ... D, 3He, and 4He and 7Li provide strong evidence for Big Bang ... al., "The Extragalactic Universe: ... predictions, but merely adjustments of theory to ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Science Disproves Evolution
    ... without some ad hoc parameterization to 'adjust' predictions that ... D, 3He, and 4He and 7Li provide strong evidence for Big Bang ... al., "The Extragalactic Universe: ... predictions, but merely adjustments of theory to ...
    (talk.origins)