Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |  [ show all ]
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Veritas]
    #9357869 -

Veritas said:
Quote:
If something has a prior cause, it can be predicted.


No, this is incorrect.  With random events, we can identify the cause after the fact, and utilize probability to GUESS when it might reoccur.  This in no way changes the fact that the vent is "without pattern, purpose or objective."


evolution also is a thing that we can talk about after the fact.

would it be silly to repeat that you cannot have all the facts.


--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Diaboleros]
    #9357901 -

Diaboleros said:
You see random is something without purpose. But nothing has purpose, purpose is something we give to it as human beings.

I see random is something unpredictable. And afaik, everything can be predicted, this is the very basic assumption of science. Going against this claim is going against science itself.


everything can be predicted is not a basic underpinning of science at all.
that is an ignorant thing that soothsayers and fortune tellers use to subjugate people.

science and engineering do employ models, and formulae to help create reliable systems, such as the mars landers which as you may know did not all go well.

even a moon shot is not based upon ALL the facts, just a good helping of useful ones.


--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: deCypher]
    #9357909 -

We may not be able to prove causality, but the unerring juxtaposition of A and B indicate that there is a strong relationship.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Diaboleros]
    #9357914 -

Quote:
Diaboleros said:And afaik, everything can be predicted, this is the very basic assumption of science. Going against this claim is going against science itself.


You seem to be repeating the same tired phrase over and over.  That everything can be predicted is NOT the basic assumption of science.  We can certainly try to predict various phenomena, and science does a damn good job at it, but in no way does this exclude random events or events that are governed by pure probability.  Again, radioactive decay certainly falls under the scope of science, and yet this is still essentially a random phenomena.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Veritas]
    #9357924 -

Veritas said:
We may not be able to prove causality, but the unerring juxtaposition of A and B indicate that there is a strong relationship.


Strong only if the laws of the Universe continue to hold.  We have no guarantee that they will continue to do so, however.  There is simply no logical inference that allows us to conclusively know that B will happen if A happens, or even one that allows us to predict with a certain probability--as a probability's validity is only seen via retrospect.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: deCypher]
    #9357949 -

That's the great thing about science, if the events vary from our existing model, we go back to the drawing board!  :grin:

If what we observe about the relationship between A and B ceases to be predictable, then we can question the cause-and-effect nature of their interaction.  Until such time, this model is the most accurate.

In terms of practicality, it is necessary to rely upon this prediction model so long as it continues to be predictive.  If I continually question whether events will adhere to the previously-established laws of physics, I will have little attention left for the less-predictable elements of my daily life. 

Will my foot land on the ground when I take that next step, or will I be instantaneously catapulted into space?  Will the atoms which compose my physical form continue to cooperate in a peaceable manner, or will they suddenly fly apart?  Will pressing the power button on my computer result in my computer turning on, or will it detonate all the nuclear missiles in the world?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Veritas]
    #9357979 -

This is true.  Cause and effect are linguistically pragmatic, certainly.

Now I have a disturbing ontological fear of the laws of gravity suddenly ceasing to hold.  :eek:


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: deCypher]
    #9358075 -

deCypher said:
Quote:
Diaboleros said:And afaik, everything can be predicted, this is the very basic assumption of science. Going against this claim is going against science itself.


You seem to be repeating the same tired phrase over and over.  That everything can be predicted is NOT the basic assumption of science.


Yes it simply is. You can keep denying it all you want, but this is reality.

http://web.utk.edu/~dhasting/Basic_Assumptions_of_Science.htm

In order to have a system of beliefs, in this case science, you need some basic assumptions, some basic axioms that are decided in general to be true, without any proof whatsoever. This is simply how science works, you can keep denying it, but it won't make it go away.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Diaboleros]
    #9358085 -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: deCypher]
    #9358113 -

Quote:
In mathematics, chaos theory describes the behavior of certain dynamical systems – that is, systems whose states evolve with time – that may exhibit dynamics that are highly sensitive to initial conditions (popularly referred to as the butterfly effect). As a result of this sensitivity, which manifests itself as an exponential growth of perturbations in the initial conditions, the behavior of chaotic systems appears to be random. This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future dynamics are fully defined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.



Did you even read what you linked? You are only supporting my claims..

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Diaboleros]
    #9358131 -

On the contrary... even though these systems are deterministic, they are still overwhelmingly sensitive to fluctuations in the original condition, making it almost impossible to predict the outcome, like you were trying to argue should be possible for every phenomena.

Besides which, there are certain chaotic phenomena for which it is impossible to predict the outcome.  Determining whether a specified point is in the Mandelbrot set, for instance... it's only do-able via algorithm, not through a predictive formula.

In addition, you have completely ignored the example of radioactive decay and quantum probability waveforms, both of which are physical phenomena and yet wholly unpredictable.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Diaboleros]
    #9358149 -

Diaboleros said:
deCypher said:
Quote:
Diaboleros said:And afaik, everything can be predicted, this is the very basic assumption of science. Going against this claim is going against science itself.


You seem to be repeating the same tired phrase over and over.  That everything can be predicted is NOT the basic assumption of science.


Yes it simply is. You can keep denying it all you want, but this is reality.

http://web.utk.edu/~dhasting/Basic_Assumptions_of_Science.htm

In order to have a system of beliefs, in this case science, you need some basic assumptions, some basic axioms that are decided in general to be true, without any proof whatsoever. This is simply how science works, you can keep denying it, but it won't make it go away.


the link you include as corroborative has the following -
but does not include any wild resemblance to "everything can be predicted"


From your link
Quote:
Basic assumptions of science (Nachmias and Nachmias 1996, pp. 5-7))


1. Nature is orderly, i.e., regularity, pattern, and structure. Laws of nature describe order.

2. We can know nature. Individuals are part of nature. Individuals and social exhibit order; may be studied same as nature.

3. All phenomena have natural causes. Scientific explanation of human behavior opposes religious, spiritualistic, and magical explanations.

4. Nothing is self evident. Truth claims must be demonstrated objectively.

5. Knowledge is derived from acquisition of experience. Empirically. Thru senses directly or indirectly.

6. Knowledge is superior to ignorance. (See Sjoberg and Nett previous link)



--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Diaboleros]
    #9358164 -

Diaboleros said:
In order to have a system of beliefs, in this case science, you need some basic assumptions, some basic axioms that are decided in general to be true, without any proof whatsoever.


You're thinking of mathematics, not science.

I suppose the one assumption that people who use science tend to make is that the laws of Nature are consistent from one day to the next.  However, if this proves not to be the case, like Veritas said science will adjust accordingly.

There are NO faith-based axioms in science.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: deCypher]
    #9358233 -

No I'm thinking of science, and I'm just stating things how they are. You just need to google a bit on this subject and you'll see for yourself. There's no point in discussing this. This is simply how things are.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: deCypher]
    #9358266 -

What about turbulent water flow? Water is a Newtonian fluid; any particle can be looked be analyzed and predicted based on the forces acting on it. Yet, if you choose one particle in a turbulent stream and try to predict its location 5 seconds later, its near impossible. However, over a very short amount of time, you could predict the direction and distance that particle would travel with great accuracy.

Also, note that nothing behaves exactly according to physical laws; there are small errors in determining constants, small perturbations in the environment, etc. which make the laws at best very good estimates.

Therefore when you use deterministic laws on a chaotic (or turbulent) system, what you really have isn't so much randomness, as an exponential propagation of predictive error. (i.e. 99% accurate * 99% accurate *99%*99%*....)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Epigallo]
    #9358578 -

"The scientific method makes one assumption, and one assumption only: the Universe obeys a set of rules. That’s it. There is one corollary, and that is that if the Universe follows these rules, then those rules can be deduced by observing the way Universe behaves. This follows naturally; if it obeys the rules, then the rules must be revealed by that behavior."

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/18/is-science-faith-based/

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Diaboleros]
    #9358633 -

You can keep denying it all you want, but this is reality.

I think I heard a fundamentalist Christian say this once.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Icelander]
    #9358684 -

Icelander said:
You can keep denying it all you want, but this is reality.

I think I heard a fundamentalist Christian say this once.


I don't believe you. :nono: I would wager heavily that you heard that a multitude of times.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Epigallo]
    #9358948 -

bradley said:
Also, note that nothing behaves exactly according to physical laws; there are small errors in determining constants, small perturbations in the environment, etc. which make the laws at best very good estimates.


I dont think so.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: DieCommie]
    #9360195 -

Can you name a law within Newtonian physics that you think has exact predictive value?

Edited by Epigallo (12/03/08 05:23 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |  [ show all ]

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* change and the rapid evolution of humaninty...
( 1 2 3 all )		 Smack31 5,915 57 09/25/02 04:27 PM
by shii-tan
* Radical Evolution
( 1 2 all )		 exclusive58 3,201 22 04/30/06 07:01 PM
by HippyInASuit
* Evolution
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 SkorpivoMusterion 9,315 61 12/08/03 03:34 PM
by Anonymous
* evolution
( 1 2 all )		 Droz 4,835 29 10/02/01 12:29 PM
by dimethoxy
* evolution or creationism?
( 1 2 3 all )		 top 5,476 52 11/17/05 09:19 PM
by Moonshoe
* Personal Predictability
( 1 2 all )		 Swami 1,750 24 03/27/04 05:53 PM
by SpecialEd
* Miracle-blindness
( 1 2 3 all )		 gribochek 4,934 41 02/06/02 04:58 PM
by ArCh_TemPlaR
* Evolution and natural selection (philosophy) SeussA 811 4 03/08/05 09:33 AM
by redgreenvines

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
11,993 topic views. 0 members, 81 guests and 9 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.034 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 16 queries.