Science proves choice is noise


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Brant Gaede said:

The idea of everything running down can't explain how everything ran up in the first place. The inevitability of entropy is the inevitability of next to nothing--forever.

--Brant

All beginnings are hard.  No, we don't know how the cosmos originated.  

However the Second Law of Thermodynamics has never  been disproved with an empirical counter example.  If it turns out that the Second Law is false, then we will have to rebuild our physical sciences from the bottom up.  The Second Law of Thermodynamics  and the Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy are the two most important laws of physics.  If they are over turned,  we will have our work cut out for us. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 157
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I am giving you the best answer based on physics.  I have simplified it (of course)  for non-specialists.  If you do not like what the physics is telling us, then ignore the physics (at your peril). 

Maybe we don't like what the physics is telling you.

--Brant:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Maybe we don't like what the physics is telling you.

--Brant:)

What you like or don't like is your concern,  not mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

A finite set of corroborations will never -prove- that a general statement arrived at inductively is true.  Think of the black swan and the albino crow.  The only thing that can be -proved- empirically is the falsification of a general statement with a counter example. 

That is why scientific theories are never proven to be true

White swans was fine and true within the context of swans studied--when you make a generalization you do have to make an effort to widen the scope to that which you know exists.  Mankind's knowledge builds on itself, expanding it, white swans being true was fine for the study, finding black swans indicated a subtype, expanding our knowledge of swans--but it didn't invalidate that swans exist with some quality x.

With morality, you can be right about a set of people within a context.  If you find a black swan out there in morality, it doesn't invalidate what you knew about the class of people you studied.  With humans, you can start by the fact that people need to survive, the fact that they have certain methods of survival, and the fact that these methods have certain interactions with other people--and then reference the facts of history for more data, to help your inductions.  If you're saying there is unpredictability in morality then you're right, but there are facts about morality as well.  A captain of a large vessel can steer his ship knowing there is some unpredictability, and facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

All beginnings are hard.  No, we don't know how the cosmos originated.  

However the Second Law of Thermodynamics has never  been disproved with an empirical counter example.  If it turns out that the Second Law is false, then we will have to rebuild our physical sciences from the bottom up.  The Second Law of Thermodynamics  and the Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy are the two most important laws of physics.  If they are over turned,  we will have our work cut out for us. 

It's not any law of physics I'm referring to. I'm referring to that which we have yet to observe, assuming it's observable. The cosmos as everything seems to be a bit too much considering, as you say, we don't know how it began. It's one thing to say the universe expands and contracts and there is an endless series of big bangs, only that doesn't conform to observations of mass. Maybe there's something x-universe acting on it and I don't mean from the inside out, but from the outside. Since everything is red-shifted, it would be a general envelopment.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

What you like or don't like is your concern,  not mine.

That is not what I mean. I mean you stop with facts. Known facts. The implicit assumption is there are no more facts to consider or ever will be. In Newton's time you would have left no room for Einstein. Leaving such a room doesn't mean you have to put something into it except Newton's modesty.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

It suffices that the physical apparatus of my brain has been scanned by sophisticated instruments.

As for objectivism,  like any other philosophical system it is empirically ill founded.  I subscribe to the metaphysics of Reality Lite  to wit -there is an Out There out there and humans can comprehend enough of it to survive and even flourish.  I assume the Law of Non-Contradiction applies to physical reality.  More than that I prefer not to assume.  As for Morality,  it appears to me to be Opinion and does does follow logically from the physical laws of nature.  

I go by conventional (basically Jewish) morality.  What is mine is mine and what is yours is yours.  I respect life and property.  That is the way I was brought up.

Objectivism as a thorough overall system does not appeal to me.  Very little of it comes from physical laws  of nature.  I have no objection to it,  but I would not take as an overall operating system.  I am more pragmatic and empirical.  I prefer facts to principles.  

The philosophy has four basic principles and shares the two most basic--metaphysics and epistemology--with science. Science itself has a morality that is not an opinion and it's to do with honesty and integrity. Without that the metaphysics and epistemology go out the window. If you agree with that then what is the basis of denying at least the same "Morality" to non-scientists by sneeringly calling morality just an "Opinion"? Also, isn't there a difference between "flowing from a logical law of nature" and nature per se?

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

That is not what I mean. I mean you stop with facts. Known facts. The implicit assumption is there are no more facts to consider or ever will be. In Newton's time you would have left no room for Einstein. Leaving such a room doesn't mean you have to put something into it except Newton's modesty.

--Brant

I don't STOP with facts.  Principles are important too.  But I weigh facts more heavily than principles.   Why.  All it takes is one contrary fact to kill a general principle.  Logic 101.  One counter example falsifies  a  universally quantified  statement.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now