Ask a physicist anything. (6)

[Maxwell511]

Perhaps it would help if 'omniscience' were defined. If we're going to be sensible and talk about a logically coherent being, I would say it's absolute and total knowledge of everything - that isn't logically impossible to know. He doesn't know how to square the circle, for instance.

If that is the definition then I can't argue with that.

 

[sandwiches]

My understanding is that the "How" and "Why" are labels for types of questions and not how the question is grammatically formed. So, "Is my subjective experience of colour the same as yours?", is a Why question. Even though there is no way I can think of framing that grammatical starting with a Why. Similarly, questions that start with How can actually belong to the Why category.

What kinds of questions would you say that philosophy answers that science can't?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

My understanding is that the "How" and "Why" are labels for types of questions and not how the question is grammatically formed. So, "Is my subjective experience of colour the same as yours?", is a Why question. Even though there is no way I can think of framing that grammatical starting with a Why. Similarly, questions that start with How can actually belong to the Why category.

Then why call them 'how' and 'why' questions? Why not call them 'science' questions and 'philosophy' questions? I've only ever heard questions be categorised as 'how' and 'why' questions when people try to cleanly divide scientific and philosophical inquiries - yet if that categorisation isn't based on the actual words 'how' and 'why', it seems to serve no purpose, not even as a mnemonic or figure of speech.

But let's not quibble semantics. Regardless of how the questions are posed, do you believe that questions can be cleanly struck as scientific, philosophical, or neither (e.g., "How're you" is neither scientific nor philosophical, and it just doesn't do to be complete )?

That is, do you subscribe to NOMA, or a variation thereof?

 

[mzungu]

What kinds of questions would you say that philosophy answers that science can't?

After all A scientist can ask a philosophical question and a philosopher a scientific one.

It is just such questions that led humans down the path of erudition. It matters not how you ask a question nor why; For the important thing is to question and keep questioning. To ask is to seek!

After all, "why does the apple fall", is a philosophical question and we all know where that lead to

 

[Maxwell511]

What kinds of questions would you say that philosophy answers that science can't?

Largely questions of maths and morals.

 

[Maxwell511]

That is, do you subscribe to NOMA, or a variation thereof?

Yes, I didn't when I was younger but Hume's is-ought problem threw me.

 

[sandwiches]

Largely questions of maths and morals.

Well, I guess it depends on how you view science. I see it as methods of gathering knowledge using logical deductions, inductions based on verifiable and demonstrable evidence, and explicative and predictive usefulness. The Wikipedia's definition is pretty much like mine: "Science is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world."

By that definition, I'd say that both math and morality can be arrived at using science.

 

[Maxwell511]

By that definition, I'd say that both math and morality can be arrived at using science.

No it can't. Morality cannot be arrived at through science.

Science is a methodology to understand how the world is. When you make a moral decision to perform an action, you are not only asking the question, what is the world like but what I believe it should be. Science can tell you how things are but it cannot tell how they ought to be.

Morality at the end of the day is a philosophical endeavor that science is incapable, as a methodology, of even understanding* the relevant questions. Scientific knowledge can inform our moral decision making but science cannot give us the answers to those questions.

*Personification rules.

Edit: There is also the Maths thing, but that is really an either different field to the morality question and would take some time.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Yes, I didn't when I was younger but Hume's is-ought problem threw me.

OK. What about, the existence of God? What about the existence of acts of God, like faith healing or global floods? What about the 'is-ought' issue of "What should I eat?" - good diet is surely a scientific pursuit, not a philosophical one. What about "This forest is dwindling; ought we restore it"?

I don't doubt there are questions which are purely philosophical ("Should I kill this man?"), or purely scientific ("Why does the Faraday effect occur?"), but I disagree that questions traditionally classified as philosophical or religious can't be scientific - such as the existence of God. Creationists stand as a testament to the overlap between the religious and the scientific.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

No it can't. Morality cannot be arrived at through science.

Science is a methodology to understand how the world is. When you make a moral decision to perform an action, you are not only asking the question, what is the world like but what I believe it should be. Science can tell you how things are but it cannot tell how they ought to be.

Sure it can. "We ought to relieve poverty" is all find and dandy, but the actual process of doing that is scientific, and involves a whole gamut of 'oughts': "We ought to create jobs" is a scientific conclusion to the problem of poverty.

Morality at the end of the day is a philosophical endeavor that science is incapable, as a methodology, of even understanding* the relevant questions. Scientific knowledge can inform our moral decision making but science cannot give us the answers to those questions.

Why not?

 

[Assyrian]

That is, do you subscribe to NOMA, or a variation thereof?

YouTube - ‪Noma Numa Yei - Ozone (Chipmunks)‬‏

 

[sandwiches]

No it can't. Morality cannot be arrived at through science.

Science is a methodology to understand how the world is. When you make a moral decision to perform an action, you are not only asking the question, what is the world like but what I believe it should be. Science can tell you how things are but it cannot tell how they ought to be.

Morality at the end of the day is a philosophical endeavor that science is incapable, as a methodology, of even understanding* the relevant questions. Scientific knowledge can inform our moral decision making but science cannot give us the answers to those questions.

*Personification rules.

Edit: There is also the Maths thing, but that is really an either different field to the morality question and would take some time.

Through the methodology of science (logical knowledge gathering through repeatable and demonstrable explanations and predictions) we can absolutely answer any question. The problem can be solved by elaborating on the question. This is another semantics game where we trick ourselves into believing we have no clear cut answers because we have been conditioned to take this as a given. And we just make things unnecessarily difficult, murky, and obtuse when it comes to morality or questions of "should" or "should not" but it all comes down to simple questions that have objective answers.

Simple example:
You: "Should I jump off the roof of this 10-story building?" That has no scientific answer most might say. It does.
Me: "Why are you even asking whether you should jump off that building?"
You: "Because I want to jump but I don't want to get hurt."
Me: "Using evidence and logic we arrive at the conclusion that you will indeed get hurt by jumping off this building. You SHOULD NOT jump off this building if you intend on avoiding getting hurt."

Another more complicated question: "Should I steal that loaf of bread?" Science can't answer the question right away, it would seem and, in fact, no one can answer it because it's pretty vague and meaningless at the moment. Unravel and it becomes easy to answer. Why do you care whether you steal the loaf of bread or buy it? Why are you considering stealing the bread to begin with?

You want to steal it because you're hungry and you can't pay for it. You care about whether you should steal it because you fear the repercussions for you (prison, personal harm, social stigma, etc) and the person who currently owns the bread (he might go hungry himself, he'll lose the time he spent making or earning the money to buy it, etc.)

So, you want to steal to live but you want to avoid causing suffering to yourself and the bread owner. Suffering, like pleasure, pain, vision, etc are all states of the brain and thus they're empirically quantifiable and death is very much an empirically detectable state of the human body. So, the question of "should I steal this bread" has become "I have two options: Steal the bread or not. Avoiding death is my primary objective but I also want to minimize suffering to all parties concerned. Which option is objectively better at achieving my goals?"

Thus, we can arrive at the scientific answer for "Should I steal this loaf of bread."

 

[Maxwell511]

OK. What about, the existence of God? What about the existence of acts of God, like faith healing or global floods?

Nothing can answer gibberish. I am an atheist for social convenience.

It is easier to answer the question, "Does God exist?", by saying "No" than what you actually think. Which is "Are you on acid? If not, there are potential treatments for Schizophasia".

The question "Does God exist?" cannot be answered by any means because it is not a question. It is gibberish in the same manner that "Where did the Dodo flock to make the London Bridge, .....Man?" is gibberish. The only sensible response to this is "Shut up and pass me the joint already, laugh for 30 minutes for no reason and think that a trip to the bathroom is akin to the Apollo project, cos it is so far..... Man".

What about the 'is-ought' issue of "What should I eat?" - good diet is surely a scientific pursuit, not a philosophical one.

Define "Good" scientifically.

[ Creationists stand as a testament to the overlap between the religious and the scientific.

Because Creationist try to answer scientific questions philosophically and produce ridiculous results. NOMA works both ways. People should not try to answer scientific questions using philosophy, you are almost guaranteed to be wrong by doing that.

 

[Maxwell511]

"We ought to create jobs" is a scientific conclusion to the problem of poverty.

No, it is not the scientific conclusion. If WE WANT to reduce poverty scientific knowledge can help us, science cannot tell us what WE WANT to do however.

 

[Vatis]

Through the methodology of science (logical knowledge gathering through repeatable and demonstrable explanations and predictions) we can absolutely answer any question. The problem can be solved by elaborating on the question. This is another semantics game where we trick ourselves into believing we have no clear cut answers because we have been conditioned to take this as a given. And we just make things unnecessarily difficult, murky, and obtuse when it comes to morality or questions of "should" or "should not" but it all comes down to simple questions that have objective answers.


Simple example:
You: "Should I jump off the roof of this 10-story building?" That has no scientific answer most might say. It does.
Me: "Why are you even asking whether you should jump off that building?"
You: "Because I want to jump but I don't want to get hurt."
Me: "Using evidence and logic we arrive at the conclusion that you will indeed get hurt by jumping off this building. You SHOULD NOT jump off this building if you intend on avoiding getting hurt."

Another more complicated question: "Should I steal that loaf of bread?" Science can't answer the question right away, it would seem and, in fact, no one can answer it because it's pretty vague and meaningless at the moment. Unravel and it becomes easy to answer. Why do you care whether you steal the loaf of bread or buy it? Why are you considering stealing the bread to begin with?

You want to steal it because you're hungry and you can't pay for it. You care about whether you should steal it because you fear the repercussions for you (prison, personal harm, social stigma, etc) and the person who currently owns the bread (he might go hungry himself, he'll lose the time he spent making or earning the money to buy it, etc.)

So, you want to steal to live but you want to avoid causing suffering to yourself and the bread owner. Suffering, like pleasure, pain, vision, etc are all states of the brain and thus they're empirically quantifiable and death is very much an empirically detectable state of the human body. So, the question of "should I steal this bread" has become "I have two options: Steal the bread or not. Avoiding death is my primary objective but I also want to minimize suffering to all parties concerned. Which option is objectively better at achieving my goals?"

Thus, we can arrive at the scientific answer for "Should I steal this loaf of bread."

I think you're right to some point but not all decisions in life are so simple. For example, science can't tell you what will happen. It can only make predictions which will be inconclusive in most cases. Also science can't weigh pros and cons against each other, that's where it comes down to your subjective analysis of the situation.

 

[chris4243]

Largely questions of maths and morals.

I think that simply adding the Golden Rule is sufficient for all of morality, and most of the deductions for specific actions will be based off science. (or more generally, once you define a measure of moral value, science can help you find the way to maximize that value).

As for maths, I agree. I consider both science and maths to be branches of philosophy (deductions based off of initial premises). In particular, maths includes things that are not part of science since some of the crazy maths have no correlation to the physical world (or any such correlation is found only afterwards).

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Nothing can answer gibberish. I am an atheist for social convenience.

It is easier to answer the question, "Does God exist?", by saying "No" than what you actually think. Which is "Are you on acid? If not, there are potential treatments for Schizophasia".

The question "Does God exist?" cannot be answered by any means because it is not a question. It is gibberish in the same manner that "Where did the Dodo flock to make the London Bridge, .....Man?" is gibberish. The only sensible response to this is "Shut up and pass me the joint already, laugh for 30 minutes for no reason and think that a trip to the bathroom is akin to the Apollo project, cos it is so far..... Man".

I agree that not all grammatically and semantically correct interrogative statements are valid questions - but nonetheless, "Does God exist" is a valid question. There is nothing inherently nonsensical about it, unlike "What's North of the North Pole" or "When did you stop beating your wife, tomorrow or next year?"

That questions need proper definitions doesn't mean they can't be scientific, or that "Does God exist" can't be scientific becase we need to define "God". Every question, scientific or otherwise, needs to be properly defined. That's part of what it means for a question to be a question, and not just gibberish. So pointing out that "God" can be ill-defined doesn't automatically preclude it from being scientific.

So, what is God? Evidently, you already know what I mean by the word - you dismissed it as 'gibberish' instead of being puzzled at the gibberish, you labelled yourself as an 'atheist', you almost certainly live and were raised in a Western country exposed to the word and concept of 'God', almost entirely as described by Christianity - if you truly do not know what the word "God" means, then that's some pretty selective amnesia .

Define "Good" scientifically.

good (comparative better, superlative best)

1. Acting in the interest of good; ethical. good intentions
2. Useful for a particular purpose; functional. It’s a good watch.The flashlight batteries are still good.
3. Of food, edible; not stale or rotten. The bread is still good.
4. Of food, having a particularly pleasant taste. The food was very good.
5. Of food, being satisfying; meeting dietary requirements. Eat a good dinner so you will be ready for the big game tomorrow.
6. Healthful. Carrots are good for you.Walking is good for you.
7. Pleasant; enjoyable. The music, dancing, and food were very good.We had a good time.
8. Of people, competent or talented. a good swimmer
9. Effective. a good worker
10. Favourable. a good omengood weather
11. Beneficial; worthwhile. a good job
12. (colloquial) With "and", extremely. The soup is good and hot.
13. (especially when capitalized) Holy. Good Friday
14. Reasonable in amount. all in good time
15. Large in amount or size. A good part of his day was spent shopping.It will be a good while longer until he's done.He's had a good amount of troubles, he has.a good while longera good amount of seeds
16. Entire. This hill will take a good hour and a half to climb.The car was a good ten miles away.

Question: you asked me to define 'good' scientifically - does that mean there are non-scientific definitions? What distinguishes the two? Can you define 'Verdet constant' scientifically and non-scientifically? Why or why not?

Because Creationist try to answer scientific questions philosophically and produce ridiculous results. NOMA works both ways. People should not try to answer scientific questions using philosophy, you are almost guaranteed to be wrong by doing that.

Actually, the philosophical and religious rhetoric posed by Creationists are simultaneously scientific. By that, I mean that they pose a hypothesis that could very well be true - it violates no laws of logic, so we must accept it being a possibility. That, to me, is sufficient to qualify something as being 'scientifically valid'.

The support put forward for it is almost invariably fallacious, but, in principle, there's no reason why it should be. When we first set out to gather evidence, we could very well have found rocks that date to no older than 4000BCE, genetic variation that indicates a common ancestor from 2000BCE, global evidence of a global flood, etc.

So, although Creationism is undoubtedly religious and heavily entrenched in philosophy, it is nonetheless a very scientific: "Is the Earth 6000 years old?"

No, it is not the scientific conclusion. If WE WANT to reduce poverty scientific knowledge can help us, science cannot tell us what WE WANT to do however.

Sure it can, just as science can tell us what our hair colour is, or what our average fruit intake is - surveys. A scientific survey that asks "Do you want to reduce poverty" is a scientific survey. Its results are scientific.

 

[Maxwell511]

So, what is God? Evidently, you already know what I mean by the word - you dismissed it as 'gibberish' instead of being puzzled at the gibberish, you labelled yourself as an 'atheist', you almost certainly live and were raised in a Western country exposed to the word and concept of 'God', almost entirely as described by Christianity - if you truly do not know what the word "God" means, then that's some pretty selective amnesia .

It is not selective amnesia Wiccan_Child, it is schizophrenia. I broke down a few years ago, but when I was walking around the grounds of the mental hospital,* I made an active decision. That decision was to at least appear "rational", if not be it. So I started studying people, their behaviours and the words that they use. So that I would know how to be rational. My general conclusion is that they are, like myself, very irrational but they really don't know it.

The word "God" is incompressible to me. I probably felt a meaning before, but I do not now. Despite my Western upbringing.

*That is also the place where I came up with the theme to explain my experimental data. Basically, my thesis is a subtle joke about how no behaviour can be rational. Everyone that read it, including the examiners, thought that it was brilliant and creative, but the fact is that I am just nuts.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It is not selective amnesia Wiccan_Child, it is schizophrenia. I broke down a few years ago, but when I was walking around the grounds of the mental hospital,* I made an active decision. That decision was to at least appear "rational", if not be it. So I started studying people, their behaviours and the words that they use. So that I would know how to be rational. My general conclusion is that they are, like myself, very irrational but they really don't know it.

That's the general gist of it. Everyone's acting like everyone else. Sort of like a great big bootstrap paradox.

The word "God" is incompressible to me. I probably felt a meaning before, but I do not now. Despite my Western upbringing.

*That is also the place where I came up with the theme to explain my experimental data. Basically, my thesis is a subtle joke about how no behaviour can be rational. Everyone that read it, including the examiners, thought that it was brilliant and creative, but the fact is that I am just nuts.

You seem rational enough to me, to the extent that I'm sceptical you have any mental instability at all

 

[Maxwell511]

You seem rational enough to me, to the extent that I'm sceptical you have any mental instability at all

I am very good at pretending.