Falsifiability

[Subduction Zone]

so what is too much? 20 my? 30 my?can you define it or not?

That you have to ask alone all but guarantees your failure. It demonstrates that you do not understand the theory well enough to even come close to refuting it. The needed time is obviously case dependent. Finding a human before apes evolved would be an obvious example of failure, since humans are apes. Finding a mammal before tetrapods arose similarly would refute it since mammals are tetrapods.

 

[TBDude65]

What the thought experiment does is effectively sever all a posterori reasoning from our thoughts about reality. What it means then to say "alien" is very limited.

Again, what you've done is cast doubt on an imagination-derived fantasy. What relevance does this have to do with the reality you and I share? If it is indistinguishable from a "simulation" or "matrix" then is it not still the same objective reality which we share? And if so, (perhaps especially so if our "simulation" or "matrix" were created by a sentient intelligence) wouldn't that be easily testable? We should be able to find evidence that we live in a simulation, as we know how simulations work. What do you propose?

 

[Sanoy]

Again, what you've done is cast doubt on an imagination-derived fantasy. What relevance does this have to do with the reality you and I share? If it is indistinguishable from a "simulation" or "matrix" then is it not still the same objective reality which we share? And if so, (perhaps especially so if our "simulation" or "matrix" were created by a sentient intelligence) wouldn't that be easily testable? We should be able to find evidence that we live in a simulation, as we know how simulations work. What do you propose?

The brain in a vat thought experiment is a very real question. I am not casting doubt on the external world, almost no one doubts it is real, but the thought experiment reveals that it is not rational to believe it is real without a premise that makes the conclusion follow.

You can't use a posterori reasoning because those types of experiences are under question. If we found evidence of that simulation, that evidence could itself be part of the simulation, like a dream within a dream. We can only use a priori reasoning. You are stuck with no way to establish trust in your experience. To rationally hold that the experienced world is the real world you need to acquire a premise from which that conclusion follows. So the thing we have to do, to rationally hold to that conclusion, is insert a premise that allows the conclusion.

(As a reminder of how we got here. With a posterori reasoning being removed from falsefiability there is little that is actually falsifiable. It is just a heuristic)

 

[TBDude65]

The brain in a vat thought experiment is a very real question. I am not casting doubt on the external world, almost no one doubts it is real, but the thought experiment reveals that it is not rational to believe it is real without a premise that makes the conclusion follow.

You can't use a posterori reasoning because those types of experiences are under question. If we found evidence of that simulation, that evidence could itself be part of the simulation, like a dream within a dream. We can only use a priori reasoning. You are stuck with no way to establish trust in your experience. To rationally hold that the experienced world is the real world you need to acquire a premise from which that conclusion follows. So the thing we have to do, to rationally hold to that conclusion, is insert a premise that allows the conclusion.

No, I mean we can quite literally use one to one comparisons between reality and "simulations" or "dreams" or "hallucinations" or whatever.

We can do that because we have the ability to create and test simulations. We know what simulations are and create them all the time. Knowing what we know not only about reality but about simulations we construct in reality, how could we falsify the idea that our reality is nothing more than a simulation or thought or dream of another being? If you ask the right questions, you can at least figure out if there is any capacity for evidence to exist. If not, the first logical conclusion is that we probably have it backwards and that reality is what we agree upon as-is with no need for anything external to it. What does the concept of an imagination have to do with a god becoming a plausible (and apparently from there inevitable) option? I'm still missing that linkage from you

 

[Speedwell]

The brain in a vat thought experiment is a very real question. I am not casting doubt on the external world, almost no one doubts it is real, but the thought experiment reveals that it is not rational to believe it is real without a premise that makes the conclusion follow.

You can't use a posterori reasoning because those types of experiences are under question. If we found evidence of that simulation, that evidence could itself be part of the simulation, like a dream within a dream. We can only use a priori reasoning. You are stuck with no way to establish trust in your experience. To rationally hold that the experienced world is the real world you need to acquire a premise from which that conclusion follows. So the thing we have to do, to rationally hold to that conclusion, is insert a premise that allows the conclusion.

(As a reminder of how we got here. With a posterori reasoning being removed from falsefiability there is little that is actually falsifiable. It is just a heuristic)

Why should we trust that premise?

 

[Sanoy]

No, I mean we can quite literally use one to one comparisons between reality and "simulations" or "dreams" or "hallucinations" or whatever.

We can do that because we have the ability to create and test simulations. We know what simulations are and create them all the time. Knowing what we know not only about reality but about simulations we construct in reality, how could we falsify the idea that our reality is nothing more than a simulation or thought or dream of another being? If you ask the right questions, you can at least figure out if there is any capacity for evidence to exist. If not, the first logical conclusion is that we probably have it backwards and that reality is what we agree upon as-is with no need for anything external to it. What does the concept of an imagination have to do with a god becoming a plausible (and apparently from there inevitable) option? I'm still missing that linkage from you

You can't, those are all a posterori. If I wake up from a dream I might be thankful, and I might also be in another dream. The internal comparison of what is believed as reality, and a simulation within that believed reality, could simply be a simulation within a simulation. I assure you this remains a problem today because it is not sloved and easy to mistakenly believe one has found a solution.

I have no idea what your last question is asking. I haven't said anything about imagination, or inevitability. It's a very simple condition. You have the conclusion that the analytic facts described by physics and chemistry are also synthetic facts. To rationally hold to this conclusion one must have another premise, that if true, the conclusion follows. God is a premise that if true allows the conclusion to follow.

With that said, here is a question for you. Do you believe that the analytic facts described by physics and chemistry are also synthetic facts? If yes, what premise do you use, in respect to the thought experiment, to acquire that conclusion?

 

[Sanoy]

Why should we trust that premise?

You mistake the point. You may not be able to prove the premise, but you do actually need one to rationally hold to the conclusion. So what is your premise speedwell?

 

[TBDude65]

You can't, those are all a posterori. If I wake up from a dream I might be thankful, and I might also be in another dream. The internal comparison of what is believed as reality, and a simulation within that believed reality, could simply be a simulation within a simulation. I assure you this remains a problem today because it is not sloved and easy to mistakenly believe one has found a solution.

I have no idea what your last question is asking. I haven't said anything about imagination, or inevitability. It's a very simple condition. You have the conclusion that the analytic facts described by physics and chemistry are also synthetic facts. To rationally hold to this conclusion one must have another premise, that if true, the conclusion follows. God is a premise that if true allows the conclusion to follow.

With that said, here is a question for you. Do you believe that the analytic facts described by physics and chemistry are also synthetic facts? If yes, what premise do you use, in respect to the thought experiment, to acquire that conclusion?

"You have the conclusion that the analytic facts described by physics and chemistry are also synthetic facts. To rationally hold to this conclusion one must have another premise, that if true, the conclusion follows. God is a premise that if true allows the conclusion to follow."

This is the logic I do not see that follows. If physics and chemistry work, why is that evidence of anything other than reality? Why does it become necessary to draw a logical connection to some other "thing" to make it make sense?

"With that said, here is a question for you. Do you believe that the analytic facts described by physics and chemistry are also synthetic facts? If yes, what premise do you use, in respect to the thought experiment, to acquire that conclusion?"

Again, I see facts and that's it. What we learn through chemistry and physics, are not immutable nor considered perfect, as they are evolving fields we use to understand the reality we live in. Why is a collection of facts about our reality, in need of some sort of "thing" to ground these facts to some sort of objective abstract concept? Do you believe that things like physics and chemistry and biology are anything other than fields created by humans?

 

[Speedwell]

You mistake the point. You may not be able to prove the premise, but you do actually need one to rationally hold to the conclusion. So what is your premise speedwell?

I don't have one. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is, for all practical purposes, a duck. I don't care if it's "really" a duck or not.

 

[Sanoy]

I don't have one. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is, for all practical purposes, a duck. I don't care if it's "really" a duck or not.

Then you are being irrational.

 

[Sanoy]

"You have the conclusion that the analytic facts described by physics and chemistry are also synthetic facts. To rationally hold to this conclusion one must have another premise, that if true, the conclusion follows. God is a premise that if true allows the conclusion to follow."

This is the logic I do not see that follows. If physics and chemistry work, why is that evidence of anything other than reality? Why does it become necessary to draw a logical connection to some other "thing" to make it make sense?

"With that said, here is a question for you. Do you believe that the analytic facts described by physics and chemistry are also synthetic facts? If yes, what premise do you use, in respect to the thought experiment, to acquire that conclusion?"

Again, I see facts and that's it. What we learn through chemistry and physics, are not immutable nor considered perfect, as they are evolving fields we use to understand the reality we live in. Why is a collection of facts about our reality, in need of some sort of "thing" to ground these facts to some sort of objective abstract concept? Do you believe that things like physics and chemistry and biology are anything other than fields created by humans?

Why would the applicability of physics and chemistry say anything about the reality of what it describes. The same physics and chemistry that we use here is used in the matrix.

I don't feel that you answered my question satisfactorily.
1)Do you believe that the analytic facts described by physics and chemistry are also synthetic facts? (Yes/No)

2)If yes, what premise do you use, in respect to the thought experiment, to acquire that conclusion?"

 

[TBDude65]

Why would the applicability of physics and chemistry say anything about the reality of what it describes. The same physics and chemistry that we use here is used in the matrix.

I don't feel that you answered my question satisfactorily.
1)Do you believe that the analytic facts described by physics and chemistry are also synthetic facts? (Yes/No)

2)If yes, what premise do you use, in respect to the thought experiment, to acquire that conclusion?"

No. I see no operative difference

 

[Sanoy]

No. I see no operative difference

Great, then falsefiability doesn't really matter in acquiring truths about reality.

 

[TBDude65]

Great, then falsefiability doesn't really matter in acquiring truths about reality.

I'm sorry, I still don't see how you have derived that conclusion.

A fact (something that is inarguably true about our shared reality) is something that is, by definition, not falsified. Not having been falsified does not mean it is not falsifiable. It's not falsified because it's true.

What I don't understand is how you go from unfalsified facts to...well...anything beyond that. When we learn a fact, isn't that just the end of the fact? It is certainly true that there may be additional questions to ask about that fact to learn more about it, but again, we are using facts to establish other facts whether via inductive or deductive logic.

 

[Sanoy]

I'm sorry, I still don't see how you have derived that conclusion.

A fact (something that is inarguably true about our shared reality) is something that is, by definition, not falsified. Not having been falsified does not mean it is not falsifiable. It's not falsified because it's true.

What I don't understand is how you go from unfalsified facts to...well...anything beyond that. When we learn a fact, isn't that just the end of the fact? It is certainly true that there may be additional questions to ask about that fact to learn more about it, but again, we are using facts to establish other facts whether via inductive or deductive logic.

According to the answer you just gave, physics and chemistry provide 0 facts about reality. So there is no point in demanding falsifiability for real epistemology.

We don't learn a fact about the experienced world without having a premise to cross the gap. Without that we simply have analytic facts that in themselves say nothing more about reality than analytic facts about The Hobbit.

 

[Speedwell]

Then you are being irrational.

No, I'm just a logical non-realist.

But what you are doing appears to be nothing but apologetics: People who make ontological claims are required to assent to the existence of God.

 

[Sanoy]

No, I'm just a logical non-realist.

If you reject being irrational then you must have a reason to conclude it is actually a duck. So what is that reason.

 

[Speedwell]

If you reject being irrational then you must have a reason to conclude it is actually a duck. So what is that reason.

I don't necessarily reject the idea, I just want to know why you think so. What is irrational about a phenomenological duck?

 

[Sanoy]

I don't necessarily reject the idea, I just want to know why you think so. What is irrational about a phenomenological duck?

So we are talking about the same thing I'll ask you the same question.

Do you believe that the analytic facts described by physics and chemistry are also synthetic facts? (Yes/No)

 

[Speedwell]

So we are talking about the same thing I'll ask you the same question.

Do you believe that the analytic facts described by physics and chemistry are also synthetic facts? (Yes/No)

I don't know.