My Yigo Challenge

[DogmaHunter]

Who is more apt to find it?

Someone who denies a mate-in-three exists; or someone who believes a mate-in-three exists?

Haaaa, I see your mistake. I should have known better. Off course this is how YOU think....

Over here in reality, a person will reserve judgement on that (dis)belief until he actually analyses the chess position.

FIRST he will look for a mate-in-three.
If after considerable effort he is unable to find it, he will start disbelieving that such a move exists in this chess setting.
If the person is a reasonable person, this disbelief will also leave the door open for the option that the move exists but that he simply failed to find it.

So it seems that you have it completely backwards...

You are assuming that I will FIRST decide on believing or disbelieving the move exists BEFORE I actually investigate the position.

I shouldn't have to explain why this is not a rational approach.

Belief or disbelief is the result of investigating the issue or a result of the nature of the claim compared to the knowledge I already possess. It's not something I decide up front.

 

[AV1611VET]

Haaaa, I see your mistake. I should have known better. Off course this is how YOU think....

Over here in reality, a person will reserve judgement on that (dis)belief until he actually analyses the chess position.

FIRST he will look for a mate-in-three.
If after considerable effort he is unable to find it, he will start disbelieving that such a move exists in this chess setting.
If the person is a reasonable person, this disbelief will also leave the door open for the option that the move exists but that he simply failed to find it.

So it seems that you have it completely backwards...

You are assuming that I will FIRST decide on believing or disbelieving the move exists BEFORE I actually investigate the position.

I shouldn't have to explain why this is not a rational approach.

Belief or disbelief is the result of investigating the issue or a result of the nature of the claim compared to the knowledge I already possess. It's not something I decide up front.

In other words, you inject yourself into my question; then claim I have the question backwards.

Nice try.

If you can't answer the question, just admit it -- or better yet, don't say anything.

 

[PsychoSarah]

In other words, you inject yourself into my question; then claim I have the question backwards.

Nice try.

If you can't answer the question, just admit it -- or better yet, don't say anything.

Your question assumes the object in question does exist, but you haven't considered asking us about something which might not exist. The only way a person "finds" such things is when they basically begin to place it in areas to continue thinking it exists. That is where belief begins to actually matter as to whether or not people find stuff; when the item in question has a chance of not actually existing and has never been provably found.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your question assumes the object in question does exist, but you haven't considered asking us about something which might not exist. The only way a person "finds" such things is when they basically begin to place it in areas to continue thinking it exists. That is where belief begins to actually matter as to whether or not people find stuff; when the item in question has a chance of not actually existing and has never been provably found.

I once ate an apple, seeds and all, and my dad said a tree was going to grow inside my stomach; and that frightened me so badly I couldn't color in my coloring book.

Then my brother finally put my mind at ease by telling me the pH content in my stomach was too high for germination to occur.

I've never quite been the same since -- but I'm okay now.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I once ate an apple, seeds and all, and my dad said a tree was going to grow inside my stomach; and that frightened me so badly I couldn't color in my coloring book.

Then my brother finally put my mind at ease by telling me the pH content in my stomach was too high for germination to occur.

I've never quite been the same since -- but I'm okay now.

I don't see how this has anything to do with what I said.

 

[Michael]

Your question assumes the object in question does exist, but you haven't considered asking us about something which might not exist. The only way a person "finds" such things is when they basically begin to place it in areas to continue thinking it exists. That is where belief begins to actually matter as to whether or not people find stuff; when the item in question has a chance of not actually existing and has never been provably found.

FYI, that very same criticism applies to pretty much every area of theoretical physics as well, from string theory, to concepts involving gravitons, to non standard brands of particle physics theory.

If one *holds belief* in something which does not actually exist, it's still possible to find some so called 'evidence' (completely subjective affirming the consequent fallacy sort of evidence of course) to support that 'belief'. SUSY's mythical cause/effect link to gamma rays from space is one obvious example that comes to mind.

 

[Michael]

Belief or disbelief is the result of investigating the issue or a result of the nature of the claim compared to the knowledge I already possess. It's not something I decide up front.

It depends entirely upon the claim being made. Never mind for instance that SUSY theory failed it's own 'golden test' at LHC, got blown out of the water at LUX, failed the electron roundness "tests" and failed to make accurate predictions related to a 'cutoff' we were supposed to observe in AMS-02 data. It never matters what the lab results say, astronomers are constantly claiming WIMPS did anyway.

Strange Signal From Galactic Center Is Looking More and More Like Dark Matter | Science | WIRED

 

[Michael]

Originally Posted by TLK Valentine

The one who puts more effort into looking.
​

Which is not impacted by belief.Which is not impacted by belief.

Actually, I'd say it matters a great deal. I personally for instance would *never* look for, nor attempt to find any 'evidence' of 'inflation theory' in polarized photons from space.

Many folks handwave away EU/PC theory on a whim, never even lifting a finger to study it. Belief can not only have an direct effect on *effort*, it can also have a direct effect on what type of data is subjectively interpreted as "evidence".

 

[PsychoSarah]

It depends entirely upon the claim being made. Never mind for instance that SUSY theory failed it's own 'golden test' at LHC, got blown out of the water at LUX, failed the electron roundness "tests" and failed to make accurate predictions related to a 'cutoff' we were supposed to observe in AMS-02 data. It never matters what the lab results say, astronomers are constantly claiming WIMPS did anyway.

Strange Signal From Galactic Center Is Looking More and More Like Dark Matter | Science | WIRED

The difference in those cases though is that one day we might be able to test them or apply them to an experiment which would fail should those theories be incorrect. As far as I can tell, the existence of deities is completely untestable and will never be testable, because how our universe works won't be impacted by their presence or lack thereof.

 

[Michael]

The difference in those cases though is that one day we might be able to test them or apply them to an experiment which would fail should those theories be incorrect. As far as I can tell, the existence of deities is completely untestable and will never be testable, because how our universe works won't be impacted by their presence or lack thereof.

Actually each of the four failures at LUX, at LHC, at AMS-02 and in the electron experiments were actual 'tests' of the "popular mathematical models" related to SUSY theory. SUSY theory was falsified in *four unique* ways. In other words those *were* actual tests that showed that their mathematical models were incorrect. It's now an exotic matter of the gaps claim and the gaps keep getting smaller by the month. Those AMS-02 results *should have* shown a cutoff at some energy range if those gamma rays from space were related to exotic matter. There was no energy range cutoff found in AMS-02 and it *already looked at* the energy range being handwaved at in that last FERMI paper.

Their claims *already failed* their tests, but that doesn't stop them from handwaving at gamma rays and claiming SUSY theory did it anyway. The *falsifications* go in one ear and out the other and they *never* have any tangible effect on their "claims". They're still claiming WIMPS did it, even though their WIMP theory was falsified *every single time* in the lab.

I'd have to say that the "belief' affects no only the effort made, but also has a direct effect on the interpretation of the data sets as well.

 

[Michael]

Exactly. As in, if my intent was to disprove the existence of an as yet undiscovered bipedal hominid living in the Pacific Northwest, I would exhaust every effort so I could reasonable and intelligently answer all pertinent questions of the outcome?

I'd have to say that WIMPS are the new bigfoot/snipe in the sky and scientists continue to exhaust every effort to find it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Actually each of the four failures at LUX, at LHC, at AMS-02 and in the electron experiments were actual 'tests' of the "popular mathematical models" related to SUSY theory. SUSY theory was falsified in *four unique* ways. In other words those *were* actual tests that showed that their mathematical models were incorrect. It's now an exotic matter of the gaps claim and the gaps keep getting smaller by the month. Those AMS-02 results *should have* shown a cutoff at some energy range if those gamma rays from space were related to exotic matter. There was no energy range cutoff found in AMS-02 and it *already looked at* the energy range being handwaved at in that last FERMI paper.

Their claims *already failed* their tests, but that doesn't stop them from handwaving at gamma rays and claiming SUSY theory did it anyway. The *falsifications* go in one ear and out the other and they *never* have any tangible effect on their "claims". They're still claiming WIMPS did it, even though their WIMP theory was falsified *every single time* in the lab.

I'd have to say that the "belief' affects no only the effort made, but also has a direct effect on the interpretation of the data sets as well.

In physics, but you aren't seeing that with the idea of god, because there are not tests to criticise

 

[Michael]

In physics, but you aren't seeing that with the idea of god, because there are not tests to criticise

Actually that's not the case. Because I am sticking to even *empirical* definitions of concepts like 'God' (as the physical universe) and ordinary forms of matter and energy. Everything that I believe in can be tested on Earth in the lab, right down to the concept of soul.

Penrose has already even found a little evidence for that particular concept, and the God that I believe to exist is *visible* and *sense organ accessible* in every sense of the word. I feel his light shining on my face in the morning and see it in my eye from an infinite number of point sources every night.

Compare and contrast that with invisible forms of matter and energy claims that have already been falsified in the lab on four occasions, and the rest of which are *unverifiable/unfalsifiable* on Earth in any controlled experiment.

My "beliefs" certainly have a direct effect on how I "interpret" data from the universe around me, as do the beliefs of Lambda-CDM proponents.

The primary difference is that I can *see* and experiment with everything that I believe in right here on Earth in controlled experimentation. I clearly do not 'control' the universe around me, but I can interact with it in every empirical way.

How can you even demonstrate that Guth didn't just dream up his make-believe inflation deity in his head?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Actually that's not the case. Because I am sticking to even *empirical* definitions of concepts like 'God' (as the physical universe) and ordinary forms of matter and energy. Everything that I believe in can be tested on Earth in the lab, right down to the concept of soul.

Penrose has already even found a little evidence for that particular concept, and the God that I believe to exist is *visible* and *sense organ accessible* in every sense of the word. I feel his light shining on my face in the morning and see it in my eye from an infinite number of point sources every night.

Compare and contrast that with invisible forms of matter and energy claims that have already been falsified in the lab on four occasions, and the rest of which are *unverifiable/unfalsifiable* on Earth in any controlled experiment.

My "beliefs" certainly have a direct effect on how I "interpret" data from the universe around me, as do the beliefs of Lambda-CDM proponents.

The primary difference is that I can *see* and experiment with everything that I believe in right here on Earth in controlled experimentation. I clearly do not 'control' the universe around me, but I can interact with it in every empirical way.

How can you even demonstrate that Guth didn't just dream up his make-believe inflation deity in his head?

That kind of god or soul, if you will, that they attempted to test doesn't leave the human body nor does it necessarily outlast death.

 

[Michael]

That kind of god or soul, if you will, that they attempted to test doesn't leave the human body nor does it necessarily outlast death.

Well, at least according to their theory, it *could* outlast a physical form as we perceive it. The only ways I could even think to test such a claim would be based on near death experiences and events/claims that are consistent with soul surviving physical death.

Family Believes Son Is World War II Pilot Reincarnated James Leininger - YouTube

 

[PsychoSarah]

Near death experience isn't death; since the body didn't stay dead, you can't say for sure what they experienced was anything more than hallucination as the brain was deprived of oxygen or nutrients.

 

[Michael]

Near death experience isn't death; since the body didn't stay dead, you can't say for sure what they experienced was anything more than hallucination as the brain was deprived of oxygen or nutrients.

Ya, we could probably argue about that issue till the cows came home.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Ya, we could probably argue about that issue till the cows came home.

We could argue about the issue until one of us died.

 

[Michael]

We could argue about the issue until one of us died.

Ya, well, if I'm right, I'll at least get to gloat about it on the other side, whereas even if you're right, you'll never get that opportunity.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Ya, well, if I'm right, I'll at least get to gloat about it on the other side, whereas even if you're right, you'll never get that opportunity.

Who says I want to be correct, or that the lack of a deity means that all possibility of an afterlife is gone?