Pissing off the atheists/naturalists

[Will Bouwman]

Acting pissed off is definitely amongst your long list of incompetencies.

Or maybe that's just your way of showing it

Fuck off then.

[Skepdick]

Acting pissed off is definitely amongst your long list of incompetencies.

Or maybe that's just your way of showing it

Fuck off then.

Ohhh, are you pissed off now?

[Skepdick]

The most important reason though...

I wasted 15 years of my life doubting; only to realise the biggest lie I ever bought.

It was never religion OR science. It was always religion AND science. Doubt and Faith are complementary. In isolation they are both pathological.

Atheists/naturalists stole half of my life by making me doubt this one, really good, really wise presupposition.
So I had to reconstruct it from first principles.

Fucking twats.

[Will Bouwman]

The most important reason though...

I wasted 15 years of my life doubting; only to realise the biggest lie I ever bought.

It was never religion OR science. It was always religion AND science. Doubt and Faith are complementary. In isolation they are both pathological.

Atheists/naturalists stole half of my life by making me doubt this one, really good, really wise presupposition.
So I had to reconstruct it from first principles.

Fucking twats.

It has crossed my mind that Timeseeker/Logik/Skepdick were Mr Can sock puppets. Never took it seriously, but it kinda makes sense.
Anyway, the latest version of Skepdick, after policeman, father, husband, computer scientist, firearms trainer, I think he had a business at one point, is an embittered once theist, then atheist, back to theist blaming atheists for wasting half his life, hell bent on wasting the rest of it having tiny tantrums on a philosophy forum.
How long will this version last?

[Skepdick]

The most important reason though...

I wasted 15 years of my life doubting; only to realise the biggest lie I ever bought.

It was never religion OR science. It was always religion AND science. Doubt and Faith are complementary. In isolation they are both pathological.

Atheists/naturalists stole half of my life by making me doubt this one, really good, really wise presupposition.
So I had to reconstruct it from first principles.

Fucking twats.

It has crossed my mind that Timeseeker/Logik/Skepdick were Mr Can sock puppets. Never took it seriously, but it kinda makes sense.

You still can't tell the difference between somebody with; and somebody without a scientific background and deep understanding of the subject matter? That "Philosophy of Science" title seems like a waste...

I guess if you can't tell the difference between big and small things... It all makes sense. Your instrument isn't very sensitive to bee farts.

Anyway, the latest version of Skepdick, after policeman, father, husband, computer scientist, firearms trainer, I think he had a business at one point, is an embittered once theist, then atheist, back to theist blaming atheists for wasting half his life, hell bent on wasting the rest of it having tiny tantrums on a philosophy forum.
How long will this version last?

Just long enough to make the science behind the God-theory comprehensible enough to your average kid with a computer without any mysticism

So this dumb shit doesn't happen to anybody else. Not least of all - my children.

Atheism is a harmful religion founded upon unchecked axiomatic doubt.

[FlashDangerpants]

The most important reason though...

I wasted 15 years of my life doubting; only to realise the biggest lie I ever bought.

It was never religion OR science. It was always religion AND science. Doubt and Faith are complementary. In isolation they are both pathological.

Atheists/naturalists stole half of my life by making me doubt this one, really good, really wise presupposition.
So I had to reconstruct it from first principles.

Fucking twats.

The proper place for that post is https://www.reddit.com/r/iam14andthisisdeep/

[Skepdick]

The proper place for that post is https://www.reddit.com/r/iam14andthisisdeep/

Idiot. You don't even understand what identity IS in any computational sense, nor that there are many different kinds of identities.
But you think I am the one on wrong end of self-discovery?

Sadly, I have to believe that you are a total idiot, because I can't find any evidence to the contrary.

You are precisely the sort I had in mind when I speak of unchecked/dogmatic doubters.
Foundational ignorance with excessive self-confidence. Fake it till you make it.

And you never make it...

It would certainly explain your "charming" personality and perpetual dismissiveness of things even a 14 year old with a computer understands nowadays. Behind the persona you've constructed you appear to have the intellectual depth of a fleshlight.

I don't envy the dull and mechanical life of a critic. It's not even what you think. It's how you think - you don't.

And yet you opine so much.

[FlashDangerpants]

It has crossed my mind that Timeseeker/Logik/Skepdick were Mr Can sock puppets. Never took it seriously, but it kinda makes sense.
Anyway, the latest version of Skepdick, after policeman, father, husband, computer scientist, firearms trainer, I think he had a business at one point, is an embittered once theist, then atheist, back to theist blaming atheists for wasting half his life, hell bent on wasting the rest of it having tiny tantrums on a philosophy forum.
How long will this version last?

People with personality disorders tend to have little breakdowns when it all becomes unsustainable.

[Skepdick]

People with personality disorders tend to have little breakdowns when it all becomes unsustainable.

Is that true; or are you lying?

Personally, I think people with personality disorders (disagreeableness in particular) who can't cope with the complexity tend to play games of "pretend" under the guise of philosophy. Much like you are pretending to be a moral skeptic.

It's escapism. Much easier than sustaining.

[Will Bouwman]

Anyway, the latest version of Skepdick, after policeman, father, husband, computer scientist, firearms trainer, I think he had a business at one point, is an embittered once theist, then atheist, back to theist blaming atheists for wasting half his life, hell bent on wasting the rest of it having tiny tantrums on a philosophy forum.
How long will this version last?

Just long enough to make the science behind the God-theory comprehensible enough to your average kid with a computer without any mysticism

The stage is yours. Go for it!

[Skepdick]

Anyway, the latest version of Skepdick, after policeman, father, husband, computer scientist, firearms trainer, I think he had a business at one point, is an embittered once theist, then atheist, back to theist blaming atheists for wasting half his life, hell bent on wasting the rest of it having tiny tantrums on a philosophy forum.
How long will this version last?

Just long enough to make the science behind the God-theory comprehensible enough to your average kid with a computer without any mysticism

The stage is yours. Go for it!

I don't need the stage.

I need to understand how you evaluate the evidence such that you think the irreducible complexity hypothesis is less plausible than reducible complexity (where reduction/reducibility amounts to scientific understanding).

Why do you believe we can construct mutating self-replicators (the most abstract description of what we call "life") from the stuff chemistry and physics talk about?

Despite the overwhelming evidence against it.

And don't give me that "I don't know" cop-out. Obviously we don't know - ignorance is the default and perpetual position for a scientist.
Nobody knows if spacetime actually exists either. But IF we allow ourselves to believe it does THEN useful intuitions/predictions come from it.

IF <theory> THEN <observable consequences>

[Will Bouwman]

And don't give me that "I don't know" cop-out. Obviously we don't know - ignorance is the default position. We don't know if spacetime exists either. But IF we allow ourselves to believe it does...then useful intuitions/predictions come from it.

You don't have to believe any given hypothesis for it to stimulate useful intuitions/predictions. For any set of data, there are any number of hypotheses which explain that set equally well. This is no surprise: if you give different people the same bits of information, they will process them differently and create different stories. Ancient religions were founded on the basis of what today would be considered a very limited data set; essentially what a community could see with their eyes in their local environment, embellished perhaps by a few travellers' tales. There are a lot of ancient religions. It is still the case today that if you give different scientists the same data set, they will interpret it differently. Any one of those different interpretations might stimulate useful intuitions/predictions. So, once again as Richard Feynman said:

"we must keep all theories in our head, and every theoretical physicist that's any good knows six or seven theoretical representations for exactly the same physics." It's at 1:45 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM-zWTU7X-k

The God hypothesis is useful insofar as it inspires some people to, as they see it, seek to understand God's handiwork, but it's not "I don't know" which is a cop-out, it's "I don't know, therefore God".

[Skepdick]

And don't give me that "I don't know" cop-out. Obviously we don't know - ignorance is the default position. We don't know if spacetime exists either. But IF we allow ourselves to believe it does...then useful intuitions/predictions come from it.

You don't have to believe any given hypothesis for it to stimulate useful intuitions/predictions.

Lets not get hung up on what it means "to believe". I believe a hypothesis the moment I admit it as possibly being true. The moment I entertain it and use it to make calculations/predictions. Use is belief.

I can believe it now, and not believe it 15 minutes later - when I am using a different theory.

For any set of data, there are any number of hypotheses which explain that set equally well. This is no surprise: if you give different people the same bits of information, they will process them differently and create different stories.

It is no surprise to you. It is a surprise to me.

It is precisely this "difference in processing" is that I am interested about.

How have you chosen which processing framework (theory!) to use?

I am interested in the very process of model selection.

Ancient religions were founded on the basis of what today would be considered a very limited data set; essentially what a community could see with their eyes in their local environment, embellished perhaps by a few travellers' tales. There are a lot of ancient religions. It is still the case today that if you give different scientists the same data set, they will interpret it differently. Any one of those different interpretations might stimulate useful intuitions/predictions. So, once again as Richard Feynman said:

"we must keep all theories in our head, and every theoretical physicist that's any good knows six or seven theoretical representations for exactly the same physics." It's at 1:45 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM-zWTU7X-k

The God hypothesis is useful insofar as it inspires some people to, as they see it, seek to understand God's handiwork, but it's not "I don't know" which is a cop-out, it's[

I understand all of this perfectly.

I also understand that a really good scientist also understands that the hypothesis of "my chosen paradigm forbids me from constructing certain kinds of theories" is always on the table.

So you also have to entertain the idea that your model-selection process is biased AGAINST some theories. This is a definitional truth - paradigms impose limits/constraints on what you can and can't think about.

And what if those theories happen to be true? You have pre-fucked yourself.

"I don't know, therefore God".

That IS science!!!

I don't know. Therefore X

For X being ANY useful scientific theory. Given your particular utility function.

Now let’s talk about the theory-selector when optimizing for the best possible explanatory value.

[Will Bouwman]

And don't give me that "I don't know" cop-out. Obviously we don't know - ignorance is the default position. We don't know if spacetime exists either. But IF we allow ourselves to believe it does...then useful intuitions/predictions come from it.

You don't have to believe any given hypothesis for it to stimulate useful intuitions/predictions.

Lets not get hung up on what it means "to believe". I believe a hypothesis the moment I admit it as possibly being true. The moment I entertain it and use it to make calculations/predictions. Use is belief.

Well, we don't have to get hung up on it, but we are talking about different things. If you use an hypothesis, I suppose you have what I have just decided to call a functional belief, that the result of you doing so will serve your current purposes. I think you are unusual in that most people hold that their beliefs are true, regardless of any usefulness; I believe that the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand was a factor in the events leading to WW1, for example.

I can believe it now, and not believe it 15 minutes later - when I am using a different theory.

I might change my mind about the Archduke, but it won't make a lot of difference to any calculations/predictions. What use did atheists deprive you of that made you so bitter?

For any set of data, there are any number of hypotheses which explain that set equally well. This is no surprise: if you give different people the same bits of information, they will process them differently and create different stories.

It is no surprise to you. It is a surprise to me.

But then in regard to what Richard Feynman said:

"we must keep all theories in our head, and every theoretical physicist that's any good knows six or seven theoretical representations for exactly the same physics." It's at 1:45 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM-zWTU7X-k

you say:

I understand all of this perfectly.

So, according to you, by keeping "all theories" in his head, Feynman believes only the one he is using at any given time.

I also understand that a really good scientist also understands that the hypothesis of "my chosen paradigm forbids me from constructing certain kinds of theories" is always on the table.

Scientists are human beings. They believe things for probably incalculable, and certainly currently incalculable reasons: their background, education, a hunch or just a wild guess. There are different research teams, sometimes in the same university or company, using different approaches to try and tackle the same issues. It's just some human's nature to have more commitment to something they think is true; that doesn't necessarily make them any less a scientist. James Clerk Maxwell believed in the luminiferous ether: Einstein believed in a 'spacetime' with mechanical properties.

It is precisely this "difference in processing" is that I am interested about.

How have you chosen which processing framework (theory!) to use?

Probably incalculable reasons, but one influence was Bertrand Russell, probably in his introductory Problems of Philosophy, claiming that anything that is not logically impossible might be true. The example he used was that there is nothing incoherent in the belief that the world came into existence five minutes ago complete with memories of reading books by Russell that detailed the holes in his socks. According to that philosophical standard of truth, there are, in case you haven't heard me say so, only two philosophical truths. One courtesy of Parmenides is that there is not nothing - something exists, in other words. The second we owe to Descartes, is the fact that consciousness exists. What makes those necessarily true is that they cannot be expressed without being true. Beyond that, everything is theory laden and underdetermined.

So you also have to entertain the idea that your model-selection process is biased AGAINST some theories. This is a definitional truth - paradigms impose limits/constraints on what you can and can't think about.

And what if those theories happen to be true? You have pre-fucked yourself.

Yep, I do believe a lot of things. Some of those might have pre-fucked me; some, if certain theists are to be believed have post-fucked me too.

"I don't know, therefore God".

That IS science!!!

I don't know. Therefore X

For X being ANY useful scientific theory. Given your particular utility function.

So God = ANY useful scientific theory?

Now let’s talk about the theory-selector when optimizing for the best possible explanatory value.

Go for it.

[Skepdick]

I believe that the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand was a factor in the events leading to WW1, for example.

Sure. And I believe that The Big Bang was a factor in the events leading to WW1.

Your belief is vacuous of information.

I might change my mind about the Archduke, but it won't make a lot of difference to any calculations/predictions.

What does changing your mind entail exactly? Believing that the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand was NOT a factor in the events leading to WW1?

Now that's a belief containing some information. Maybe you think WW1 would've happened with or without him getting assassinated?

So, according to you, by keeping "all theories" in his head, Feynman believes only the one he is using at any given time.

Well duh! Did you not even entertain the competing hypothesis when you settled on your current belief?

e.g the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand was NOT a factor in the events leading to WW1?

Scientists are human beings. They believe things for probably incalculable, and certainly currently incalculable reasons: their background, education, a hunch or just a wild guess. There are different research teams, sometimes in the same university or company, using different approaches to try and tackle the same issues. It's just some human's nature to have more commitment to something they think is true; that doesn't necessarily make them any less a scientist. James Clerk Maxwell believed in the luminiferous ether: Einstein believed in a 'spacetime' with mechanical properties.

None of which addresses the point that even though you might commit your life to it; you have to bite the bullet on maybe the premises of your paradigm are wrong.

That's why we design concurrent systems in comp-sci.

One team works on A.
One team works on not-A.

If either one gets a result - let the other bunch know.

Probably incalculable reasons, but one influence was Bertrand Russell, probably in his introductory Problems of Philosophy, claiming that anything that is not logically impossible might be true.

That's not a very good scale for choosing which one is most probable amongst allt he true options...

The example he used was that there is nothing incoherent in the belief that the world came into existence five minutes ago complete with memories of reading books by Russell that detailed the holes in his socks. According to that philosophical standard of truth, there are, in case you haven't heard me say so, only two philosophical truths. One courtesy of Parmenides is that there is not nothing - something exists, in other words. The second we owe to Descartes, is the fact that consciousness exists. What makes those necessarily true is that they cannot be expressed without being true. Beyond that, everything is theory laden and underdetermined.

Yeap... that dichotomy doesn't fly. Maybe the universe did come about 5 minutes ago. 5 human minutes; or 5 universal minutes?

What's your unit of time?

To define the age of the universe in terms of Earth laps around the Sun is that good ole' geocentrism again.

Yep, I do believe a lot of things. Some of those might have pre-fucked me; some, if certain theists are to be believed have post-fucked me too.

Is the belief in geocentric time a pre or a post-fuck according to you?

Sure sounds very 'Earth is 6000 years old" kinda vibe...

So God = ANY useful scientific theory?

Que? Evidence-based choice of time-irreducible complexity over the competing hypothesis: time-reducible complexity.

Go for it.

So go then. I've told you what my selector is.

Irreducible complexity is evidence-based. Absent evidence of a successful reduction by reductionists doing reductionism the theory remains unfalsified.