The Wrong God

[Logik]

What a shame in those 0.5% you made an error.

It was only an example. But if you have a .5 % error margin, it does not mean you made the error. It means you had a very small chance of having made it. And that's certainly far, far better than having a 99.5% chance of being wrong, as I'm sure you agree.

Don't be so sure, because I don't

It's a false dichotomy.

99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 is better than 99.5

The ideal is "infinite knowledge" right. The more 9's you can add to it - the better.

lim(time - >∞) knowledge = 100%

An unattainable ideal in practice, but in the right direction any way.

Well, living in the world of the empirical means that a person is going to have to live with an error margin.

It also means that you need to identify errors, rectify errors and look around corners for errors in a never-ending attempt to reduce them.

And you need to prepare for Black Swan events. Because they can and do happen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory

lim(time - >∞) errors = 0

If true, tragic for them. They should read Boorstin on the difference between "information" and "information for you."

Boostrin doesn't know what information is. Physicists do.

It doesn't.

Of course it does. If you have a Theory Of Everything that doesn't answer every question then it's not a Theory of Everything. Is it?

Furthermore, a Theory of Everything would prove that free will doesn't exist and that the universe is entirely deterministic Cellular Automaton.

But that shouldn't matter to us. Truth is Truth.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, living in the world of the empirical means that a person is going to have to live with an error margin.

It also means that you need to identify errors, rectify errors and look around corners for errors in a never-ending attempt to reduce them.

Yes, of course. But you're going to have to live with the fact that your "knowledge" is always going to be a matter of probabilities, with some margin, however small, for error. Reduce it as much as you can; but you'll never eliminate it.

If true, tragic for them. They should read Boorstin on the difference between "information" and "information for you."

Boostrin doesn't know what information is. I do.

Boorstin. Daniel Boorstin. And it's not a data-management problem; it's an interpretive problem. That's philosophers' work. Technicians are often quite terrible at knowing what their data means, even though they're often good at compiling the stuff.

If you have a Theory Of Everything

I say for the third time, I don't subscribe to any T.O.E.

I have to start wondering if perhaps you don't know what a "Theory of Everything" actually is. Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything

[Logik]

Yes, of course. But you're going to have to live with the fact that your "knowledge" is always going to be a matter of probabilities, with some margin, however small, for error. Reduce it as much as you can; but you'll never eliminate it.

I am living with it. That's what counterfactual thinking is for. Doubt. Skepticism. What if?

It also takes more than two brain cells to recognise that all epistemic theories are bullshit because of the Russel's Inductivist Turkey problem.

Tomorrow we may or may not become extinct. Is a justified true belief and therefore - knowledge.

I'll trade you this knowledge for toilet paper any day.

Boorstin. Daniel Boorstin. And it's not a data-management problem; it's an interpretive problem. That's philosophers' work. Technicians are often quite terrible at knowing what their data means, even though they're often good at compiling the stuff.

We solved interpretation 50 years ago. Where have you been?

I say for the third time, I don't subscribe to any T.O.E.

I have to start wondering if perhaps you don't know what a "Theory of Everything" actually is. Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything

I still have to wonder if you think an 'origin' story and a 'theory of everything" different in any way, form or shape.

They aren't. They are exactly the same thing.
They are also exactly the same thing as all foundational epistemologies.

[Dontaskme]

Tomorrow we may or may not become extinct. Is a justified true belief and therefore - knowledge.

Albeit illusory knowledge.

No thing ever becomes extinct. Things have never been seen, they are empty dream images of the imageless.

.

[Logik]

No thing ever becomes extinct. Things have never been seen, they are empty dream images of the imageless.

Tell that to the dinosaurs

[Dontaskme]

No thing ever becomes extinct. Things have never been seen, they are empty dream images of the imageless.

Tell that to the dinosaurs

A dinosaur has no concept of itself...so that idea would fall on deaf ears.

Extinction is a dream story told by no one.

.

[Immanuel Can]

We solved interpretation 50 years ago.

That's funny. We live in what has been rightly called "The Culture of Interpretation." Postmodernism makes everything an interpretive problem. So I guess I've been right here.

I say for the third time, I don't subscribe to any T.O.E.

I have to start wondering if perhaps you don't know what a "Theory of Everything" actually is. Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything

I still have to wonder if you think an 'origin' story and a 'theory of everything" different in any way, form or shape.

Of course. Look at the website. Definitionally, they're not the same thing.

[Logik]

Of course. Look at the website. Definitionally, they're not the same thing.

Definitions don't matter. This is a logocentric way to look at the world - I don't care much for it.

Consequences matter.

Consequentially/materially/practically do you think there is any difference between a "TOE" and an origin story?

[Immanuel Can]

Of course. Look at the website. Definitionally, they're not the same thing.

Definitions don't matter. This is a logocentric way to look at the world - I don't care much for it.

Hilarious. You're using logos (words) to say so.

Say it again, but this time without words... we don't want to be "logocentric," do we?

Consequentially/materially/practically do you think there is any difference between a "TOE" and an origin story?

Of course. But I'd have to use logos (words, logic, truth) to say so...so I guess I can't, without becoming "logocentric."

[Logik]

Of course. Look at the website. Definitionally, they're not the same thing.

Definitions don't matter. This is a logocentric way to look at the world - I don't care much for it.

Hilarious. You're using logos (words) to say so.

Say it again, but this time without words... we don't want to be "logocentric," do we?

Surely you aren't this stupid? It starts with the definition - it ends with the consequences.

Surely you are aware that two different definitions can have the exact same consequences?

Mathematicians call it isomorphism.
Engineers call it functional equivalence.

f(x) = 5
a(2) = 2*2 + 1 = 5
b(3) = 2*3 - 1 = 5
c(4) = 4 + 1 = 5
d(5) = 5*5/5 = 5
e(6) = 6 - 1 = 5
....

f(x) = a(2) = b(3) = c(4) = d(5) = e(6)..... etc.etc.

Because you are only observing the consequences (5) you can't tell which function produced the actual result.

Apply the same pattern of thought to First Cause.

Consequentially/materially/practically do you think there is any difference between a "TOE" and an origin story?

Of course. But I'd have to use logos (words, logic, truth) to say so...so I guess I can't, without becoming "logocentric."

I am taking your "of course" to mean "Yes - there is a difference". Which tells me that neither your scientific nor your logical brain is functional.

Let Universe = 1

If God caused the Universe and the Big Bang caused the universe it follows:

God() = 1
BigBang() = 1
Big Bang = God = 1

TOE explains Big bang.
TOE() = BigBang() = God() = 1

Comprende? Yes/No ?

[surreptitious57]

Consequentially / materially / practically do you think there is any difference between a TOE and an origin story

Only that TOE would not be confined to just origin but could also explain the behaviour of phenomena since then

[Immanuel Can]

Surely you are aware that two different definitions can have the exact same consequences?

And yet...you call them "two" definitions. "Two." Not "one." So even to make the claim, you establish the difference.

If God caused the Universe and the Big Bang caused the universe it follows:
God = First cause
Big Bang = First cause
Big Bang = God.

No, that's illogical. (Sorry...I had to use another derivative of "logos" there.)

The BB cannot be an explanation of the origin of the universe, unless by "universe" we gratuitiously and irrationally exclude things like hydrogen, helium, plasma, quantum vacuums, etc. Because these things are said to be the origination explanation for the BB.

But why would we pretend that these things are "non-things"? We know that they are things. So the BB isn't an explanation of the origin of all things. At best, it's a secondary-step explanation.

Hence, it's not an "origins" explanation. Nor is it a "Theory of Everything" of course.

[Logik]

Only that TOE would not be confined to just origin but could also explain the behaviour of phenomena since then

You are going to have to explain what you mean by "explain".

Because "God did it" explains perfectly how the universe got here.

What is there to explain thereafter? Because of the way God configured our universe X happens.

[Logik]

Surely you are aware that two different definitions can have the exact same consequences? /quote]
And yet...you call them "two" definitions. "Two." Not "one." So even to make the claim, you establish the difference.

If God caused the Universe and the Big Bang caused the universe it follows:
God = First cause
Big Bang = First cause
Big Bang = God.

No, that's illogical. (Sorry...I had to use another derivative of "logos" there.)

The BB cannot be an explanation of the origin of the universe, unless by "universe" we gratuitiously and irrationally exclude things like hydrogen, helium, plasma, quantum vacuums, etc. Because these things are said to be the origination explanation for the BB.

But why would we pretend that these things are "non-things"? We know that they are things. So the BB isn't an explanation of the origin of all things. At best, it's a secondary-step explanation.

Hence, it's not an "origins" explanation. Nor is it a "Theory of Everything" of course.

You are truly confused. What's "illogical about mathematics (the language of science). Let me copy/paste again.

There is an very long list of functions all of which produce 5 as their result/consequences.

f(x) = 5
a(2) = 2*2 + 1 = 5
b(3) = 2*3 - 1 = 5
c(4) = 4 + 1 = 5
d(5) = 5*5/5 = 5
e(6) = 6 - 1 = 5

Let Universe = 1

If God caused the Universe then: God() = 1
If Big Bang caused the Universe then: BigBang() = 1
If The Flying Spaghetti Monster caused the universe then: FSM() = 1

Big Bang = God = FSM = 1

if TOE fully and completely explains BigBang then: TOE() = BigBang()

It follows: TOE = BigBang = God = FSM = 1

[Immanuel Can]

Only that TOE would not be confined to just origin but could also explain the behaviour of phenomena since then

A "TOE" isn't a synonym for an "origins" theory. It's a comprehensive physics formula intended to account for all phenomena. Any genuine TOE, if such a thing could exist, would come in a form like "E=MC2.

Now, presumably, if a TOE ever existed, it would have to give us some mathematical-physical purchase on origins; but not just that. It would have to do much, much more.

I'm not advocating any TOE. Let's make that clear. I know of none, nor do I reasonably expect us to find any soon. This ain't that.