What is it about woo that upsets you?

[Write4U]

The way I look at it is that 'true' and 'false' rarely if ever indicate absolute apodeictic certainty. These truth-values probably should be thought of as having likelihood-weights. Beliefs that we are highly certain about get high weights, perhaps 99% (a small fraction below absolute certainty). Beliefs that are more like guesses, mere shots-in-the dark, might only rate a 51% rating (a small fraction above flip-a-coin)

But if we accept the notion that nothing can ever be known with certainty, can we even talk abut determinism?
If we are never sure we get mysticism and I don't believe in mysticism. I do accept the notion of "probabilities" of natural occurrences. But only when there is a probability of 100% can it be called deterministically true, no? How do we know a probability is ever 100%?

Determinism is the philosophical idea that all states are completely determined by previously existing causal states.

If this is always subject to correction can we even talk about determinism?

 

[Write4U]

That's sort of backwards. There is an underlying interaction between all matter and energy. We _describe_ it with mathematical tools to varying degrees of precision. But the tools are not the interaction, just as the map is not the territory. Today we think our maps are pretty good. But in ten years we may realize that the map is not 100% accurate - even if it's been working pretty well up until then, and will continue to work for most of the places we want to go.

IMO, the Human perspective is the backwards part. From a Universal perspective our maps are meaningless. The Territory is a natural mathematical construct and functions in a mathematical manner, some of which are known to be constant without exception.
IMO, Mathematics are not an approximate map. It is a consistent logical natural function based on prevailing values. Mathematical Determinism

 

[Yazata]

But if we accept the notion that nothing can ever be known with certainty, can we even talk abut determinism?

I'm not a determinist, but I don't see why not. We would just have to recognize that the truth of a metaphysical assumption of determinism isn't 100% certain. The assumption of determinism might be wrong. (Which is what I happen to believe.)

I do accept the notion of "probabilities" of natural occurrences. But only when there is a probability of 100% can it be called deterministically true, no?

Determinism seems to me to be a one-to-one mapping between prior physical states and subsequent physical states. Prior state A is mapped onto a specific subsequent state B such that 'If A, then B'.

Sure, we can insist that this theory of determinism makes B precisely dependent on A.

How do we know a probability is ever 100%?

We probably don't, since it's a metaphysical hypothesis.

If this is always subject to correction can we even talk about determinism?

I'm not concerned about defending determinism, since I'm not a determinist.

But it could probably be easily defended by making a distinction between the precision of the hypothetical mapping, and the likelihood that the universe really works that way, such that our belief in the hypothetical mapping is true.

My point is that even if determinism posits a logically necessary connection between prior event A and subsequent event B (it doesn't, but supposing it did), we still couldn't be absolutely certain that we know about this hypothetical necessary connection in such a way that our beliefs about it are immune from the possibility of error (or future improvement).

 

[billvon]

The Territory is a natural mathematical construct and functions in a mathematical manner, some of which are known to be constant without exception.

Again, math is our map. We made it up. It doesn't exist in nature. It's just a tool we use to describe nature.

IMO, Mathematics are not an approximate map. It is a consistent logical calculation based on prevailing values.

Nope. It's a tool that can be very precise when used to figure stuff out. It is not "natural."

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think Nathan Brazil demanded too much of Julie Wu.

 

[wegs]

Not quite, no. There are all manner of funny ideas people have and they need to be broken down into subcategories. As I've tried to explain in a number of previous posts

Oops, I see in post #85, you share your stance.

to me woo is a subset of pseudoscience characterised by vagueness and the promotion of an air of mystery - the antithesis of what science tries to do.

Okay.

There are other kinds of pseudoscience, for example believers in weird and unevidenced "explanations" of cold fusion, or theories of water having a memory of dissolved molecules, used by some homeopathic believers, and so on. To me these are not - or not usually - woo, because the ideas have some precision even if they are wrong. But people who go on nebulously about "vibrations", "psychic energy" and other New Age crystals-and-shit are proponents of woo. Chopra is a leading exponent of a currently rather popular (and especially annoying) sub-strain of woo, known as "quantum woo" .

He's ''popular'' because his ''teachings'' involve a mix of spirituality with his own ideas of science. His goal is to make everyone feel that their subjective experiences are paramount to objective reality. I'm not sure why scientists get so worked up over him; dismiss him as a New Age ''guru,'' and be done with it. I've heard him speak about consciousness and how it somehow had an impact on evolution. lol

The only troubling part for me with people who ''believe'' woo, or follow the likes of Chopra, is that it shows a trend towards choosing to feel good (''you do you''), over wanting to become educated. He's not as much the problem, as are the people who follow his ''teachings.'' Without them, he wouldn't be in the snake oil business.

 

[wegs]

If this is always subject to correction can we even talk about determinism?

Sorry to interrupt, but do you mean cause and effect, here?

 

[Write4U]

Again, math is our map. We made it up. It doesn't exist in nature. It's just a tool we use to describe nature.

This is where I disagree. IMO, the universe functions in a mathematical manner. The territory is a mathematical pattern. When the values of the patterns are known, the interactions between the values can be accurately predicted. This has nothing to with our mathematical representations, it has to do with the mathematical properties of observable naturally occurring patterns.

Human have only symbolized and codified these universal mathematical values and functions which existed long before we invented symbolic representations of the mathematics involved.

Nope. It's a tool that can be very precise when used to figure stuff out. It is not "natural."

IMO, it is. Human mathematics are the symbolized representations, not approximations, of natural mathematics. i.e. physical values and interactive functions based on those values (potentials).

In nature, mathematics are not tools, but logical functional processes which emerge during the deterministic change. The Fibonacci Sequence can be found throughout nature from flowers to spiral galaxies. It is a naturally emergent growth function which promotes balance and efficiency in growth patterns. It is a emergent mathematical function resulting from evolved efficient functional growth patterns distributed over a wide range of universal growth patterns.

Humans have recognized this universal mathematical function and used it in art and architecture. Nature was the teacher, not the student.

I believe that the universe is a collection of objects with specific physical values and mathematical functions based on these physical values of objects and their relationships.
Things in nature do not need know mathematics, they only need to function mathematical.

If true, that will simplify the entire concept of universal properties and functional expressions and hold the promise of discovering a mathematical TOE.

There are no mysteries, there are only as yet mathematical unknowns.....difference.
Mysteries cannot be solved, mathematical unknowns can be measured and represented.

 

[Write4U]

Sorry to interrupt, but do you mean cause and effect, here?

Specific cause and specific effect. That constitutes a deterministic mathematical equation.

Our mathematics are a representative, not approximate, symbolic language, IMO.

Roger Antonsen explains this symbolic representation and how it enables us to represent precise patterns.

Bees use mathematics to build their honeycombs. Efficiency!

Why Are Honeycomb Cells Hexagonal?
Honeybees have evolved over time to skillfully build hexagonal honeycomb cells. Why might a hexagon be a suitable shape for storing honey? Could other shapes, such as circles, triangles, or squares, work just as well?

Let’s investigate this question by first making some observations of a honeycomb. We’ll take a macro, or wide, perspective so we can study the honeycomb’s overall appearance. Then we’ll zoom in for a micro, or close-up, perspective in order to observe specific details.

https://www.sciencefriday.com/educational-resources/why-do-bees-build-hexagonal-honeycomb-cells/

Bees don't use mathematics as a tool, they just use mathematics to build as they naturally have evolved to build their combs.

 

[wegs]

Specific cause and specific effect. That constitutes a deterministic mathematical equation.

Yea, thank you - I just read through Yazata's reply, above.

Our mathematics are a representative, not approximate, symbolic language, IMO.

I understand your point. But, since math largely depends on human observation, it is subject to fallibility. Yes/no?

 

[Seattle]

For some, they simply believe that science and religion are capable of coexisting.

I also think they are capable of coexisting. Science is based on data and religion is a philosophy at it's heart as long as you don't get your empirical data from your philosophy they can coexist.

There is another active thread right now, whereby the topic discusses how with science, one still needs to take a leap of faith. The difference between that leap and spirituality, is that scientists base their leaps of faith, on factual evidence.

That's misusing the term "faith" IMO. With factual evidence, "faith" isn't required. Science isn't about "proof" so it's always just the best explanation, one which generally gets better and better over time.

If you act as if the best explanation is the explanation until shown othewise, that's not "faith" IMO. Faith is believing something without evidence or even where evidence shows a difference conclusion.

 

[Write4U]

Yea, thank you - I just read through Yazata's reply, above.

Yes, his' is the common interpretation of human mathematics. My perspective is that mathematics are naturally occurring patterns, which we have codified with mathematical symbols. Take human maths away and the universe does not stop functioning in a mathematical manner.

I understand your point. But, since math largely depends on human observation, it is subject to fallibility. Yes/no?

No, this is what astounded Eugene Wigner to write;

"The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences" is the title of an article published in 1960 by the physicist Eugene Wigner.[1] In the paper, Wigner observed that the mathematical structure of a physical theory often points the way to further advances in that theory and even to empirical predictions.

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

It is so effective because it accurately symbolizes the natural inherent universal mathematical values and functions. It's not complicated. Tegmark estimates about 32 numerical values and a handful of equations are sufficient to eplain every observed universal mathematical function. There are still a few missing equations, but according to Tegmark, these will be mathematical in essence.

 

[Seattle]

Specific cause and specific effect. That constitutes a deterministic mathematical equation.

Our mathematics are a representative, not approximate, symbolic language, IMO.

Roger Antonsen explains this symbolic representation and how it enables us to represent precise patterns.

Bees use mathematics to build their honeycombs. Efficiency!
https://www.sciencefriday.com/educational-resources/why-do-bees-build-hexagonal-honeycomb-cells/

Bees don't use mathematics as a tool, they just use mathematics to build as they naturally have evolved to build their combs.

Mathematical models are always approximate and therefore always "wrong".

 

[wegs]

I also think they are capable of coexisting. Science is based on data and religion is a philosophy at it's heart as long as you don't get your empirical data from your philosophy they can coexist.

Yep, agree.

That's misusing the term "faith" IMO.

Is it? We use the term in everyday conversations though, don't we? A friend told me recently that she had ''faith'' in me that I was going to ace a presentation at work. I asked her why, and she rattled off a bunch of ''facts'' (about me and my preparation) that barring something unforeseen happening, all evidence pointed to me being able to ace my presentation. It could be a word we use in a flip way, but we apply it to all kinds of situations.

If someone tells you that they have ''faith'' in you, what does that mean to you? They obviously don't think of you as the Messiah, so what might he/she mean?

With factual evidence, "faith" isn't required. Science isn't about "proof" so it's always just the best explanation, one which generally gets better and better over time.

If you act as if the best explanation is the explanation until shown othewise, that's not "faith" IMO.Faith is believing something without evidence or even where evidence shows a difference conclusion.

I don't disagree, but faith is a term that some people apply only to religion/spirituality. It can also mean to have a complete trust in someone/something. That's probably how scientists use it, thus the difference between a religious concept of it, and a scientific one, albeit they both seem to hinge on complete trust (of something)

For example, do you completely trust the evidence that supports the theory of evolution?

 

[Goldtop]

Science is based on data and religion is a philosophy at it's heart as long as you don't get your empirical data from your philosophy they can coexist.

That would infer no philosophy could ever be shown to be valid in any way if you ignore evidence. Anyone could then make up a philosophy and claim it's valid no matter what evidence you put forth. The very core of the philosophy could easily be made irrelevant from evidence; creationism vs. evolution , for example.

 

[wegs]

Yes, his' is the common interpretation of human mathematics. My perspective is that mathematics are naturally occurring patterns, which we have codified with mathematical symbols. Take human maths away and the universe does not stop functioning in a mathematical manner.
No, this is what astounded Eugene Wigner to write;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness_of_Mathematics_in_the_Natural_Sciences

It is so effective because it accurately symbolizes the natural inherent universal mathematical values and functions. It's not complicated. Tegmark estimates about 32 numerical values and a handful of equations are sufficient to eplain every observed universal mathematical function. There are still a few missing equations, but according to Tegmark, these will be mathematical in essence.

So, true or false? Math is an exact science.

 

[wegs]

That would infer no philosophy could ever be shown to be valid in any way if you ignore evidence. Anyone could then make up a philosophy and claim it's valid no matter what evidence you put forth. The very core of the philosophy could easily be made irrelevant from evidence; creationism vs. evolution , for example.

It would depend on one's religious/spiritual views. Manyyyy people believe in a god of some type, but not necessarily in ''creationism.''

 

[Write4U]

Mathematical models are always approximate and therefore always "wrong".

I disagree. They are not always wrong, they are symbolic representations, not approximations...difference.

The universe uses generic natural mathematical values and functions. The values are associated with the atomic structures, the mathematical functions emerge during the interactions of the mathematical values.

The table of elements can be accurately represented with symbolic mathematical values of the atomic constituent particles. Natural chemistry are mathematical chemical interactions, which can be exquisitely represented by human symbolic mathematics and experimentally confirmed, down to nano-scale.

 

[Goldtop]

Manyyyy people believe in a god of some type, but not necessarily in ''creationism.''

So, isn't that kind of like saying a person believes in Unicorns and Leprechauns, but does not believe Leprechauns race Unicorns in the Kentucky Derby? In other words, neither the philosophy of a god or the philosophy of a god creating a universe have been shown to be valid in any way.

 

[wegs]

So, isn't that kind of like saying a person believes in Unicorns and Leprechauns, but does not believe Leprechauns race Unicorns in the Kentucky Derby? In other words, neither the philosophy of a god or the philosophy of a god creating a universe have been shown to be valid in any way.

We're not talking about whether the philosophy of a god is valid. I'm stating that one can be religious/spiritual, and still respect science, without compromising either.