Theology Specialization: Comparative?

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by ErhnamDJ

Nope. I don't see how else one could justify epistemological statements.



I don't see what you mean.

You can't come up with a 'disproof' of induction through the application of induction.

If you're assuming it's valid, then you end up with this situation where you have to interpret the results. If you have to reject any result that would lead you to dismiss induction, then you have to come up with an interpretation that still allows for it.

And so I really do think that us living in a deterministic computer simulation is one of the most likely interpretations of QM. If QM turns out to be correct. To my layman's eyes, it looks a lot like Newton's physics. Works great for some stuff! But I wouldn't go basing my worldview on it.

Am I correctly understanding that you think non-determinism must be impossible because if it isn't, knowledge would be meaningless and events would contain no information?

That's wishful thinking stacked on top of error. Reasoning absolutely does not require strict determinism. It never has. If it did, we wouldn't be able to use it in practice since at the level of information we generally operate at the universe is definitely non-deterministic.

Originally Posted by ErhnamDJ

I don't think that's right, but I'm not sure enough of what you mean to really come up with a response.

In a deterministic universe, I don't think it's possible for the total amount of information to increase, since the initial state fully encodes all future states.

Consequently, if they produce a stream of 'random' numbers to feed to their toy universe's non-determinism module, they'll eventually no longer be able to base them on new information that hasn't previously appeared in that universe. After that any further 'randomness' in the simulation will not be independent of past randomness, and you'd theoretically be able to catch quantum physics cheating.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by ErhnamDJ

Suppose that reality is not causal. If you start with that assumption, then it makes no sense to apply the scientific method to your senses to gain knowledge about reality, right?

Inductive reasoning presupposes a causal reality. If one interpretation is that reality is not causal, then it's wrong. It's the same as saying: If reality is causal, then it's not causal.

You can't use the scientific method to prove that the scientific method does not supply knowledge about reality. It just doesn't work that way.

Induction presupposes all sorts of things. How in the world can it suggest that the application of itself is incorrect? It just doesn't make any sense.

Not seeing any way in which induction pre-supposes causality.

Furthermore, non-deterministic does not mean causality breaks down. It means that future events cannot be perfectly predicted from current state, is all. This, being true of absolutely every application of 'induction' to reality in the history of human thought, is not going to suddenly derail reason if it's upgraded from practically true to factually true.

EDIT: Also, you can tell whether induction is working for you or not by simply observing whether induction is working for you or not. It's supported by theoretical argument, but that came later. It's founded in simple applied empiricism.

[ErhnamDJ]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Am I correctly understanding that you think non-determinism must be impossible because if it isn't, knowledge would be meaningless and events would contain no information?

I think knowledge presupposes a causal reality.

If you're able to suppose anything at all, then you have already accepted a causal reality.

If it did, we wouldn't be able to use it in practice since at the level of information we generally operate at the universe is definitely non-deterministic.

I don't know what that means. I'm not talking about information. I'm talking about physical structures.

In a deterministic universe, I don't think it's possible for the total amount of information to increase, since the initial state fully encodes all future states.

I don't know what 'information' is.

Consequently, if they produce a stream of 'random' numbers to feed to their toy universe's non-determinism module, they'll eventually no longer be able to base them on new information that hasn't previously appeared in that universe. After that any further 'randomness' in the simulation will not be independent of past randomness, and you'd theoretically be able to catch quantum physics cheating.

Well, for our 'universe' to exist inside of theirs as a simulation, their universe has to have significantly more stuff making it up than ours. Maybe it just wouldn't be possible for our universe to observe that, since our universe would have fewer instances of 'randomness' than their universe could create.

If I'm understanding you correctly.

And I think you're assuming too much about the reality where the computer exists, anyway.

[ErhnamDJ]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Not seeing any way in which induction pre-supposes causality.

...

EDIT: Also, you can tell whether induction is working for you or not by simply observing whether induction is working for you or not. It's supported by theoretical argument, but that came later. It's founded in simple applied empiricism.

I... cannot meaningfully respond to this.

[vierasmarius]

Originally Posted by ErhnamDJ

And I think you're assuming too much about the reality where the computer exists, anyway.

Why are you assuming a computer, anyways? Why not the brain of a cosmic space-pig? Or a swarm of intelligent psychic hydrogen atoms? Or something we can't even conceive of? There's no way we can say anything about what is outside our universe.

Of course, I absolutely dispute your claim that anything external to our universe is even necessary.

[ErhnamDJ]

Originally Posted by vierasmarius

Why are you assuming a computer, anyways? Why not the brain of a cosmic space-pig? Or a swarm of intelligent psychic hydrogen atoms? Or something we can't even conceive of?

Well, I'm saying that whatever it is has to be causal. That's the only knowledge about it I have. I'm only using the term 'computer simulation,' since that's how we would describe it if we were to build any such device, even if it was contained inside the head of a pig.

There's no way we can say anything about what is outside our universe.

If we create a computer simulation with people in it--let's pretend that's possible, even if it's not--is there any way the inhabitants of this computer world could ever figure out that they're inside a simulation?

Because I'm saying that if our reality appears to us to be non-causal that that in itself is evidence that we are inside a simulation of some sort. Meaning that it really is causal, but we just can't see the causal parts.

[Lord Carnifex]

Originally Posted by ErhnamDJ

Suppose that reality is not causal. If you start with that assumption, then it makes no sense to apply the scientific method to your senses to gain knowledge about reality, right?

Inductive reasoning presupposes a causal reality. If one interpretation is that reality is not causal, then it's wrong. It's the same as saying: If reality is causal, then it's not causal.

You can't use the scientific method to prove that the scientific method does not supply knowledge about reality. It just doesn't work that way.

Induction presupposes all sorts of things. How in the world can it suggest that the application of itself is incorrect? It just doesn't make any sense.

Okay, now you're confusing things a bit.

1) Inductive reasoning is not the same thing as the scientific method. The scientific method relies on the applied, methodical use of inductive reasoning, but inductive reasoning is broader than the scientific method.

2) Inductive reasoning does not, and cannot provid evidence about causality. All you can provid evidence about is correlation. "In m out of n cases, fire is accompanied by heat" is a strongly evidenced conclusion. Properly done, multiple inductive arguments can be structured in a way to suggest that the presence of one variable x is a sufficient condition for the presence of another y, and that y is a necessary condition from x, but that doesn't prove that x causes y. Causality is a pragmatic mental shortcut that makes things easier to think about.

3) Yes, induction pre-supposes certain things. So does every logic. Classical deduction presupposes non-contradiction and the excluded middle. ZFC set theory pre-supposes that the axiom of choice doesn't render it inconsistent.

4) I prefer a pragmatic interpretation of most logics. They are 'real' inasmuch as they are useful. Induction and the scientific method allow the making of better steel, such that bridges don't fall down (mostly). Classical logic is useful because - within the limits of the incompleteness theorem and Cantor's diagonal argument - it allows the construction of a mathematics that allows for the design of such bridges. To borrow an idea from Nietzsche, if it walks like a reality, and quacks like a reality, and has feathers like a reality, we might as well treat it like a reality.

5) Despite Hume, the universe doesn't seem to spontaneously re-organize itself. The computer that I'm typing this on is nearly the same computer I remember, and not suddenly a cup of coffee. There's a predictability to it. Objects tend to be conserved. Change usually happens in a predictable fashion. DesCartes' demon may be at work, but he seems to be a gentlemanly sort.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by ErhnamDJ

I think knowledge presupposes a causal reality.

If you're able to suppose anything at all, then you have already accepted a causal reality.

I'm not sure what you mean by causal. The definitions I know of, it isn't true for. If you mean that knowledge presupposes that the future is effected by the present, I'd agree, but point out that non-deterministic interpretations of QM do not disagree with that.

It sounds almost as if you're stuck on Boolean logic and are trying to hammer reality into its framework. If so, you really should upgrade your model. I suggest Bayesian inference

Originally Posted by ErhnamDJ

I don't know what that means. I'm not talking about information. I'm talking about physical structures.

You're talking about reasoning. Humans have been reasoning for longer than we've had any reason to believe that the universe might be deterministic. Whether or not the universe is actually deterministic, in practical human experience it is definitely non-deterministic, and this has never precluded applying inductive reasoning to it.

Originally Posted by ErhnamDJ

I don't know what 'information' is.

For purposes of the 'simulated world' discussion, see Information Theory.

Originally Posted by ErhnamDJ

Well, for our 'universe' to exist inside of theirs as a simulation, their universe has to have significantly more stuff making it up than ours. Maybe it just wouldn't be possible for our universe to observe that, since our universe would have fewer instances of 'randomness' than their universe could create.

If I'm understanding you correctly.

And I think you're assuming too much about the reality where the computer exists, anyway.

I'm only assuming what you said about it being deterministic...and that it contains a finite amount of initial information, I guess. I suppose the universe it seems that you believe in where everything is infinite-precision, it might be possible for them to have infinite information.

Sim-universe being smaller wouldn't save them from having to cheat, since the demand for new randomness would be continuous. But they might be rescued if it's impossible for Sim-universe to store all the information and catch them out.

Except that would require that the sim-universe destroy information. Which conflicts with thermodynamics as I understand it.

[ErhnamDJ]

Originally Posted by Lord Carnifex

Okay, now you're confusing things a bit.

I'm not confusing things. I'm just trying to not go into too much detail for no reason.

Inductive reasoning does not, and cannot prove causality. All you can prove is correlation. "In m out of n cases, fire is accompanied by heat" is a strongly evidenced conclusion.

It is assuming causality, though. You can't get that knowledge without causality. You have to assume that your memories correspond to your senses, which is a causal relationship.

"I remember that in m out of n cases, fire is accompanied by heat. Do my memories correspond to a causal reality? Or are my memories random?"

That's why I'm saying that a causal reality is an a priori truth. You can't possibly justify epistemological statements otherwise.

The computer that I'm typing this on is nearly the same computer I remember, and not suddenly a cup of coffee. There's a predictability to it.

Only if you presuppose that your memories are consistent and relate to a causal reality.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by ErhnamDJ

I'm not confusing things. I'm just trying to not go into too much detail for no reason.




It is assuming causality, though. You can't get that knowledge without causality. You have to assume that your memories correspond to your senses, which is a causal relationship.

"I remember that in m out of n cases, fire is accompanied by heat. Do my memories correspond to a causal reality? Or are my memories random?"

That's why I'm saying that a causal reality is an a priori truth. You can't possibly justify epistemological statements otherwise.



Only if you presuppose that your memories are consistent and relate to a causal reality.

Combining this with your previous statements suggests that you think if the universe is not strictly deterministic, it would be imply that your mind would be totally unreliable.

That makes no sense whatsoever. How do you get that?