Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 02:14:08 +0100 From: Eivind Eklund <perhaps@yes.no> To: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Newest Pentium bug (fatal) Message-ID: <19971112021408.64619@bitbox.follo.net> In-Reply-To: <199711120011.RAA19556@rocky.mt.sri.com>; from Nate Williams on Tue, Nov 11, 1997 at 05:11:14PM -0700 References: <199711110620.XAA15169@rocky.mt.sri.com> <199711110645.XAA02334@usr03.primenet.com> <199711111652.JAA16566@rocky.mt.sri.com> <199711111836.TAA22576@bitbox.follo.net> <199711111935.MAA17390@rocky.mt.sri.com> <199711112339.AAA23291@bitbox.follo.net> <199711120011.RAA19556@rocky.mt.sri.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[Eivind Eklund] >> I disagree that humans are a non-predictable system. There is chaos, >> sure, but there are clearly predictable properties. Which information >> people have is one; health is another. (Discussed below) [Nate Williams] > I see no predictability in humans behavior, and the arguements against > the existance of God/god is defined by his behavior towards man, or in > particular one person's ability to 'predict the future' in a controlled > setting. NO predictability? I see a definite statistic predictability; e.g, I can predict the likelihood that you're going to answer more messages based on the number of messages you've answered before. It isn't an exact prediction, but I can predict that SOMEBODY is going to answer post a message to the freebsd-hackers list in the next week with (so far) 100% reliability. That's human behavior, too :-) I can predict that you're either going to eat food within the next six months unless you die. That's a prediction on your personal behavior. > Exactly my point. You cannot make sort of hypothesis that can > accurately define 'human behavior', since it's a chaotic system. > There's a great Dilbert cartoon to this effect. :) If you mean accurately predict how a single human is going to behave; sure. Same goes for groups. But I can predict quite a bit of statistics with fairly high reliability - that's what insurance companies is living off. > > I've not said they don't exist - I'm just saying I've never seen any > > data that I need to resort to a God to be able to explain. > > Your need (or lack thereof) for God isn't the point, the point is that > the possibility of the existance of God isn't dependant on scientific or > statistical evidence. Then we agree on what you define as the point :-) What I was discussing was what kind of evidence is present, and whether that was something that made the existence of God a more likely hypothesis. > And that there are certain things in our life where 'science' will > ultimately fail us. It can take us a long way, but at a certain point > the vehicle that is 'science' is inherently limited to understanding > things that are finite and predictable. When the things being studied > is neither finite nor predictable, science will fail. It doesn't mean > that science is useless, far from it. But, realizing that it isn't > doesn't contain the 'explanation' for everything is important. Science doesn't give "explanations" - it gives hypotheses for how the world operate, and do predictions based on those hypotheses. That's what science is, and that is all science is. Its main point is stopping us from deluding ourselves by keeping our 'pet theories' - we verify everything against the world, and if the map (our hypothesis) doesn't match the terrain (the world), then our map is wrong. If you have a hypothesis that doesn't affect the world in a way that we can sense, even with instruments of any imaginable precision, then you have a null-hypothesis - it can't be verified, and can't be proven false. It is outside the realm of science. Personally, I automatically discard null-hypotheses - they are interesting ways of playing with thought, but they don't actually tell me anything. > > If you mean that there are things we can't use science to investigate, > > but should believe in anyway because we were told about it as kids and > > people claim non-verifiable 'experiences' - then I don't agree. > > So, if it's not scientifically provable, then it's doesn't exist? That's more or less what I'm living after, yes. > I get the impression that many of the 'anti-religious' people somehow > get the mistaken impression that somehow religion is based on childish > notions, and that any adult with a belief in the scientific process > can't be expected to have religious beliefs and still be sane. "Sane" is a relative term. My guess/feeling is that people with religious beliefs probably are (on average) more stable and lead better lives than the ones without them, if all other things are equal. That doesn't mean I'm willing to accept God as a rational explantation; however, I'm not willing to consider entertaining an irrational belief with strong reinforcement properties as insanity. Then everybody would be insane. > Sciene and Faith are at odds *only* for those things which Science > cannot explain due to lack of understand *all* of the issues in science, > or due to it's inherent limitations as discuseed above. But that > doesn't mean a scientist must refuse to acknowledge that something > exists because science cannot explain it, or quantify it. And neither does it mean (s)he must acknowledge it. It is a pure belief. > As you pointed out above, you've had experiences in your life that you > cannot fully explain, but have hypothesis for them. I have emotions I cannot explain all the time. Heck, I can't even explain being conscious :-) That doesn't mean I consider this to be some form of supernatural phenomena :-) > Even in your rebuttal of the 'prayer changing things' you bring up > something that is just as 'non-scientific' as telepathy, which is > also something that is completely un-quantifiable. Your 'Faith' > that telepathy exists is greater than your 'Faith' that God exists, > but you have faith none-the-less. :) I don't believe in telepathy as-of-yet. I just find it an easier pill to swallow than something that must by definition _also_ include an unknown mode of communication, which is what telepathy would be. Call it the 'smaller hypothesis'. And I can't see how telepathy would need to be completely un-quantifiable? I can see scores of ways to quantify it, and probably measure it if it do exist. The fact that it hasn't been shown in a repeatable experiment yet seems to show that it (if it indeed exists) is fairly elusive, though. Eivind.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19971112021408.64619>